INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Australian Guides show the way

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#61 Post by animist » July 14th, 2012, 10:13 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Kismet wrote: Nah, I have a somewhat more nuanced view. I believe religion should be an integral part of politics, but not in any sectarian fashion. In my view there is no dominant religion of the day. Truth is eternal and any particular religion is simply an interpretation of that one Being.
gibberish. Since religions are inconsistent with each other, how can they all validly interpret some one thing? And why should religion, whatever you mean by that, have any part in politics?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#62 Post by animist » July 14th, 2012, 10:54 am

Kismet wrote:
animist wrote:
Kismet wrote:So the point is, you can't be neutral and secular, because then you default to secularism.
that is false inasmuch as it is meaningful; neutrality is the essence of secularism. It is not "irreligious", whatever that means, or atheistic, but simply non-religious. It is not, in short, a view about the existence or otherwise of God, but a demand that religion be kept in the private rather than the public sphere
In theory perhaps you would be correct but practically a secular state is like a magnet: it attracts ferrous material in the form of atheists and agnostics and repels theists. So, on that basis, you end up having a nation as jaded as this here forum. Especially when something does not fit into the "critical thinking" vault. Anything new, (even a new God!) is thrown out the window in utero.
I don't know what "jaded" is meant to express - if we were jaded I think we would not make the effort to communicate in the way we do! More importantly, you should remember that a secular state not only tolerates atheists and agnostics but all sorts of religions, not only the dominant one. I guess that you live in a reasonably (but not completely) secular state like the US or the UK, and you should count yourself lucky that you do so - rather than living in, say, Saudi Arabia

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#63 Post by Nick » July 14th, 2012, 11:02 am

Any thoughts on my suggestion for Aussie Guides...?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#64 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2012, 10:13 pm

Kismet wrote:Of course secular states which are democratic do not 'force' anyone to give up religion (unless they legislate in unauthorized ways).
Not sure what you mean by 'unauthorised' ways in a democratic state, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.
My whole point is that they gradually denude religions of power and efficacy, and so they shrivel up.
I still don't think you understand. A secular State would only remove religion from the influence in the running of the State. What happens to a religion once it no longer has that privilege is of no concern to a secular State.

If a religion, after losing its privileged State support can't survive on its own, then why it expect any outside support to carry on?

Efficacy? What is a religion's efficacy?
This reductionism of religion from inhabiting the public square is I think a bad thing.
Why?
I believe religion should be an integral part of politics,
Why?
but not in any sectarian fashion.
Religions are notorious for being sectarian, so how would religion(s) be prevented from being sectarian in your idea of a perfect State?
In my view there is no dominant religion of the day.
Seriously?
Truth is eternal and any particular religion is simply an interpretation of that one Being.
And they all interpret it differently and - if we're lucky - just argue about it. If we're unlucky, they will fight to the death for their interpretation.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#65 Post by Kismet » July 14th, 2012, 10:55 pm

Alan H wrote:
but not in any sectarian fashion.
Religions are notorious for being sectarian, so how would religion(s) be prevented from being sectarian in your idea of a perfect State?
By holding fast to universal principles of spirituality....

Why do you suppose I have an idea of a perfect statE?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#66 Post by Alan H » July 14th, 2012, 11:16 pm

Kismet wrote:
Alan H wrote:
but not in any sectarian fashion.
Religions are notorious for being sectarian, so how would religion(s) be prevented from being sectarian in your idea of a perfect State?
By holding fast to universal principles of spirituality....
And what are they? However, do you accept that, even if this was a desirable aim, current religions are several light years away from it?
Why do you suppose I have an idea of a perfect statE?
You having an idea of your perfect state isn't going to convince anyone here that it's a good idea unless you say what it is, how it would manifest itself, the advantages of it over other forms of state and how individual freedoms would be protected.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#67 Post by Kismet » July 16th, 2012, 4:48 am

Alan H wrote:And what are they? However, do you accept that, even if this was a desirable aim, current religions are several light years away from it?
They are: tolerance, justice, sobriety, morality, love, compassion.... Basically, what comes about self-evidently and which is patently true and correct. It is that which feeds our souls on an intuitive level.

Yes, religions need to get better, but this isn't to say they haven't covered over the truth, which was perhaps well known, or at any rate better known, in the past.
Alan H wrote:You having an idea of your perfect state isn't going to convince anyone here that it's a good idea unless you say what it is, how it would manifest itself, the advantages of it over other forms of state and how individual freedoms would be protected.
I'm not interested in perfection. That is not to be found on this earth. Only what is better. A secular state is a failed state in my view, because it does not feed the people spiritually. It leaves us to our own, with no sense of overarching community.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Australian Guides show the way

#68 Post by Alan H » July 16th, 2012, 10:38 am

Kismet

You're wandering off. You still haven't explained the questions I posed above.

But I still think we are a long way apart on our understanding of what a secular state is - and without that, we will get nowhere.

You seem to think a secular state would somehow interfere in people's lives and prevent them from believing whatever they want. You also seem to believe that it is essential to society to have religious interference in the running of the state - for the sake of all its citizens.

Is that a fair summary of your beliefs? If it is, then perhaps we could concentrate on those aspects?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply