|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: atheism contribution
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.
There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
What have virus-checkers actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world ? What cultural progress has been made in the name of anti-virus software ? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where virus-checking has been credited as the driving force?
Maybe the world's a better place for having a few atheists around to point out when people's religious impulses go off the rails ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
To counter the formation of the rabid whining atheist UCL, Kings College was set up on the Strand. I am reliably informed by someone who has had to do with both that UCL has a display relating how implicit in the upholding of the slave trade were the Christians of Kings.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.
There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".
A Conservative Christian MP maintained that today's letter was unBritish, so the accusation of non-patriotism was very explicit.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.
There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".
You're missing the point mate. As someone from the Muslim council pointed out, to describe Britain as largely Christian is to refer to its cultural and historical roots, and to acknowledge the extent to which Chrisianity has shaped these. It's not about what badge you wear.
[ 21. April 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?
You know, I must plead guilty here to having read this OP before having achieved a high-enough blood level of caffeine (or something). Now, though, having read the article Mudfrog linked to, I am wondering what his (her?) problem is.
The article spells out the fact that heads of the Muslim & Hindu Councils of the UK are fine with David Cameron’s statements, referring to Great Britain’s historic religious roots. Also, there IS the awkward fact that Great Britain has a state-sponsored (affiliated? Established? Not sure of proper terminology here, as I’m a cross-ponder) church.
What seems to have got up Mudfrog’s nose is the fact that (at least) several of 50 signers to a letter published in The Daily Telegraph are apparently atheists. According to the article, some 59% of the population of England & Wales claim to be Christian. Over against that, we’ve got 50 letter signers (several well-known) who, claiming to be atheists, humanists, or what-have-you, object to this characterization.
TBH, I’m not seeing the huge threat Mudfrog apparently sees. 50 letter-signers vs. 59% of the population of England and Wales?
All this demonstrates to me is that Christianity is a faith tradition which (A) requires individuals to justify, at least to Mudfrog, their use of oxygen & H2O while visiting this Christian planet; (B) justify their lack of interest in, er, faith-based initiatives by coming up with something really grand by way of cultural significance.
Considering the sheer volume of Christians who were born, lived, and died without pulling off a single stunt like this, and the sheer number who have lived and died after perpetrating truly horrific acts, on fellow Christians as well as adherents of other faiths, I have to ask, why?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.
And where are they?
One would be the Ethical Culture Society, who ran the private school system that gave me a first rate high school education.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I'd also point out MW 2666 on this very Ship, which, according to an accompanying editor's note, represents a growing trend:
quote:
Mystery Worshipper: Banana Fillets.
The church: Sunday Assembly, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Denomination: Sunday Assembly. [Editor's note: We have allowed this report due to the growing worldwide popularity of the Sunday Assembly movement and the similarity between the meeting in question and a more orthodox church service.]
[ 21. April 2014, 21:52: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The initial post is fairly absurd. If there are no gods, and knowing that did not give rise to a useful social system, should one make up a god and believe in it for the social utility even if it's false?
That's what OP implies. It's hard enough to figure out what is true, but it makes sense to believe what is true, rather than what is useful.
Not that I grant the premise that only Christians do great things. There's a lot of labelling things as Christian because they were done by nominal Christians.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I see that, in a Tearfund survey of 2007, roughly one-third of adults claimed to have left church, and other one-third claimed to have never been to church, leaving only one-third with any active religious view at all. Only 6% actually attend church on a given Sunday. Obviously other surveys don't match this perfectly - depends on the question. But the point is clear: The UK is culturally Christian but is rapidly approaching an atheist-by-apathy status.
Most who don't go to church also don't care if you do or not. A very small proportion devote themselves to attacking the formal practise of religion, and get media attention...because they are making a noise. There is No News in nothing-much-happening.
But whining that your bright shiny power is being taken away from you is pointless. Your perception of power was based on sand after all*. It just vaguely washed away, aided by a tide of public opinion that was as indifferent as the ocean tide is.
Attacking other people over issues where your group has taken on the immoral position is not going to win any converts.
*Just as the Bible said!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A couple of things come to mind:
1) Many faith systems (not only religious ones) do not like questions. Many atheists today are not afraid to question and that's a good thing. The problem comes when all structure is gone: that turns to meaninglessness. And everybody needs meaning.
2) It's an important rejection necessary for the spiritual development of someone that has been subjected to bad theology.
3) It cheers people up that are afraid of morality and consequences of their actions: at least temporarily. The old bus poster "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life" is a good description.
