Religion has its rights.

[Heresson]

It's really annoying.
People complain about religions that want to decapitate or just punish their apostates - doesn't state also kill or punish its traitors?

People think that it's not right to force your religious moral values into legal system.
But people do force their moral values into legal system - that's democracy. Why should be moral values based on religion worse than based on personal thoughts of someone?

People complain if You convert someone by force - but if a state conquers a region, doesn't it force its citizenship over its members, forces them out, kills or enslaves?
People complain that clercks and fanatics want to forbid telling that or telling that - a state has its secrets too and wants to defend them.
There are laws against offending high officials of the state...

People want "religious neutrality".
Such thing does not exist. Lack of any religious background = atheism, as we see on french example

[Spiffor]

Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson
People think that it's not right to force your religious moral values into legal system.
But people do force their moral values into legal system - that's democracy. Why should be moral values based on religion worse than based on personal thoughts of someone?

Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant and unprovable. Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth, and that other religions are false teaching. The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other, is because the world has become very secular in the last two centuries.
If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth". This is all good in some African country where the winner takes all, and the loser gets ****ed, but it isn't good in modern democracies that are built against the tyranny of the majority.

People complain if You convert someone by force - but if a state conquers a region, doesn't it force its citizenship over its members, forces them out, kills or enslaves?

I don't see many people who support outright conquest here.
And even when people switch nationality, they are generally not expected to abandon all of their beliefs, to embrace beliefs that are not theirs because of force. Only States that have enforced religion force a religion swithc along with a nationality switch, when they conquer a territory.

People complain that clercks and fanatics want to forbid telling that or telling that - a state has its secrets too and wants to defend them.
There are laws against offending high officials of the state...

Depends where. Just look at the American campaign, or at an ordinary British newspaper, and you'll see high officials can get legally offended quite often.

People want "religious neutrality".
Such thing does not exist. Lack of any religious background = atheism, as we see on french example

France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church, while most countries "passively" separate State from Church. In France, worship is legal and unrestricted. What is restricted, however, is proselytism from all sides of society... while most other countries consider that only the State should shut up, and that the civil society can say whatever it wants.

[Heresson]

Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant

Oh c-mon....

and unprovable.

Of course they are. Every religion is very good in proving itself...

Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth, and that other religions are false teaching.

Well, isn't it true about any ideological conflict?
Attitude towards death penalty, abortion etc - it's all the same

The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other, is because the world has become very secular in the last two centuries.

You're simplyfying it too much. I think that at least catholic church made a great progress, and a course back to its roots at least. Even if it could, it wouldn't try to do different things it did in past centuries. Do you imagine John Paul II burning someone on stake?
Surely it has to do with general trend in society, but You can't exclude religion, at least Christian, out of it. The people that create this "secularism" trend, are Christian or "post-Christian". It's not that religions are forced by some great secularism force to tolerating each other.

If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth". This is all good in some African country where the winner takes all, and the loser gets ****ed, but it isn't good in modern democracies that are built against the tyranny of the majority.

You can have your own, personal, "absolute truth". A party, a secular ideology (like marxism) can have its absolute truth too. And it tries to force it through the same way

I don't see many people who support outright conquest here.

I do

And even when people switch nationality, they are generally not expected to abandon all of their beliefs, to embrace beliefs that are not theirs because of force. Only States that have enforced religion force a religion swithc along with a nationality switch, when they conquer a territory.

If a state conquers some place, it forces it into its educational system, in which it forces people to learn its language, its history, its ideology, and sometimes even demands to consider yourself a part of nation of this country (in states such as France, in which nation is closer to demos than to ethnos), and of course demands loyalty.

Depends where. Just look at the American campaign, or at an ordinary British newspaper, and you'll see high officials can get legally offended quite often.

Oops, it should've been clerics or whatever, not clercks...
You're right, anyway

France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church

So it is atheistic country. That a state has an official religion it doesn't mean that other cults are prohibited.
The lack of an official cult, if treaten as in France, is atheism as an official cult.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Word

[Whaleboy]

I like that... atheism as Frances national religion

[Agathon]

I'll give you some good reasons. How about the Thirty Years War for a start?

Or how about the fact that there are so many religions which are in fundamental disagreement in our societies?

People always think that the religion that will be used to make law will be theirs rather than somebody else's. I can't quite work out why people think this way.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson
Well, isn't it true about any ideological conflict?
Attitude towards death penalty, abortion etc - it's all the same

No.
Attitudes towards death penalty, abortion etc. are definitely discussing social issues. As such, what must be weighted are the societal consequences of these decisions. Not the spiritual concerns.

