The Politics Thread

Racism has diminished greatly in our society because of the 'official' lead. Some parent still teach it but when all around them reject it it starts to disappear. At the moment the state encourages and reinforces religious teaching so parents are reinforced in their teaching. Bearing in mind those of a religious bent are already more prone to respond to authority.

 

I think that the situations are slightly different, but this would support what I was saying about having a secular education system.
Parents would still be free to teach their kids their faith, but they'd know about the alternatives.

The current system is clearly biased towards religious teaching, but I don't think that going the other way is the right thing to do.
There would be a massive backlash and people would start to seek more dangerous alternatives, in my opinion.

 

What more dangerous alternatives?

 

Dubious homeschooling, for a start.

 

I'm less opposed to a wide 'religious' education taking in all religions and atheism such as my kids receive, than I am opposed to faith schools which I think are a real no-no.

 

People are dying PNP we cannot afford the slowly slowly approach which brings change at the rate of glacial flow. War is radical and to oppose it you need radical answers. I remind you that we both talk from the comfort of being well placed in the UK, for us it doesn't matter, for others it's a matter of life and death.

 

You've gone all Bob Geldof, Spurf!

Radical answers are fine, as long as they work. Attempting to implement a ban on religion simply won't and it won't be supported.
I've been called a militant atheist before and I'm sure that I'll be called it again, but you can't force people to abandon their faith.
Education and secularism appear to do that very effectively over time, though.

The UK and places like Norway have or recently have had a state religion, but the population has steadily rejected it and other faiths.
Places that ban or restrict religious practices seem to have the opposite effect.
Give people a choice, show them the alternatives and try to educate the populace and you create a healthy society.
This appears to be true of a lot of things and religion is just one of them.

 

I am not suggesting a ban I am suggesting a radical change. You can't ban religion any more than you can ban drugs or anything else but you can educate. Much of this is already happening in more enlightened schools as NSIS mentioned being talk comparative and atheism side by side is quite different.

 

That's not radical, though. The High Court said that it should be implemented.
Nicky Morgan's a twat though, so it won't be.

 

You won't stop wars anymore than you'll stop religions. Both have been going on since the beginning of time! It would be nice as John Lennon suggested, if war was over. But, it's just a utopian dream. Evil, power hungry, or just plain deranged people have been starting wars since forever, it's naive to think it's all suddenly going to stop if religion is disposed of.

Blaming religion is to miss the point, IMO. If religion didn't exist, then another pretext would be used to attack your neighbour. .

 

OK teach religion wearing shorts and a baseball cap. Is that radical?

I can be very radical PNP . for example let's be a secular republic and lets put wind farms around all the castles and palaces. Let's abolish the House of Lords and kick the Bishops out. Stop morning prayers in the house of commons, do that in your time not the nations. Nationalise all church lands and refuse planning permission for any religious building over 500 square feet.
That do for starters?

 

OK well i.m bored with the same old reasons to kill one another let's make up some new ones. Sorry NSIS I've heard this stuff over and over why are you so all out supporting the cause of fairytales have you shares in Disney or something.

 

Sad to say, but I'm afraid that's what would happen!...

And, it's not a fairytale, just the simple truth!

 

I'll be looking for your suggestions in the next SNP manifesto, Spurf!

Alternative, renewable energy sources? Fine. Pretty uncontroversial. Cut by the Tories though, obviously.

Abolish the House of Lords and kick out the Bishops?
The second part was suggested recently, but they were supposed to be replaced by a more representative group of spiritual leaders.
Replacing the second chamber is fine, but replacing it with what?
It doesn't actually do a bad job at the moment, which is why the current government have attacked it.

Stop morning prayer in the commons? Yep, fine. I don't think that would upset too many people, either.
Nationalise all church lands and block new religious buildings? Can't see it happening.

 

I have important things to do like watch United get stuffed by Big Sam.

 

1-0 already!...

 

To a certain degree, I accept what you're saying. But this idea that has been put out that religious people (particularly muslims) want to stagnate progression and critical thinking has no basis whatsoever.

In terms of whether following a faith doesn't determine one's actions, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. A lot of religions encourage giving money and helping charities, feeding the homeless, paying mutual respect to one another, treating people of different creeds and nationalities with the utmost respect etc. A lot of people do these things, not just because they want to better themselves as a person, but because they want to better themselves for their Creator.