It's a crutch that helps some people get through life.
There are three kinds of people in the world - those who can do arithmetic and those who can't!
1 - Just because you believe that you need "meaning" - whatever that be - doesn't mean that "everybody needs meaning" - unless you can demonstrate the accuracy of your statement it is merely your opinion and therefore no more valid than any unsupported opinion of mine or anyone else.
2 - How do you define not-bad theology?
3 - If morality consists of doing right despite that moral action resulting in the actor incurring a penalty or forgoing a benefit it follows that anyone who believes in heaven/hell etc. is unable to claim their actions to be moral. Subconsciously they may be acting in self-interest to win favour/avoid punishment with their deity mayn't they?
It therefore follows that only those who do not believe in such ephemera (atheists) can truly be moral (note "can be" rather than "are").
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
3 - If morality consists of doing right despite that moral action resulting in the actor incurring a penalty or forgoing a benefit it follows that anyone who believes in heaven/hell etc. is unable to claim their actions to be moral. Subconsciously they may be acting in self-interest to win favour/avoid punishment with their deity mayn't they?
It therefore follows that only those who do not believe in such ephemera (atheists) can truly be moral (note "can be" rather than "are").
No, no it does not.
I agree that someone whose actions follow a code their heart does not share is not moral if they do so out of fear or to win favour.
However, not all non-atheists do good out of those motivations.
To claim so is to speak the same fallacy as does the OP, you merely switch the players.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments
You can no more have a rational ethic than you can have a clockwork orange.
It is a category confusion.
We have known since David Hume that it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, which means that issues in vast areas of life, such as love and relationships, beauty and aesthetics, and ethics and justice, can only be decided by subjective preference or group consensus.
Or by an incontrovertibly authoritative someone or something above and beyond the natural world.
This is not an argument for Christianity, just a reminder that any criticism of Christianity on ethical grounds will always come up against a “Sez who – and on what grounds?”
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'Everybody needs meaning' is an interesting one, often cited. Is it true? Well, if I feel hungry and get something to eat, I suppose you could describe that as meaningful in a way. It reminds me of the old Zen quote about enlightenment - now, when hungry, I eat, when tired, I sleep.
But in a sense that is a protest against too much meaning! I mean that there can be too much intellectual-type meaning, and not enough living.
Now I've just added to the pile of detritus of course!
An old trainer of mine used to say that one of the great benefits of guilt, was that it bestowed meaning, but at what cost?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.
There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".
I disagree. There has long been a tradition of loyal 'subjects', as they were under the empire. Sikhs and Muslims etc loyal to the crown even fought for Queen and country in the world wars.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and we were reminded that a great many Muslims relish the fact that they live in a Christian country because of its freedom of religion, it's freedom of speech and conscience. Many Muslims send their kids to Church of England or Roman Catholic schools precisely because of the faith aspect.
The worry is this: if the humanist society and the authors of that letter get their way and Christianity is removed from the public sphere, how long before the opinions of Muslims and Hindus are also silenced?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE
But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.
Maybe there is a difference between a Christian country (Christian as in laws, culture, ethics, heritage, etc...) and a country of Christians.
If every Christian emigrated to Australia this would still be a Christian country simply because of all those residual things.
Anyway, let's talk about what makes us a Christian country:
Our laws are based on 1500 years of Christianity.
Our music, still played, still popular, is very Christian - have you listened to Classic FM lately?
We all follow the Christian calendar, our holidays and celebrations are all Christian - They even played hymns before the news on Good Friday and Easter Sunday!
Our shops are closed on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day - by law!
When people die, the majority of them are given a Christian funeral
Many people still choose a Christian wedding or wedding blessing.
59.3% of the population of the UK self-identify as Christian - even when there were alternative designations on the census paper and it was the only voluntary, non-compulsory question.
That means that even though they didn't have to answer the question and even though there were other opinions available to them, 60% of the population of the UK specifically, willingly, clearly, said they were Christian.
Now, some of them might not be church goers and this raises the hoary old question 'do you have to go to church to be a Christian?' We might like to say yes. But many people go to church for festivals only. Some don't go for health reasons, some have other reasons. But no one - not even the humanist society can/should say that just because someone doesn't attend church 3 times on a Sunday, carry a bible to work and have a fish sticker on their car, that they are not a Christian!
My mother in law doesn't go to church but she is a Christian. I have at least 4 members of my congregation who never come to church but they are faithful Christian believers who, unfortunately, can only find work that entails Sunday hours.