You can have your own, personal, "absolute truth". A party, a secular ideology (like marxism) can have its absolute truth too. And it tries to force it through the same way

When an ideology is turned into dogma, the same problem arises as with religion. Ideologies, however, are suppored to cater for the problems of this world, and its propositions can be evaluated on the actual performance. Many people nowadays think that Communism is a bunch of horse****, and they base it on the horrors that have been done in the name of Communism. They "rationally" dismiss Communism.

Such cannot be said of religion. Nobody can claim with certitude that Jesus / Allah / The Pink Unicorn doesn't save souls, except those blinded in their own faith (be it religionist or atheistic). And that's the big difference between religion and ideology. Between religion and science. Between religion and the rest of culture: religion is about a dogma that is supposed to be the same, and to be the only one that is true (again, this mostly concerns monotheism)

If a state conquers some place, it forces it into its educational system, in which it forces people to learn its language, its history, its ideology, and sometimes even demands to consider yourself a part of nation of this country (in states such as France, in which nation is closer to demos than to ethnos), and of course demands loyalty.

Yes, and it is bad.

So it is atheistic country. That a state has an official religion it doesn't mean that other cults are prohibited.
The lack of an official cult, if treaten as in France, is atheism as an official cult.

False. There is no subsidised "Church of UnGod", teachers don't teach that "God doesn't exist" etc. God is simply absent from our politics. It doesn't mean we state it doesn't exist. It does mean it is not taken into account, at all.

Heck, Palau is completely absent from our politics as well, yet there is nothing official that denies the existence of this minuscule country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant

So? Every moral code is intolerant, in the sense that it believes itself to be the truth for everyone.

Sure you could be a relativist, but that's not a very productive creed.

and unprovable.

Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth,

And so do many other philosophies that believe there to be an absolute truth for everyone.

and that other religions are false teaching.

Gandhi, a Hindu acknowledged the truths that he saw in Christianity, and in Islam. Yet, he still remained a Hindu.

Even if one believes that one's moral code is the correct one, it does not prevent you from recognising the areas in which other codes overlap with your own.

The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other,

Islam tolerates Christianity? Islam tolerates Jews? I suggest you amend that statement.

As for the other two, they more than tolerate, in many cases, they collaborate. Why? Because they have much more in common with each other than they do with the secularists. So you are partially right, that it is because the world has become more secular that brings the believers together, but not because the believers compromise their own beliefs to become more worldly.

If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth".

Why is this? Christianity teaches that Christians must love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore, in a Christian state, one would expect groups of different faiths to congregate.

France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church, while most countries "passively" separate State from Church.

France persecutes believers by restricting their religious expression.

France not only protects atheism, but affirms atheism in their constitution.

This is why they have crossed that line, from a passive separation to an active separation, and why they have something in common with the Islamic states in the Middle East.

In France, worship is legal and unrestricted. What is restricted, however, is proselytism from all sides of society

Does France bar atheists from preaching against religion? Do they restrict atheist expression in any way?

[Ben Kenobi]

False. There is no subsidised "Church of UnGod", teachers don't teach that "God doesn't exist" etc. God is simply absent from our politics.

Yet your rationale for the restrictions placed on religious believers stems from part of the constitution of France.

So clearly France has established some affirmation of atheism in their constitution, violating the principles of the separation of church and state.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Indeed. And it's not even the question. The debate here is not whether there is a God, several Gods, no God, or a Pink Unicorn.
The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality.

Gandhi, a Hindu acknowledged the truths that he saw in Christianity, and in Islam. Yet, he still remained a Hindu.

Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists. I would be much less reluctant to base politics on polytheistic religious teachings than on monotheistic ones. Simply because Polytheism allows for an open pantheon, and thus for an open and adabptable dogma.

Islam tolerates Christianity? Islam tolerates Jews? I suggest you amend that statement.

Yes it does. There is a Muslim representation in pretty much every oecumenical celebration.

As for the other two, they more than tolerate, in many cases, they collaborate. Why? Because they have much more in common with each other than they do with the secularists. So you are partially right, that it is because the world has become more secular that brings the believers together, but not because the believers compromise their own beliefs to become more worldly.

This is what I had in mind. I should have expressed it better, thanks for doing it for me

Why is this? Christianity teaches that Christians must love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore, in a Christian state, one would expect groups of different faiths to congregate.

