homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian" (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Via the Livingston Parish* News:

quote:
Rep. Valarie Hodges, R-Watson, says she had no idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s overhaul of the state’s educational system might mean taxpayer support of Muslim schools.

“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” the District 64 Representative said Monday.

“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges said.

Hodges mistakenly assumed that “religious” meant “Christian.”

<snip>

Hodges, who represents District 64 on the northwest side of the parish, and another freshman lawmaker in the local delegation, Clay Schexnayder from Dist. 81 in the southwest, voted with the House majority in favor of HB976.

The school funding mechanism, however, did not come up for a vote until the end of the session. By then, a Muslim-based school had applied for support through the new voucher system.

During debate over the MFP (Minimum Foundation Program) funding formula, Hodges learned more about the consequences of the educational changes. She voted against the new MFP funding formula; Schexnayder voted for it.

“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges said. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”

For those who like legalese, the enrolled version of the law can be found here [PDF].

This seems a pretty blatant example of those who complain about "religion being taken out of public schools" really complaining about "my religion being taken out of public schools", with the underlying assumption that naturally the state would favor their [true] religion over the other guy's [phoney-baloney] religion/cult/superstition/whatever.

Is this kind of expectation of religious favoritism on the part of the government the exception or the rule for those who want greater church-state interaction?


--------------------
*In the state of Louisiana a "parish" is the equivalent of a "county" elsewhere in the U.S.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Exactly.

Pity the message hasn't got through to some of the logic-challenged "new atheists".

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is this kind of expectation of religious favoritism on the part of the government the exception or the rule for those who want greater church-state interaction?

Sadly I'd expect it to be the rule. People are often sufficiently self-centred in their own debate (a Christian-atheist/secular tug-of-war) that it doesn't occur to them that anyone might be outside that debate altogether.

And yes, that can go for the atheist side of things as well.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002

 - Posted      Profile for Evangeline   Email Evangeline   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The non-government education sector in Australia is very aware of the need to support all religious schools-if we say no to the Muslims, we'll be next to have our right to educate our children in the faith through schools denied. So long as the school meets standards in following syllabus requirements etc then the Federal govt provides funding regardless of whether they're Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Calathumpian. When I worked at a university, the various Christian denominations ran halls of residence (and had done so for many years) they were all very supportive of plans to build an Islamic hall of residence because they felt this strengthened their own position in claiming a right to a religious presence on campus.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318

 - Posted      Profile for kankucho   Author's homepage   Email kankucho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Exactly.

Pity the message hasn't got through to some of the logic-challenged "new atheists".

The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?

--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues

Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No doubt, if the Louisiana law is challenged in court, it will be ruled unconstitutional. I can see the Freedom From Religion lawyers already lining up from my back deck in Washington State.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?

I think it's suggesting that if Lennon's words were true, if there really were "no religion" then 9/11 wouldn't have happened and the Towers would still be standing. The point being that it's not just Islamic terrorism that's the problem, it's all religion, as it provides the ground for the more extremist tendencies to grow and flower in.

Richard Dawkins made a similar point in the wake of 9/11, that we shouldn't just brand Islamic terrorism as evil, but all religion as evil. As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion) [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know much about the Founders, but I understand that their idea of religious freedom was not favouring one religion above another.

They must be turning in their graves, having their names invoked for something they were against.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion) [Roll Eyes]

No that's not the argument being made. It's not claimed that moderate believers secretly agree with terrorists but that the source of an extremists motivation/argument is the same source for moderates. Verses in the bible or Quran, having an ultimate authority that can do no wrong, unquestionable dictates etc. The interpretation and actions that are taken may be different but the source is the same. But this is a big tangent and maybe worth a separate thread?

The t-shirt is a very poor comparison. Isn't the statement that all religions are the same the oposit of the OP which was only my religion counts it's different from all the others?

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Try
Shipmate
# 4951

 - Posted      Profile for Try   Email Try   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists. In the US, OTOH, the fight is one of conservative Christians vs. everyone else. Thus, one finds that, for instance, Jewish students have been singled out as heathen presences in public school assemblies. Thus, when an Islamic school applies for vouchers it is an unintended consequence of a law intended to provide funding for Christian schools, and will result in attempts to deny the school funding without making the law blatantly unconstitutional.