Christianity is built into the fabric of this country in a way that no other faith, no other philosophy is. Even our ruling Parliament has Christian prayers every day, the speaker has a chaplain.
I could go on.
We are a Christian country.
Whaty worries me is that when the humanist society says they want a neutral country, they actually mean 'atheist'. Once religion is taken out, religion will then be outlawed.
And yes, there are precedents.
And has anyone investigated Tatchell yet?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE
But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.
Maybe there is a difference between a Christian country (Christian as in laws, culture, ethics, heritage, etc...) and a country of Christians.
If every Christian emigrated to Australia this would still be a Christian country simply because of all those residual things.
Anyway, let's talk about what makes us a Christian country:
Our laws are based on 1500 years of Christianity.
Our music, still played, still popular, is very Christian - have you listened to Classic FM lately?
We all follow the Christian calendar, our holidays and celebrations are all Christian - They even played hymns before the news on Good Friday and Easter Sunday!
Our shops are closed on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day - by law!
When people die, the majority of them are given a Christian funeral
Many people still choose a Christian wedding or wedding blessing.
59.3% of the population of the UK self-identify as Christian - even when there were alternative designations on the census paper and it was the only voluntary, non-compulsory question.
That means that even though they didn't have to answer the question and even though there were other opinions available to them, 60% of the population of the UK specifically, willingly, clearly, said they were Christian.
Now, some of them might not be church goers and this raises the hoary old question 'do you have to go to church to be a Christian?' We might like to say yes. But many people go to church for festivals only. Some don't go for health reasons, some have other reasons. But no one - not even the humanist society can/should say that just because someone doesn't attend church 3 times on a Sunday, carry a bible to work and have a fish sticker on their car, that they are not a Christian!
My mother in law doesn't go to church but she is a Christian. I have at least 4 members of my congregation who never come to church but they are faithful Christian believers who, unfortunately, can only find work that entails Sunday hours.
Christianity is built into the fabric of this country in a way that no other faith, no other philosophy is. Even our ruling Parliament has Christian prayers every day, the speaker has a chaplain.
I could go on.
We are a Christian country.
Whaty worries me is that when the humanist society says they want a neutral country, they actually mean 'atheist'. Once religion is taken out, religion will then be outlawed.
And yes, there are precedents.
And has anyone investigated Tatchell yet?
Uh, the US has separation of church and state. I see no outlawing of religion there. Christianity has a bigger influence there than it does here! There are many secular countries with freedom of religion, probably the majority - having an Established religion is very much the minority position even within the UK! It's England and some Muslim theocracies. There is a big difference between having a secular democracy with freedom of religion and an atheist dictatorship.
As a Christian, I would far rather live in a Tatchell-approved secular democracy than any Little Englander vision of Christian England that you'd come up with. Go back to your Daily Heil. Some of us like secular governments, it does not make us less Christian.
Nations cannot be Christian by the way, only individuals who are part of the Body. A nation being 'Christian' moreover is Constantinian, not Biblical. Jesus seems quite happy for Christians to live under a non-Christian government.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments
You can no more have a rational ethic than you can have a clockwork orange.
It is a category confusion.
We have known since David Hume that it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, which means that issues in vast areas of life, such as love and relationships, beauty and aesthetics, and ethics and justice, casue decided by subjective preference or group consensus.
Or by an incontrovertibly authoritative someone or something above and beyond the natural world.
This is not an argument for Christianity, just a reminder that any criticism of Christianity on ethical grounds will always come up against a “Sez who – and on what grounds?”
I don't see why I'm committing a category error. The problem with using authority as grounds for a system of ethics is that you then run up against the problem of why we choose that authority rather than another. Presumably the only justification is rational argument. Rational arguments such as eleviating suffering or promoting autonomy, or enhancing quality of life are perfectly good grounds for making ethical decisions. If subjective preference is our only guide, then that is saying all decisions are equal ethically.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.
'You' Americans?? Mudfrog, again, look at my location! I am baffled as to why mentioning America = American person.
And religion of all kinds is removed from public life in the US, the Netherlands, France, Turkey etc etc. Doesn't seem to harm religious people in those countries. Removing religion from government and civic matters does not equal removing the Church and banning religion. Your argument is entirely illogical and plain scaremongering.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
The problem with using authority as grounds for a system of ethics is that you then run up against the problem of why we choose that authority rather than another.
