... or secular zealotry. I don't see those of faith ... Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or others) ... saying that people who do not have faith must give up that point of view or that they must celebrate those holidays. I think secular zealotry is a far greater risk.

I like that. Secular Zealotry. I think that is a better way to say what I was going after. That is a huge problem.

Gentlefolk,

Intolerance comes in many guises, and is not native to any land or sect. Consider, if you will, the French State’s ban on the Islamic headscarf and (nominally) all other overt religious symbols from state schools.

When people who wield power - be they religious, or in this case secular – feel threatened, they feel obligated to protect their domain. That their behavior may be as damaging to what they claim to be defending as the actions of their supposed foe is of no consequence. They must not be seen to be weak.

This does lead, from time to time, to peculiar behavior.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I've deliberately stayed out of this debate so far, but...

Strange you should say that - last Christmas some schools in Britain did ban nativity plays on poltically-correct grounds.

Fed by the same madness which caused a shopping centre (mall for the yanks) chain to ban the charity Xmas tree

because someone could put a bomb in a package and leave it there.

They couldn't just walk in with a bomb belt and go bang, they have to wrap it in Xmas paper and hide it at the

charity tree.

There is a tree frog in my garden makes more sense than that.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Ooops

I've been checking the news - I got a bit mixed up. Several schools in Britain banned cameras at nativity plays in case paedophiles got hold of the pictures/videos, and the Red Cross charity shops banned nativity scenes in their shop windows. Still PC madness.

Carry on without me

OK, so not the best example, although it was an example of PC gone mad, not religion. I'll happily go with Sharper's Red Cross example.

So the Christians fight back Bring it on!





That must be the comedy post of the thread! Now, where should we start?

1. There is a Muslim-turned-Christian in Afghanistan who wishes that what you are saying was true
2. In post-Reformation England (1530s) the Protestants and Catholics burned each other for not believing in the same version of the same basic beliefs
3. The Algerian parliament has just approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam (in person and by any sort of publication).
4. The Spanish Inquisition
5. Neither I, nor my parents, were offered a choice of me attending religious education and worship at school. I was not given an alternative viewpoint that God may not exist either. I suspect most of you were in the same position.

I could make a really long list but I am sure you can see the point

The trouble is, that as a Christian, you see this as the thin end of the wedge and worry when something similar will affect you. I, as an atheist, can see the French government's point. It's quite draconian, but fairly applied, so no-one should complain.

Gee, I didn't know Afghanistan was insisting on Spring Bunnies at their Walmarts?

I thought we were talking about what was happening in the US and other western countries today. Maybe we need more precision in what the topic is.

It's not even clear what your 5th point had to do with.

just taking notes

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

mabelode,

Rather than characterize the situation as one favoring a theist or an atheist point of view, I think it may be more useful viewing intolerance as favoring or suppressing personal liberties.

To that end, I am minded of a poem attributed to Martin Niemöller about the quiescence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power. There are various versions, this is the one I favor:


Original......................................Translation

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,.........When they came for the communists,
habe ich geschwiegen;.........................I remained silent;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.....................I was not a communist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,.....When they locked up the social democrats,
habe ich geschwiegen; ........................I remained silent;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat................I was not a social democrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,............When they came for the trade unionists,
habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter................I was not a trade unionist.

Als sie die Juden holten,.....................When they came for the Jews,
habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out;
ich war ja kein Jude..........................I was not a Jew.

Als sie mich holten,..........................When they came for me,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte...there was no one left to speak out.



I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I favor personal liberty, particularly as realized in a liberal democracy. It was not too long ago that Germany descended from a civilized nation to one which burnt and gassed its own citizens. How far into the common weal must the wedge be driven the next time before someone cries “Halt!”?

On a lighter note, wasn’t it President Chirac who said “Aprés moi, le Shari'a.”?

__________________
Eudaimonia

I, as an atheist, seem to have far more concern for the plight of a Christian than you, as a Christian, judging solely by that statement.



It's too late to complain at the direction we are now going - you were steering at the time! The original question was:



We have expanded the scope a little since then. For example, you said:



That's exactly what religions do - enforce conformity of belief and control what the followers do. See my examples above. That may be OK for enforcing morals if done moderately (but you don't need the god aspect for that) but it gets abused. My examples show what happens when religious belief is enforced on those who don't want to believe the same as you.

Point 5 was simple. On a more personal level I am illustrating that faith was pushed onto us at an impressionable age - we didn't choose to embrace it as adults (and, no, continuing with what was forced on you as a child is not the same as freely embracing the same belief as an adult).

A very reasonable request. We could say, however, that religious education almost everywhere suppresses those rights (until too late in one's school career). Each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, with no balancing view that it may be made up. This maintains the myth and the status quo. More enlightened countries allow individuals to make their own minds up later in life (but too late), and many do not. I simply suggest that we teach atheism, and, again, allow individuals to make their own minds up later. I point out, once more, the Jesuit approach - the first years in a child's education are highly influential (I might even say indoctrinating).

Note that I have not suggested anywhere that religion should be banned - the way forward is through education. Religion will then wither naturally.



Not at all - a view I share. I am not a "banning" type of person, which may be why I have a problem with Tony Blair's style of government.

mabelode,

As silence implies assent, I take it that you have reconsidered your position on “the thin edge of the wedge” whether assessed as a communist, social democrat, trade unionist, theist, or atheist. I must admit that I do have difficulty reconciling your stated position on personal liberty and liberal democracy with your acquiescence to the French State’s suppression of individual liberties – down to such details as what type of head covering one may and may not wear to class. Rather intolerant I’d say, but then, I’m not French. As a bad law remains a bad law even if applied consistently, I am curious why a law which is described as draconian is one about which no-one should complain.

While it is true that there are countries that do teach its dominant/official religion as fact, it is decidedly not true for all countries. It is not the case that each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, unless you are referring to the citizens of a country being inculcated in that country’s culture, a different process than being “taught”. If it is true that there is no country without a culture, and I would argue that case, then it is unreasonable to expect its citizens to grow up within it without absorbing their cultural norms.

Perhaps I can call upon some local expertise; how many of our American Pixies were offered, much less had forced upon them, religious education in state funded schools? For that matter, how many Australian, Canadian or English Pixies were compelled in their state funded educational careers to pass exams on Christian, Muslim, or Hindu theology? I am under the impression that, at least here in the States, very few religious education classes are funded by Federal, State, or Municipal governments.

As for teaching atheism, I don’t think that would be wise at all. Atheism asserts the absence of God, just as theism asserts the presence of God. Are you suggesting that there exists a proof that there is no God? Unless the claim can be objectively substantiated by repeatable tests, such a claim must reside in the realm of other faiths.

Many people, I among them, consider that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Additionally, if one wished to take a scientific approach, one must keep in mind that a hypothesis can only be falsified, not proved. Frankly, given the metaphysical properties of both theism and atheism, I believe both are clearly outside the domain of science. Finally, Kurt Gödel’s paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems" contains a proof that there exist truths which cannot be proved. Replace “truths” with “God” and the sentence remains logically unchanged. We both know that the proof exists only within the limits of formal systems, so I cannot offer it as a proof, but it is persuasive, even if not convincing.

Not, I hasten to conclude, that there is a God, only that those who make blanket assertions that there is no God do so with neither evidence to support their position nor iron clad logic to support their arguments.

__________________
Eudaimonia