--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger

Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452

 - Posted      Profile for PataLeBon   Email PataLeBon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You also have the problem with the law being (at least on the surface) being fairly legal with supporting all private schools. Once you say that you are only supporting "Christian" public schools, well then, you are looking at something that is unconstitutional.

So you do change the law? That's the problem they are having. (1) Either you go back to the way things were before, or (2) you don't change anything, or (3) you change the law to take out non-Christian schools and end up in court and lose.

--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)

Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists. In the US, OTOH, the fight is one of conservative Christians vs. everyone else.

Well yeah. The U.S. government is not supposed to be in the business of subsidizing religion. For whatever reason, in the U.S. conservative Christians seem to equate "not getting a government subsidy/endorsement" with "oppression".

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Thus, when an Islamic school applies for vouchers it is an unintended consequence of a law intended to provide funding for Christian schools, and will result in attempts to deny the school funding without making the law blatantly unconstitutional.

Even if subsidies were granted to Islamic schools, the law would still be blatantly unconstitutional.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941

 - Posted      Profile for Stejjie   Author's homepage   Email Stejjie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion) [Roll Eyes]

No that's not the argument being made. It's not claimed that moderate believers secretly agree with terrorists but that the source of an extremists motivation/argument is the same source for moderates. Verses in the bible or Quran, having an ultimate authority that can do no wrong, unquestionable dictates etc. The interpretation and actions that are taken may be different but the source is the same. But this is a big tangent and maybe worth a separate thread?
Apologies, that was rather a crude cariacture I drew - thanks for the correction. Though I'd guess for those of us who aren't extremists/fundamentalists, the questions of interpretation and actions are of crucial importance - though this may well be a topic for another thread.

quote:
The t-shirt is a very poor comparison. Isn't the statement that all religions are the same the oposit of the OP which was only my religion counts it's different from all the others?
Yes, I'm not sure the t-shirt is especially relevant to this discussion. It's condemning all religions; the OP is condemning all religions except my own. FWIW, my own view (as a Christian) is either government provides equal support for all religions or none - my preference is probably for none, otherwise it starts to get messy. This may be complicated over here though by the existence and status of the CofE.

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I never got the reverence for the Founders among conservative American protestants. They were for the most part hypocritical slave-driving deists that despised traditional, historic Christianity.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.

I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I never got the reverence for the Founders among conservative American protestants. They were for the most part hypocritical slave-driving deists that despised traditional, historic Christianity.

It is a bit puzzling. I would point out that very few of America's Founders were actually deists, though the religious beliefs of the six most influential (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin) didn't conform to any variety of Christian orthodoxy. Gregg Frazer has characterized their belief system with the term "theistic rationalism", which differs from deism in that it posits an active divine Providence rather than deism's hands-off watchmaker deity.

Regardless, the beliefs of at least this group of key U.S. Founders cannot be characterized as form of Christianity that would be regarded as non-heretical by modern American Christian conservatives.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Deist was just a shorthand. But I agree with your point. What is really depressing is Catholics used to be able to avoid this idolatrous crap, but now its increasingly infecting us too. We should be looking to the saints of the Church, not secular rulers for our moral guidance.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Every time the "Let's put prayer in schools" debate flares up online, I always link to a YouTube video with an Imam's call to prayer and ask: "So, you're okay with that over your kid's school's loudspeaker, right?"

The sputtering and backtracking is always good for a laugher.

[ 06. July 2012, 17:07: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Every time the "Let's put prayer in schools" debate flares up online, I always link to a YouTube video with an Imam's call to prayer and ask: "So, you're okay with that over your kid's school's loudspeaker, right?"

The sputtering and backtracking is always good for a laugher.

If I were king for a week, I would announce the return of school-prayer in the USA, watch the jubilation, then announce the next day that the recited prayer will be the Hail Mary.

Then, sit back and watch the two theological factions try to politely explain their opinions on the matter to one another.