True, but in principle it is the only way out of the impasse, and if someone (not necessarily a Christian) believes they have a revelation from an omniscient, eternal and sovereign intelligence, then on the face of it, there is more reason to believe that that revelation, rather than one's own, or some other human being's, mere opinion or feeling, is likely to be true.
quote:
Rational arguments such as eleviating suffering or promoting autonomy, or enhancing quality of life are perfectly good grounds for making ethical decisions.
Why should you think that?
They are the sorts of reasons which appeal to twenty-first century educated Westerners, and they certainly appeal to me, but I am aware that there are, and have been, countless people from other cultures and belief systems to whom they would be by no means self-evident.
And if you tried to argue your case to those people you would not be able to use reason, because you would be starting from different premises.
In the end, it would be just your opinion versus theirs.
[ 22. April 2014, 10:01: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.
'You' Americans?? Mudfrog, again, look at my location! I am baffled as to why mentioning America = American person.
And religion of all kinds is removed from public life in the US, the Netherlands, France, Turkey etc etc. Doesn't seem to harm religious people in those countries. Removing religion from government and civic matters does not equal removing the Church and banning religion. Your argument is entirely illogical and plain scaremongering.
My humble apologies - again!
Remember that in the US where they are a lot further on that us in the secularisation of public places there are huge demonstrations and disagreements - prayer in schools, the removal of religious art from council buildings, etc. It's a very controversial thing and the churches are fighting back.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments
You can no more have a rational ethic than you can have a clockwork orange.
It is a category confusion.
We have known since David Hume that it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, which means that issues in vast areas of life, such as love and relationships, beauty and aesthetics, and ethics and justice, casue decided by subjective preference or group consensus.
Or by an incontrovertibly authoritative someone or something above and beyond the natural world.
This is not an argument for Christianity, just a reminder that any criticism of Christianity on ethical grounds will always come up against a “Sez who – and on what grounds?”
I don't see why I'm committing a category error. The problem with using authority as grounds for a system of ethics is that you then run up against the problem of why we choose that authority rather than another. Presumably the only justification is rational argument. Rational arguments such as eleviating suffering or promoting autonomy, or enhancing quality of life are perfectly good grounds for making ethical decisions. If subjective preference is our only guide, then that is saying all decisions are equal ethically.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life.
There's a lot of interesting subtext to the idea that not having a government endorsement is oppressive. In addition to equating "not showing favoritism" with "active oppression", there's the implication that all other religions (Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) have already been "removed from public life" (or were never meant to be part of "public life" to begin with).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
No problem Mudfrog, I am just puzzled as to why I apparently sound so American! I was born in England and have lived here all my life. I have never had a passport even, so no foreign influence here.
I am well aware that in some parts of the US (not all), the separation of church and state is controversial with some Christians and some churches - but not all. Episcopalians, to my knowledge, have no issue with it for example. It's written into the US Constitution so why some churches (predominantly white Protestants in the South) feel unable to cope with it I'm not quite sure. Not having prayer in schools hasn't affected the ability of churches to exist, it just means that one religion is not privileged above another - a good and fair principle. It's not possible to give totally equal representation of all religion in public life, so representing none is the fair thing to do. I don't feel the need to have my religion championed above other people's religions, and indeed feel uncomfortable with that lack of equality. In England it's not even a religion but a denomination of a religion that's privileged above others - it's not very long ago that only Anglicans could attend Oxford or Cambridge, and 'Dissenters' buried in a separate cemetery. The monarch still has to be an Anglican, and it's only very recently that RCs could marry into the Royal family. So that's discriminating against even other Christians! The US separation of church and state was partly brought in to prevent this, and to give religious freedom to Catholics and Nonconformists as well as other religions (many of the Founding Fathers being atheist or deist, not Christian).
It must also be pointed out that in the US, part of the movement rebelling against the separation of church and state is the Dominionist movement - they really do want to make the US into a theocracy, some of them going as far as bringing back stoning as the death penalty. That is a dangerous thing, surely? (google Vision Forum Ministries + Dominionism for examples)
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life.
There's a lot of interesting subtext to the idea that not having a government endorsement is oppressive. In addition to equating "not showing favoritism" with "active oppression", there's the implication that all other religions (Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) have already been "removed from public life" (or were never meant to be part of "public life" to begin with).
Quite. Why not have Jewish prayers in Parliament, for example? There are Jewish MPs - why should their faith not be represented? There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians. Judaism has certainly had an impact on English life (fish and chips is of Jewish origin) so why not honour that?