Religion didn't halt the Arab nation's progression. When you have moronic clerics in Saudi Arabia who call for astronomy to be banned, despite the fact that astronomy has been a key topic throughout Islamic history, what are you meant to say? There are lunatics wherever you go. Even some of the most religiously conservative Islamic scholars have dismissed Saudi Arabia as being indicative of the faith The monarchy in Saudi Arabia have no religious backing at all. Ibn Saud was actually supported and created by the British Empire.

When individuals or groups are clearly going against the basic tenets of their faith to pursue their own selfish goals, what relevance does religion have in that? If we're going to follow this pattern of thinking, it's not as if those that have claimed to be atheists have always conducted themselves perfectly. Some imperialist conquests in history have actually been started from individuals that have claimed to atheists. Would I then blame atheism for their irrational and evil behaviour? No.

I agree about peaceful co-existence, but there are extreme lunatics that can both be 'religious' and 'atheist'. There are supposed representatives of each that have been given a media platform, yet have advocated disharmony and continuing conflict.

I think it depends on which region you go to. Secularism and secular democracy aren't for everyone. On the occasions that people in the Middle East have been given a mandate to govern, the general populace have elected parties that want to enforce Political Islam.

 

It's highly debatable whether they're going against the tenets of their faith, but that's beside the point.
You're attempting to point to religious people doing important work as something that backs religion.
You're then absolving the same religions of any crimes committed in their name.
You can't have it both ways. I'd suggest that neither point's particularly relevant.

Attempting to conflate the likes of Dawkins or Harris with religious extremists is extremely disingenuous.
A couple of authors do not compare to homicidal lunatics, frankly.

And how's that worked out for them?
Similarly, Americans seem to ignore their own rules on secularism.
It leads to divisive, conflicted societies, from what I can see.

 

You've lost me. It isn't relevant to what? To religion? If so, I addressed this to SD. If I believe religions (generally) promote humility, being humble, helping one another, charity, ethics of disagreement/respect, you can't say to me that it's besides the point.

I was pointing to religious people doing important work to dispel the myth that certain religions hinder the progression of society. If said religions did hinder the progression of society, these individuals wouldn't be following their religion and we wouldn't be reaping the benefits of their knowledge and research.

In regards to crime, I suppose it depends on how you define it. A lot of people may see war as crime. But war can be necessary. As with most things, context is very important. Some of the conquests carried out by alleged muslims have no religious backing such as Muhammad Ahmad (the self-proclaimed Mahdi who most Islamic scholars dismissed because of his ludicrous claims) . The point is that they're not just using their faith to justify the way they act, they are using anything to justify the way they act.

It depends on how you define an extremist. Do you believe that all extremists have to carry out acts of violence? Or are those that merely advocate it just as complicit in this? If its the latter, Dawkins and Harris fit this criteria. Sam Harris has spoken about a nuclear strike on the Muslim world in his book. I find it incredible that you keep defending the man, frankly.

The root causes of the entire Middle East conflict is down to the USA, UK and France. A major reason why Political Islam hasn't properly solved the conflict in the Middle East have either been due to military coups taking over or due to despotic regimes remaining having been backed by western states.

Does it not say something that these people still believe in Political Islam even in spite of the immense suffering they've witnessed and experienced for decades?

 

{Religion didn't halt the Arab nation's progression. When you have moronic clerics in Saudi Arabia who call for astronomy to be banned, despite the fact that astronomy has been a key topic throughout Islamic history, what are you meant to say? There are lunatics wherever you go. Even some of the most religiously conservative Islamic scholars have dismissed Saudi Arabia as being indicative of the faith The monarchy in Saudi Arabia have no religious backing at all. Ibn Saud was actually supported and created by the British Empire.}

The Arabs invented much of mathematics including Algebra much input into Astronomy and Geometry and nothing much since the 7 & 8th centuries, funny enough when Islam took hold. The catholics burnt people, Giovani Bruno for example, for suggesting that the earth was not the centre of the universe as their god had told them. Religion has always apposed scientific progress because it interferes with their magical powers. Today in the US we have people in government who believe Darwin didn't know what he was talking about because their god made everything in seven days, sorry six, he needed a rest.

Religion is anti progress by it's very nature not only does it stunt invention it stunts human beings and all to keep a power frame work intact. I feel very sorry for people who waste their lives with such utter nonsense.