[ 06. July 2012, 18:10: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the phrase "hypocritical slave-driving deists" is a bit odd. Are you saying that 18th-Century deists who owned slaves were hypocrites? What about deism suggests that a deist should not own slaves? Or are you saying they were hypocrites for some other reason and happened to be slave owners?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they talked about the dignity of man, "life liberty and pursuit of happiness", Rights being inalienable, etc., all while holding other human beings in bondage.

[ 06. July 2012, 18:55: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think the phrase "hypocritical slave-driving deists" is a bit odd. Are you saying that 18th-Century deists who owned slaves were hypocrites? What about deism suggests that a deist should not own slaves? Or are you saying they were hypocrites for some other reason and happened to be slave owners?

The fact that some were deists isn't what made them hypocritical so much as their professed political beliefs did.

ETA: Or...I could just let ToujoursDan make my point for me, and just as well. [Biased]

Seriously I think I got that post in like one second after.

[ 06. July 2012, 18:56: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.

I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they talked about the dignity of man, "life liberty and pursuit of happiness", Rights being inalienable, etc., all while holding other human beings in bondage.

It should be noted that three of the six key Founders mentioned in my previous post (Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin) were not just intellectually opposed to slavery but active in the abolition movements of the day.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they talked about the dignity of man, "life liberty and pursuit of happiness", Rights being inalienable, etc., all while holding other human beings in bondage.

It should be noted that three of the six key Founders mentioned in my previous post (Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin) were not just intellectually opposed to slavery but active in the abolition movements of the day.
That's fair to note. But they still compromised with great evil for the sake of political expediency. William Lloyd Garrison kind of had a point when he said that the pre-Civil War Constitution was "a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell".

My basic point that they should not be held up as saints, like many American con evos do, stands.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for the double post, but I also feel I need to add, lest I point out the splinter in other factions of Christendom without removing the plank from my own, that this kind of idolatrous American Exceptionalism is increasingly becoming common in the American Catholic Church, too. See: Rick Santorum and his nauseating statements on this topic.

[ 06. July 2012, 19:15: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Try
Shipmate
# 4951

 - Posted      Profile for Try   Email Try   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.

I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

My impression was that anti-Islamism in Europe was mostly coming from atheists who would be just as opposed to a Christian revival if there was any sign of one. Certainly Fr. Hunwicke feels that he has much more in common with the average Pakistani immigrant then he has in common with the average secular white Briton.

--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger

Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.

I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.
That's true, as far as I can tell.

But something I've wondered: Assuming France is like everywhere else in the world, there are probably a hefty number of people who just don't like immigrants, full stop, and are jumping on the anti-Islamic bandwagon simply because it's the trendy prejudice of the moment.

So, when Gaullists, Socialists, and Communists come together in the National Assembly to ban the burqa, what percentage of the French public would be cheering it on out of sheer dislike of foreigners, without really caring much about women's rights and secularism?

The reason I'm wondering is because I know a fair number of Canadian anti-Islamic bigots of the hate-em-because-they're-brown-and-heathen school of thought. But even they will nod assent to pseudo-feminist arguments against veiling and whatnot, because they've just picked it up from more respectable opinion makers.

Phrased another way, I guess I'm wondering to what extent "laicite" and "the Enlightenment" are being used as a dog-whistle for the kind of French voter who don't otherwise care about the concepts.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting question as to whether the anti-Islamic sentiment in France is ethnic or religious in nature.

The question to ask, then, is this: if it were Chechens, Bosnians, and Tatars (white Muslims all) that were moving into France instead of Maghrebins and black Africans, would it produce the same kind of animus?

Personally I think it is a little bit ethnic and a little bit religious.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
My basic point that they should not be held up as saints, like many American con evos do, stands.

I've always thought that the big reason for this is that American religious conservatives, like most conservatives everywhere, are essentially authoritarians at heart, and yet they belong predominantly to religious traditions that have rejected hierarchy of the type found in Roman Catholicism. That may explain part of the urge to transform America's Founders into a bunch of quasi-saints for the Protestant civic religion.