--------------------
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
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... if someone (not necessarily a Christian) believes they have a revelation from an omniscient, eternal and sovereign intelligence, then on the face of it, there is more reason to believe that that revelation, rather than one's own, or some other human being's, mere opinion or feeling, is likely to be true.
An interesting idea. A friend of ours believed he had such revelations. He spent his life pursuing it and claiming that he had a message from God. He ended up living rough (like Jesus, as he would point out). He was intelligent and articulate most of the time.
At one point he told his friends that all that prevented the new dispensation from coming into force was the existence of his children: once he had killed them the new world would begin. I'm afraid we all decided our "mere opinion or feeling" took precedence over his divine revelation.
I guess you'd say we were wrong ...
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.
Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As a Christian, I would far rather live in a Tatchell-approved secular democracy than any Little Englander vision of Christian England that you'd come up with. Go back to your Daily Heil. Some of us like secular governments, it does not make us less Christian.
I so agree.
Plus St. Peter Tatchell embodies many Christian values, such as acceptance of minorities, which the Christian churches woefully fail to do.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The worry is this: if the humanist society and the authors of that letter get their way and Christianity is removed from the public sphere, how long before the opinions of Muslims and Hindus are also silenced?
1. Where in the referenced letter do the signers indicate they want Christianity removed from the public sphere? ISTM there's rather a lot of territory between objecting to having one's country described as "Christian" and demanding that no evidence of Christianity appear in "the public sphere" (whatever that may be).
2. I live in the U.S., with its much-vaunted separation (cough) of church and state. I'm also an elected member of the House of Representatives of my state.
Yet every single session of this House begins with the following: the pledge of allegiance, the singing of the national anthem, and a prayer uttered aloud, as we stand with heads bowed, by the House chaplain, who happens to be the pastor of a Congregational church in my city.
I grant you, the House stands in recess for these observances. Yet this is arguably the public sphere -- the guests in the gallery are already there, watching the members below. The House members are essentially a captive audience (I'd have to clamber over several large Republicans to absent myself, making no end of fuss I'm unwilling to make, as what I believe or disbelieve is nobody's business but mine) from the prayer (usually not more than a minute or 2 in length).
That the House has a chaplain, that these observances have no real opt-out, and that the chaplain is Christian (that is, if Congregationalists can be considered within the fold) all suggest that Christianity, even in a state which polling reveals as among the least religious in the US), is in little danger of being "removed." It is in far more danger of imploding from its privileged status. When did the church most flourish and grow? (1) When individual members willing to die for the faith were actively persecuted, and (2) when it was so closely allied with the state as to be powerful and wealthy in its own right, but not so obviously riddled with corruption as to put the stink up people's noses.
[ 22. April 2014, 15:14: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.
Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.
God forbid. But we are still a Christian country.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.
Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.
God forbid. But we are still a Christian country.
Legally we are a purely Anglican country - the state is still discriminatory towards other Christians. This is surely wrong (speaking as an Anglican myself).
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.
God forbid. But we are still a Christian country.
Legally we are a purely Anglican country - the state is still discriminatory towards other Christians. This is surely wrong (speaking as an Anglican myself).
This kind of gets at the schizophrenic nature of the assertion of Christian nationalism: a desire to insist that Christianity (or Anglicanism) is more British than other faiths, while simultaneously rejecting the complementary idea that this necessarily means other faiths (and their adherents) are less British than Christianity (or Anglicanism).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I never quite understand what the 'public sphere' refers to - does it mean the political world? Or actually the public world?
I don't see anyone asking for religion to driven out of the public world - that would include newspapers, wouldn't it?
As to the political world, it doesn't feature very much in any case in the UK, does it? We are in many ways a secular state, thank goodness.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I never quite understand what the 'public sphere' refers to - does it mean the political world? Or actually the public world?
When the phrase "public sphere" is used in discussions like this it's usually in regard to government action. Sometimes the phrase "public square" is used, though I'm not sure the exact shape involved is the key point. At any rate, although the actions criticized are "public" in the sense of "the public sector", I've long suspected that the use of the phrase is deliberately ambiguous in order to confuse people into thinking that what's being discussed is "the general public" (i.e. ordinary citizens) or being "in public", which can happen in either public or private property.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well THIS is interesting.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've long suspected that the use of the phrase is deliberately ambiguous in order to confuse people into thinking that what's being discussed is "the general public" (i.e. ordinary citizens) or being "in public", which can happen in either public or private property.