When I said "expel", I dodn't mean "physically expel from the State". I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)

France persecutes believers by restricting their religious expression.

France also persecutes politicians by restricting their political expression. You are speaking with someone who was horribly persecuted: when I'm distributing fliers on the marketplace, or in front of highschools, I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.

HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED !

France not only protects atheism, but affirms atheism in their constitution.

I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.

Does France bar atheists from preaching against religion? Do they restrict atheist expression in any way?

Yes. Exactly in the same fashion as with all the religious and political expression. It is forbidden to proselytise people under 16.
So far, I have never heard of a symbol commonly used by active atheists. But if there had been one, it would have been banned in public shools along with the rest.

[JohnT]

Not to threadjack, but...

Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant and unprovable.

Why are polytheistic religions more "provable"? Or their practitioners necessarily more "tolerant"?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Why are polytheistic religions more "provable"?

They aren't. However, they differ from monotheistic ones in that they are much more open-minded.

Or their practitioners necessarily more "tolerant"?

Not necessarily. There is plenty of hatred between Hindus and Muslims. However, at its core (hence the "inherently"), polytheism is indeed more tolerant than monotheism, because it doesn't pretend to encompass the entirety of truth, and it doesn't pretend that everything which differs is false.

[Ben Kenobi]

The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality.

Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes.

So I really don't see empirical means entering into the question, until people start asking whether one action or another can be shown to increase liberty.

Even then, since there isn't really a way to measure liberty, empirically, you are still in the realm of philosophy.

Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists.

Tell that to the Sikhs in India. The polytheists stripped the Sikhs of all rights to buy property and this is one of the reasons why so many come to Canada, because we have land, and Sikhs need land for their families.

Sure, they can own land, but they cannot buy land to increase their holdings in India.

Sikhs, by the way, are monotheists, yet if you look at their beliefs systems, you would consider them to be very tolerant.

I would be much less reluctant to base politics on polytheistic religious teachings than on monotheistic ones. Simply because Polytheism allows for an open pantheon, and thus for an open and adabptable dogma.

And you would be just as wrong to establish a polytheist religion over a monotheist. The same problems arise from both.

Gandhi was a unique figure, killed not by a foe of another religion, but one from his own religion. His outlook is not something common to all Hindus.

There is a Muslim representation in pretty much every oecumenical celebration.

In areas that are primarily Christian. They do not return the favour in areas of Muslim majorities.

You cannot say, that where the Muslims are minorities, that they tolerate others, when the larger faiths invite them in. By nature, they will be ecumenical when they are minorities.

I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)

Yeah, and many Christian denominations also feel the difficulty of upholding their own moral standards and those of the state, since the two do not necessarily coincide.

For a religion to become a state religion alters both the state and the religion. Christianity is no exception.

I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.

That's a dumb law. We are permitted to protest in areas where there are young people provided we do not target them.

I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.

What principle do children violate when wearing headscarves in school?

Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot?

Why do you erect bubble zones around your schools? That to me seems detrimental to their education, that the only influence that can be provided comes from the state.

Also, are there viable private schools in France?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Indeed. And it's not even the question. The debate here is not whether there is a God, several Gods, no God, or a Pink Unicorn.

Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people?

The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality.

Every logical thinking has some emotional base.

Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists.

Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans and barbarians, or to Muslims and Christians in India who are persecuted by Hindu majority

When I said "expel", I dodn't mean "physically expel from the State". I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)

Similarily, I may not recognise with a state that approves death penalty, abortion, war in Iraq, whatever.

France also persecutes politicians by restricting their political expression. You are speaking with someone who was horribly persecuted: when I'm distributing fliers on the marketplace, or in front of highschools, I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.

HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED !

France is not the only state which does so

I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.

Well, French blackmail-like fight against mentioning of Christian roots of European cultur, which is a fact, and willingness to accept mentionings of ancient roots, shows, that France has an obsession of "religious neutrality"

Yes. Exactly in the same fashion as with all the religious and political expression. It is forbidden to proselytise people under 16.
So far, I have never heard of a symbol commonly used by active atheists. But if there had been one, it would have been banned in public shools along with the rest.

The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism

[Ben Kenobi]

However, at its core (hence the "inherently"), polytheism is indeed more tolerant than monotheism, because it doesn't pretend to encompass the entirety of truth,

Do you know anything about Hinduism?

Hinduism does claim to have the truth over the Muslims, and the Christians.

Just because a religion is polytheist, does not mean they are more likely to accept monotheists.