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Sorry for the double post, but I also feel I need to add, lest I point out the splinter in other factions of Christendom without removing the plank from my own, that this kind of idolatrous American Exceptionalism is increasingly becoming common in the American Catholic Church, too. See: Rick Santorum and his nauseating statements on this topic.

Given that the Catholic Church is very good at adapting to local custom (within limits) and that the United States is very good at incorporating new traditions into its civic body, that development was almost inevitable.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
yet they belong predominantly to religious traditions that have rejected hierarchy of the type found in Roman Catholicism. That may explain part of the urge to transform America's Founders into a bunch of quasi-saints for the Protestant civic religion.

I forget the exact quote and who first said it, but there's a saying that when Catholic teaching is rejected it will still pop up, but in weird and disordered ways. I think this is a good example of that. Since they have spurned real saints and a real Magisterium, they ended up concocting a phony, counterfeit version.

quote:
Given that the Catholic Church is very good at adapting to local custom (within limits) and that the United States is very good at incorporating new traditions into its civic body, that development was almost inevitable.
Indeed. I think the only thing that stopped this from happening earlier was our status in America, for a long time, as an "immigrant" or somewhat "foreign" Church. But IMHO American Exceptionalism (very distinct from American patriotism) is not within those acceptable limits.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.

I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.

--Tom Clune

In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.
That's true, as far as I can tell.

But something I've wondered: Assuming France is like everywhere else in the world, there are probably a hefty number of people who just don't like immigrants, full stop, and are jumping on the anti-Islamic bandwagon simply because it's the trendy prejudice of the moment.

So, when Gaullists, Socialists, and Communists come together in the National Assembly to ban the burqa, what percentage of the French public would be cheering it on out of sheer dislike of foreigners, without really caring much about women's rights and secularism?

The reason I'm wondering is because I know a fair number of Canadian anti-Islamic bigots of the hate-em-because-they're-brown-and-heathen school of thought. But even they will nod assent to pseudo-feminist arguments against veiling and whatnot, because they've just picked it up from more respectable opinion makers.

Phrased another way, I guess I'm wondering to what extent "laicite" and "the Enlightenment" are being used as a dog-whistle for the kind of French voter who don't otherwise care about the concepts.

I agree with Unreformed in that it's a bit of both racism and opposition to overt religiosity. Much of continental Europe has horrific attitudes to race/ethnicity, even in less atheistic countries (Italy for example). However, the French attitude of atheism = rationalism = automatic opposition to open religiosity is reproduced to some extent in Turkey (where wearing the veil is banned in public buildings like universities, despite a Muslim majority) where racism isn't playing a part - it's wanting to seem like a rational, modern country.

Personally, I think it's a dangerous attitude to take - it makes extremist political parties seem much more attractive to Muslims.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hehehe. The Faculty of Theology of the University of Toronto, aka Toronto School of Theology is a mish-mash of denominations: Two Anglican schools, the United Church, the Presbyterians and three Catholic schools (Augustinians, Basilians and Jesuits). With Canada's changing immigration patterns, it was decided at an Islamic school would be appropriate and needed. The University of Toronto is a public university and its Theology department has always tried to reflect Ontario and Canada in religious choices.

The problem was that Academic Islamic Theology is the new kid on the block, all the existing faculty that could give the new Muslim programme imprimatur are Christian. So now Emmanuel College, the United Church's divinity school in Toronto, has the Dawn Programme (the Islamic Theology programme for aspiring immams) under its wing, they share facilities and the United Church faculty give the program the stamp of quality.

Give it twenty years and TST will have a full-grown Islamic Theology School.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?

The insinuation is that all so called "religious" people are somehow implicated in 9/11, and, of course, in the minds of those who refer to religion in such an unqualified way, that would include Christians.

I am not aware that 9/11 was perpetrated by Christians - or indeed by adherents of any religion other than Islam. (Perhaps those who promote this slogan have some new information about 9/11 that should be reported to the relevant authorities? Or perhaps they are conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an "inside job"?!)

Therefore the t-shirt slogan (championed by Dawkins) is ridiculously irrational as well as a complete travesty of justice. In fact, it's a grotesque abuse of the memory of those who perished, many of whom, I am sure, were "religious".