The wikipedia article thinks the term 'public sphere' originates with Jurgen Habermas. He is AIUI an atheist.
He also comes from outside Anglo-American neoliberal political theory. I can see why an American might be thrown by the term since the neoliberal political project would like you to think there's no such thing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.
There's no law that requiring a Baptist pastor offer a prayer at a Presidential inauguration. The President can select a minister or ministers of his choosing to be part of his inauguration. Or have none whatsoever. The oath of office is administered by the senior Supreme Court Justice.
That's part of not being a state with an official religion. As for "In God we trust" on the currency and "One nation under God" being added to the pledge of allegiance during the McCarthy period, I'd like to see them removed, along with the masonic symbols on the dollar bill. It's funny to see you claim that a sign of the U.S. being a Christian nation are the slogans printed on the currency.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
What actually is a 'Christian country'? I assume it means a country which has Christian people living in it, rather than that the mountains and lakes accept Jesus as their saviour or something. And if so, how can the UK be called Christian? There are other people living here apart from Christians- most of whom appear to be so nominally only. And even the practicing Christians who live here disagree with one another about whether they are Truly Christian or not.
It's all a load of silly nonsense. We live in a land of individual people, some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not. That's it. Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I never quite understand what the 'public sphere' refers to - does it mean the political world? Or actually the public world?
Wikipedia. From which I'm refreshing my memory.
So roughly the public world as I think you're using the term. If you distinguish between 'politics' as contests between parties for control over formal power, and 'politics' as members of society debating and acting to achieve their common good, it is the place in which the latter happens. It's supposed to also be the place in which the people monitor politics in the first sense and keep politicians in touch with the real needs of society.
The problem for, say, French-style secular theory here are that the following three propositions look, if not exactly contradictory, at least tough to hold together:
1) The public sphere does not exclude religious viewpoints.
2) The narrowly political state does exclude religious reasons.
3) The narrowly political state sphere is to be responsible to the public sphere.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The [Presidential] oath of office is administered by the senior Supreme Court Justice.
[Pedantry] Actually the Presidential oath is traditionally administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (presently John Roberts), not the most senior Supreme Court Justice (currently Antonin Scalia). It should be noted that this is done by tradition, rather than Constitutional requirement. The U.S. Constitution is does not specify who is to administer the Presidential oath. For George Washington's first inauguration the oath was administered by the Chancellor of New York, for the very practical reason that there were no Supreme Court Justices, Chief or Associate, before Washington appointed them. [/Pedantry]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What actually is a 'Christian country'? I assume it means a country which has Christian people living in it, rather than that the mountains and lakes accept Jesus as their saviour or something. And if so, how can the UK be called Christian? There are other people living here apart from Christians- most of whom appear to be so nominally only. And even the practicing Christians who live here disagree with one another about whether they are Truly Christian or not.
It's all a load of silly nonsense. We live in a land of individual people, some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not. That's it. Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.
No, it's a country which has laws, culture, judiciary, parliament, government, calendar, etc, etc, etc all rooted and grounded in Christian faith, practice, worship and ethical standards.
Every Christian could leave and the country would still be identifiably 'Christian' (note, it's an adjective)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.
O look, another intolerant atheist who cannot discuss a point without getting offensive.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well THIS is interesting.
Why? This information was already in the link you posted earlier. Or didn't you bother to read past the bit about the 50 signatories?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
]No, it's a country which has laws, culture, judiciary, parliament, government, calendar, etc, etc, etc all rooted and grounded in Christian faith, practice, worship and ethical standards.
Again implying that only Christians have these standards. Insulting and incorrect.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Every Christian could leave and the country would still be identifiably 'Christian' (note, it's an adjective)
Would it really?
Is Cadbury's still identifiably Quaker?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.
O look, another intolerant atheist who cannot discuss a point without getting offensive.
Oh, you are being oppressed, aren't you? Poor little Christian.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well THIS is interesting.
Why? This information was already in the link you posted earlier. Or didn't you bother to read past the bit about the 50 signatories?
Not all of it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's a country which has laws, culture, judiciary, parliament, government, calendar, etc, etc, etc all rooted and grounded in Christian faith, practice, worship and ethical standards.
Every Christian could leave and the country would still be identifiably 'Christian' (note, it's an adjective)
No, it is a country with a Christian heritage. I'm not how a country would be meaningfully Christian if every Christian were to leave. It would have a Christian past, but not a Christian present.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