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can someone please answer the obvious. What about mathematics, spelling, grammar, physics, chemistry etc requires a religious school? I'd say there should be no religious schools whatsoever, or failing that, God help us all, that there can be special optional classes for various religions to teach their take on 1+1=2, and why the letter Q is evil.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002

 - Posted      Profile for Evangeline   Email Evangeline   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Can someone please answer the obvious. What about mathematics, spelling, grammar, physics, chemistry etc requires a religious school? I'd say there should be no religious schools whatsoever, or failing that, God help us all, that there can be special optional classes for various religions to teach their take on 1+1=2, and why the letter Q is evil.

It's nothing about mathematics, spelling, grammar physics or chemistry that requires a religious school, those disciplines require a teacher who is well educated in the discipline. It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour. A religious school's values and approach can be unequivocal in everything from how the maths/English etc classroom operates (does it foster co-operation or competition, help for the weak or bullying) to nurturing the spirit through liturgical practice. THat's not to say that secular schools are all homes to competition and bullying and these never exist in Christian schools but my experience of the secular system is that its values are shallow and behaviour is rules based rather than ethics based.

The mileage of others will vary of course in terms of what they believe is required of a school, but in my local area, more than 50% of the total population of school students are enrolled in religious schools and it's about values and ethics for most people, not about teaching a particular academic discipline in a particular way (this is almost impossible in any case because schools have to be licensed by the Board of Studies and this will only be granted if they are following the curriculum).

Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It's nothing about mathematics, spelling, grammar physics or chemistry that requires a religious school, those disciplines require a teacher who is well educated in the discipline. It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour. A religious school's values and approach can be unequivocal in everything from how the maths/English etc classroom operates (does it foster co-operation or competition, help for the weak or bullying) to nurturing the spirit through liturgical practice. THat's not to say that secular schools are all homes to competition and bullying and these never exist in Christian schools but my experience of the secular system is that its values are shallow and behaviour is rules based rather than ethics based.

The mileage of others will vary of course in terms of what they believe is required of a school, but in my local area, more than 50% of the total population of school students are enrolled in religious schools and it's about values and ethics for most people, not about teaching a particular academic discipline in a particular way (this is almost impossible in any case because schools have to be licensed by the Board of Studies and this will only be granted if they are following the curriculum).

It must depend on where you live and what the school system is required to teach. There is a provincial requirement for curriculum that all schools must teach, and 'values education' is one thing that is required here. The tax-funded schools my children went to had specific student-teacher-parent led programs including Just Say No [to drugs], anti-racism, gay-straight alliance, paired able students with those of low intellect as 'care partners', and made those interested high school athletics take music (band, choir) or drama. The boys tended to go into the 'men's choir'. Maybe we were just lucky with our local schools, the School Board runs about 40 elementary schools (grades 1-8), and about 15 high schools. There are some middle schools in some places. There are some neighbourhoods with 'community schools' which means that nurse practitioners, pædiatricians, social workers and psychologists are readily available.

There are tax funded RC schools in most Canadian provinces (required by constitution and acts to create provinces) which specifically leave out some of the above and indoctrinate students into RC values and lead them to confirmation in that denomination. They appear to be adopting some of the things the public schools have.

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Exactly.

Pity the message hasn't got through to some of the logic-challenged "new atheists".

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?

The insinuation is that all so called "religious" people are somehow implicated in 9/11, and, of course, in the minds of those who refer to religion in such an unqualified way, that would include Christians.

I am not aware that 9/11 was perpetrated by Christians - or indeed by adherents of any religion other than Islam.

Wait a sec. First you're upset that atheists use "religion" as a synonym for "Christianity", and then you're upset that atheists don't consider them synonyms by including non-Christian religions? That's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure you're advancing any argument more coherent than "atheists are meanies".

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour.

I guess the sticking point, at least in the minds of folks like Rep. Hodges, is what happens when the school is promoting the love of a "false" God? Or promoting the love of those who aren't really neighbors (infidels, homosexuals, communists, the left handed, etc.).

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Can someone please answer the obvious. What about mathematics, spelling, grammar, physics, chemistry etc requires a religious school? I'd say there should be no religious schools whatsoever, or failing that, God help us all, that there can be special optional classes for various religions to teach their take on 1+1=2, and why the letter Q is evil.

If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You must have had a preview of Michael Gove's new O' level arithemetic exam paper.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not aware that 9/11 was perpetrated by Christians - or indeed by adherents of any religion other than Islam.

The hijackers were not devout Muslims. At least one of them used to drink in bars and frequent strip clubs.

Islamism is essentially a political movement rather than a religious one.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, suicide bombing was invented by Hindus.

Honestly, giving Islam a monopoly on really bad religion is just as ridiculous as giving Christianity a monopoly on good religion, which is where this thread effectively started.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was thinking about this issue, and I wonder if the politician's expressed outrage is for the benefit of her constituents. Not that that helps matters any - it would just mean her constituents, and maybe not her, believed there could be a law allowing public funds to go to Christian, but not other religious, schools.

And now on to a tangent...

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Hehehe. The Faculty of Theology of the University of Toronto, aka Toronto School of Theology is a mish-mash of denominations: Two Anglican schools, the United Church, the Presbyterians and three Catholic schools (Augustinians, Basilians and Jesuits). With Canada's changing immigration patterns, it was decided at an Islamic school would be appropriate and needed. The University of Toronto is a public university and its Theology department has always tried to reflect Ontario and Canada in religious choices.

The problem was that Academic Islamic Theology is the new kid on the block, all the existing faculty that could give the new Muslim programme imprimatur are Christian. So now Emmanuel College, the United Church's divinity school in Toronto, has the Dawn Programme (the Islamic Theology programme for aspiring immams) under its wing, they share facilities and the United Church faculty give the program the stamp of quality.

Give it twenty years and TST will have a full-grown Islamic Theology School.

[Overused]

TST was my "fall-back" school for my PhD - but I got in to GTU (Graduate Theological Union - I was also accepted at TST, but they didn't have the program I wanted). Here at GTU, the Islamic Studies Program is technically part of the Unitarian Universalist school (Starr King School for Ministries).

Another interesting one is the little seminary in Detroit, the Ecumenical Theological Seminary, has started up a Muslim Chaplaincy program.

Huge tangent, though - neither GTU or ETS is a public school of any sort. We don't generally have theology departments at public universities in the US.

[ 07. July 2012, 20:45: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?

And how many homeless and hungry people will they have to ignore?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203

 - Posted      Profile for Unreformed         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problems we've seen in Islam since the 1970s is, at least in the Middle East, have a lot to do with the fact that the secular dictators in the Middle East either shut up or killed scholars who taught historical, traditional Islam back in the middle of the 20th Century. They also shut down many of their institutions which went bank centuries instructing people properly in their faith tradition.

They cut down the old trees, and what happens when you do this? The weeds grow. Enter Saudi Arabia and its oil money bankrolling Salafism, an extremely intolerant, legalistic, arid, pitiless, and ahitorical brand of purist Islam that has very little in common with how Islam was practiced 100 years ago. And it is ESPECIALLY intolerant and pitiless of other kinds of Islam it considers to be impure, that's why it does things like bulldoze the shrines of Sufi saints and blow up Shia mosques in Iraq.

--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day

Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Wait a sec. First you're upset that atheists use "religion" as a synonym for "Christianity", and then you're upset that atheists don't consider them synonyms by including non-Christian religions? That's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure you're advancing any argument more coherent than "atheists are meanies".

No. What I am "upset" about is the fact that atheists play fast and loose with the terms "religion" and "Christianity", and then they get upset when Christians do the same thing, as in the example you gave in the OP.

The fact is that 9/11 had nothing to do with "religion" in general, and I assume "religion" is understood to mean "belief in God" or indeed any form of supernaturalism. Many atheists harp on about "religion" being responsible for all sorts of evils, but they fail to define what they mean - or at least justify such a gross generalisation. I can just imagine a Quaker (for example) feeling quite incensed at being accused - by implication - of fomenting wars. Are we really to believe that such a person should give up his version of "religion" in order to stop war? Yeah, right!

The truth is that the slogan "imagine no religion" in the context of 9/11 is total bunkum. There is absolutely no intrinsic connection whatsoever between "belief in God" and flying planes into the WTC. I can say that with absolute authority, because I believe in God and I have never had any desire to perpetrate such an atrocity. I have never had the slightest sense that God or my belief in God could ever induce me to do such a thing.

So perhaps if atheists want to whinge about Christians claiming a monopoly on "religion", then perhaps they should first get their own "intellectual" house in order.

FWIW, I think the word "religion" is highly misleading anyway. I would say that faith in Jesus Christ goes way beyond mere "religion" - i.e. way beyond doctrinal formulations and institutional expression.

With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace. Atheism, Christianity, Islam etc are all distinct world views, and we should discuss each one separately on its own merits. There should be an end to this false categorisation. Of course, there are similarities between different ideologies, but which similarities should we focus on? How do we justify our categorisation decision?

It's the same with education. We are told that "religion" should be taken out of the classroom - particularly the science classroom. OK. So should philosophy then. So should any ideology. So should atheism. So should agnosticism. In fact, let's take all "-isms" and presuppositions out of the classroom and let's stop thinking entirely!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can just imagine a Quaker (for example) feeling quite incensed at being accused - by implication - of fomenting wars.

I'd say it depends on the Quaker. Have you ever heard of a man named Richard Milhous Nixon? He was quite big in the news a while back.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
FWIW, I think the word "religion" is highly misleading anyway. I would say that faith in Jesus Christ goes way beyond mere "religion" - i.e. way beyond doctrinal formulations and institutional expression.

Of course! Your particular relgious belief is so totally different and unique from everyone else's that it feels dirty just to put it in the same category with those heathens! [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace.

So there's no way to judge between, for example, a viewpoint that the Earth is flat and the immobile center of the Universe and the viewpoint that it's roughly spherical and revolves around the sun? It's all just a matter of opinion and there's no neutral arbiter to say which is right!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?

And how many homeless and hungry people will they have to ignore?
Given that the underlying question was why things like maths should be taught in a religious context, there's a glorious irony in the unreasoning nature of that response.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed. I mean, I didn't supply the necessary information about how many homeless people go past the clinics per hour, or the average density of homeless people per hectare!

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I can just imagine a Quaker (for example) feeling quite incensed at being accused - by implication - of fomenting wars.

I'd say it depends on the Quaker. Have you ever heard of a man named Richard Milhous Nixon? He was quite big in the news a while back.
You're absolutely right: it does indeed depend on the Quaker. Which is exactly the point I was making. You can't blame "religion" for wars. It's about people driven by all sorts of different motives. So I am glad we agree on something!

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
FWIW, I think the word "religion" is highly misleading anyway. I would say that faith in Jesus Christ goes way beyond mere "religion" - i.e. way beyond doctrinal formulations and institutional expression.

Of course! Your particular relgious belief is so totally different and unique from everyone else's that it feels dirty just to put it in the same category with those heathens!
Well misunderstood. So typical of an atheist. I was not talking about competing religious beliefs, but the reality of God as against mere doctrinal formulations and institutional expression. Please note that I wrote that "faith in Jesus goes way beyond mere "religion". In other words, it may include "religion", but it goes beyond it, just in the same way that my relationship with my human father goes way beyond merely knowing his name, where he was born and what he did for a living before he retired. But, of course, an atheist will reject such an analogy, because for him God is not real anyway. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that particular error of yours.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace.

So there's no way to judge between, for example, a viewpoint that the Earth is flat and the immobile center of the Universe and the viewpoint that it's roughly spherical and revolves around the sun? It's all just a matter of opinion and there's no neutral arbiter to say which is right!
Of course there is a way to judge between the ideas you mention. It's called the empirical scientific method. What the hell has this got to do with the point I made about world views? Are you suggesting that the existence of God is dependent on the earth being flat? Wow, I've never heard that one before.

Well done in the logic department, Croesos. I'm impressed. I really am....
[brick wall]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools