Hey theocracy folks ...

[The Terrible Sweal]

From time to time we encounter the wish of some to have their religious beliefs be given more effect in public policy. Sometimes we might encounter those who feel that 'secularism' should be adandoned.

So here's what I suggest. Advocates of such ideas should first gather up an comprehnsive assembly representing the entire spectrum of human religous belief. Sort out amongst yourselves what is 'true' , and produce a single holy book which you all agree, by consensus, is complete and accurate. THEN come to the rest of us.

Until and unless you can get your own game sorted out, all your clamoring is just an annoyance.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

Sort out amongst yourselves what is 'true' , and produce a single holy book which you all agree, by consensus, is complete and accurate.

Gee whiz, Sweal, are you trying to start a war?

I completely agree, though. We should gather the top echelon of every major religion, and sequester them together until they sort out just what it is that 'God' said, and what they interpret that it means. It should be open to the public, but they cannot leave until it is sorted out. There might actually be some peace in the world after that. For a while, at least.

[I miss Reagan]

I believe it's called Trolling.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I believe it's called Trolling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now THAT was a troll.

[theloniusfleabag]

IMR,

I believe it's called Trolling.

and Sweal,

Now THAT was a troll.

There is far too much of that going on already without you two respected members wasting your time like that. I think Sweal was aware that my comment

Gee whiz, Sweal, are you trying to start a war?

was tongue-in-cheek, and directed at the world in general. The topic itself might have been 'fishing' a bit, but many of the issues presently being discussed here are re-hashes of current events, or disingenuous, and started by one or more resident trolls.

I see Sweal's thread topic a bit of 'fishing', with perhaps an ostensibly outrageous suggestion on how to address the issue, but it has tremendous possibility in the real world. How do the 'masses', weaned off (or unhappy with) their 'holy opium', get the ruling religious elite to recognize their own hypocrisy? (This would include everyone from Bin Laden to Prince Charles)

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't think I was 'fishing'. Preston Manning, and LornaDueck appear frequently in the media suggeting faith should have a place in our public policy debates. Other posters here echo those sentiments. My post is meant to suggest a minimum reasonabe requirement society should receive before we can sensibly give credence to people making such demands.

Z claims to be right because God says so. But X opposes Z and claims to be right because God says so. How is Y to choose between them? Why should Y even bother with either of them?

[August1991]

Indirectly, Sweal, we have what you have suggested. There are certain basic moral values (religious precepts, if you will) that politicians supposedly use to guide their decisions. At least, these are the moral values put on display during election campaigns. (Politicians face the obvious problem that many voters suspect the politicians are dishonest.)

What are these basic moral values? Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't steal. Protect human life as much as possible. Keep promises made.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Indirectly, Sweal, we have what you have suggested.  There are certain basic moral values (religious precepts, if you will) that politicians supposedly use to guide their decisions.  At least, these are the moral values put on display during election campaigns.  (Politicians face the obvious problem that many voters suspect the politicians are dishonest.)

What are these basic moral values?  Don't lie.  Don't cheat.  Don't steal.  Protect human life as much as possible.  Keep promises made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indirectly, August, you are pointing out that theocrat-types' demands are simply special-pleading.

[August1991]

Indirectly, August, you are pointing out that theocrat-types' demands are simply special-pleading.

Huh? Care to explain?

[The Terrible Sweal]

If we already act on the basis of an established ethical/moral order acheived by a functional consensus as you suggest, then those who demand an ethical/moral order outside that functional consensus are making a special plea.

[kimmy]

Until and unless you can get your own game sorted out, all your clamoring is just an annoyance.

Well, if there is one issue where religious groups complain that their views aren't being respected, it's same-sex marriage, right?

Sweal says faiths should arrive at a consensus before they bother the rest of us with their views. I think all major faiths have arrived at just such a consensus on the issue of marriage. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Sikh, and Hindu all have definitions of marriage that are identical. One man, one woman. Some branches of Islam believe that under special conditions it's permissible for a man to have more than one wife, and some offshoots of Christianity practice polygyny as well, but that's a miniscule fraction of either religion. The overwhelming majority of all major religious groups in our country are in complete agreement on the issue. I believe that the rallies in May in support of retaining the traditional definition of marriage were, in fact, organized by a multi-faith coalition.

Personally, I don't have any attachment to the traditional definition of marriage. And I'm certainly not a religious person. I'm just curious, Sweal, if you would consider that Canada's religious groups have met your condition for participating in discussion of the issue of SSM, and if so, what recognition should their views be given?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Until and unless you can get your own game sorted out, all your clamoring is just an annoyance.

Well, if there is one issue where religious groups complain that their views aren't being respected, it's same-sex marriage, right?

Sweal says faiths should arrive at a consensus before they bother the rest of us with their views. I think all major faiths have arrived at just such a consensus on the issue of marriage.

First, I did not suggest some vague manipulable concept of 'major' faiths. I said ALL faiths. They all claim God is speaking to them, so it shouldn't be that hard to get the message clear.

Second, this is not a matter of slicing off some things (e.g. SSM) to agree on or not. It is the overarching question of whether religious belief can have currency in public policy at all.

Finally, there is substantial support in many faith communities for SSM, including the United and Anglican churches.

You're as game as a pitbull sometimes, kimmy. Don't let that trait lead you into dangerously fallacious positions.

[Chungwawema]

First, I did not suggest some vague manipulable concept of 'major' faiths.  I said ALL faiths.  They all claim God is speaking to them, so it shouldn't be that hard to get the message clear.

Second, this is not a matter of slicing off some things (e.g. SSM) to agree on or not.  It is the overarching question of whether religious belief can have currency in public policy at all.

Finally, there is substantial support in many faith communities for SSM, including the United and Anglican churches.

You're as game as a pitbull sometimes, kimmy.  Don't let that trait lead you into dangerously fallacious positions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure if you read what you wrote again you'll see how silly you're being. I'm not a religious person, and I certainly don't think religion should have a place in public policy, but the argument you're using isn't really very strong.

By sweeping aside the notion of "major" faiths you're being very pigheaded. To suggest ALL faiths must agree is quite unreasonable (as I'm sure you're aware) - you're basing your argument on the correct assumption that what you suggest religious groups do is impossible (not a very fair stance, is it?)

Your previous statement that religious groups should get together and agree is not, by itself, unreasonable. But to them ignore an example of where the vast majority (which is all you're going to get, and all you should really expect) agree on the basis that 1) Not EVERYONE agrees and that 2) not EVERYONE agrees on EVERYTHING is just ridiculous, you can see that, can't you?

Also, I think your idea of "substantial" may be very different from most peoples. The Anglican Church, for example, is one of the most "pro-SSM" groups - yet only a very tiny fraction of Anglicans world wide actually support SSM.

Again, I agree with you in that religion shouldn't play a role in public policy - it's just that being so vehemently anti-religious is, in my book, about the same as being insanely pro-religious (you know the types, the ones who always try to convince you of your misunderstanding in not accepting God into your pathetically empty life).

[August1991]

If we already act on the basis of an established ethical/moral order acheived by a functional consensus as you suggest, then those who demand an ethical/moral order outside that functional consensus are making a special plea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have far from a "functional consensus" and I never suggested such. While we have some basic principles - the ones I noted about lying and cheating - even these are open to interpretation in specific cases. Some politicians argue that it is "right" or "moral" to have same-sex marriage and other politicians argue that it would be "wrong" or "immoral".

I was trying to make the point that religion is simply an aspect of one's "culture" or moral code or "beliefs". Atheists have a "culture" or a moral code or "beliefs" too. IMV, the defining characteristic of an indvidual's beliefs is whether the individual employs the scientific method; that is, whether one is sceptical or not. Western religions all went through a reformation several centuries ago on this basic point.

Sweal, I suspect you are trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. The comparison is entirely superficial.

[Chungwawema]

We have far from a "functional consensus" and I never suggested such.  While we have some basic principles - the ones I noted about lying and cheating - even these are open to interpretation in specific cases.  Some politicians argue that it is "right" or "moral" to have same-sex marriage and other politicians argue that it would be "wrong" or "immoral".

I was trying to make the point that religion is simply an aspect of one's "culture" or moral code or "beliefs".  Atheists have a "culture" or a moral code or "beliefs" too.  IMV, the defining characteristic of an indvidual's beliefs is whether the individual employs the scientific method; that is, whether one is sceptical or not.  Western religions all went through a reformation several centuries ago on this basic point.

Sweal, I suspect you are trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.  The comparison is entirely superficial.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please, don't tell me you're trying to say that Western Religions stress the scientific method in their beliefs. A truly religious person doesn't need (or want!) the scientific method applied to religion (faith, remember?).

I apologize if I missed your point entirely (granted, to me, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, whether they're Chrisitian, Islamic, or otherwise).

[August1991]

Duplicata

[August1991]

Please, don't tell me you're trying to say that Western Religions stress the scientific method in their beliefs. A truly religious person doesn't need (or want!) the scientific method applied to religion (faith, remember?).

1000 years ago, Christians did not use the word "faith" the way most Christians use it now. Many working scientists are Christian. (I don't mean Christians alone, other rligions too. My use of the term "Western" is inexact.)

I apologize if I missed your point entirely (granted, to me, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, whether they're Chrisitian, Islamic, or otherwise).

Perhaps I'm even using the term "fundamentalism" incorrectly.

IMV, most if not all westerners - regardless of their religious beliefs - follow what I call the "scientific method". That is, they are sceptical. If a car breaks down, they will investigate the problem and try to fix it rather than hit the car with a rock believing that will make it go again.

The following example (which attracted attention a year or so ago) is rather typical of the kind of thinking displayed in poor countries:

During September 2003, mass hysteria spread through Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, which was ultimately quelled by police intervention and statements made by the health minister. The panic was caused by rumors of foreigners roaming the city and shaking men's hands, making their penises disappear. The rumors were spread rapidly by text messages on cellular phones, and diverted the public's attention from a breakthrough in negotiations in Kenya between Sudanese Vice President Ali Othman and SPLA leader John Garang.

Some web site

There is a tremendous difference between Western fundamentalism and the sheer ignorance and superstition found in other countries.

[The Terrible Sweal]

To suggest ALL faiths must agree is quite unreasonable (as I'm sure you're aware) - you're basing your argument on the correct assumption that what you suggest religious groups do is impossible (not a very fair stance, is it?)

All religious groups claim to have divine knowledge. THEY themselves deny the significance of popular opinion on questions of truth. Will the baptists agree they should not be at the table even though the catholics are obviously much larger in number.

No, bringing in ALL faiths is the only approach consistent with the logic of the question.

... the vast majority (which is all you're going to get, and all you should really expect) ....

I will point out again, that it is the theocrats who seek to apply considerations other than pure democratic majority decision. Mainstream society is content with the outcomes of majority decisionmaking. If theocrats were content with that, they would not be seeking to have their faith be given extra credence.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, I suspect you are trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.  The comparison is entirely superficial.

I am not trying to 'equate' them. But in terms of the point I'm making don't see a relevant distinction.

[Chungwawema]

August1991,

Obviously Christians (or members of other religions) have the capability to be scientists (be they "Westerners or not) - that was not at all what I was talking about when I said Christianity does not emphasize the scientific method in its beliefs.

I guess what got me a little confused was your definition of "the scientifc method" being the same as scepticism. Granted, I don't see scepticism and smashing a broken car with a rock as being, necessarily, at opposition.

The differences you bring up between the Great West and other countries, all in all, I suppose I agree with (if there are a greater percentage of uneducated, then more people will seem ignorant). The internet can't always get tone and emotion across very well and I guess that I just caught a wif of Western superiority from your post that I probably shouldn't have.

Sweal,

My point was that the demand you were making for theocrats was unreasonable - I see the point you're making, though. Rather, I just don't think that demanding something that is admittedly impossible is a fair - or, an especially 'good' - way to make it. I think we can agree that Theocrats should keep their ideas out of public policy, though

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal,

My point was that the demand you were making for theocrats was unreasonable - I see the point you're making, though. Rather, I just don't think that demanding something that is admittedly impossible is a fair -

While I acknowledge that my criterion is practically impossible for the theocrats to fulfill, I do not agree that makes it unfair, given the claims and demands of the theocrats. Consider: they make competing claims as to 'truth' and specifically dismiss popularity, rationality or any effective means of testing their claims, and yet they want their contentions enacted. With no means avilable of choosing between their faiths, it seems fair to me that they e asked to resolve their differences before we are asked to carry out one version or another.

I think we can agree that Theocrats should keep their ideas out of public policy, though 

I'm glad. I have merely been driving home the 'Why' of that.

[August1991]

August1991,

Obviously Christians (or members of other religions) have the capability to be scientists (be they "Westerners or not) - that was not at all what I was talking about when I said Christianity does not emphasize the scientific method in its beliefs.

I guess what got me a little confused was your definition of "the scientifc method" being the same as scepticism. Granted, I don't see scepticism and smashing a broken car with a rock as being, necessarily, at opposition.

The differences you bring up between the Great West and other countries, all in all, I suppose I agree with (if there are a greater percentage of uneducated, then more people will seem ignorant). The internet can't always get tone and emotion across very well and I guess that I just caught a wif of Western superiority from your post that I probably shouldn't have.

"Scepticism" is also the incorrect word, perhaps. How does one explain what Galileo did and how he faced the Inquisition? I have sometimes thought of the example of using a road map when lost. You hold it the way you think you should (theory) and then you test it against reality (look for road signs).

My main point is that many people in "non-Western" countries don't approach life that way. (True, some people in those countries do approach life as a sceptic, or a map-reader, and too often they have a hard time of it.)

Going back tothe thread's idea, we should not distinguish between religious people and atheists. We should distinguish between people who follow the "scientific method" and those who don't, regardless of their religious beliefs. (Einstein believed in God, and was a devout Jew.)

----

Sweal, you use the term "theocrat". What do you mean exactly? Would you consider Stephen Harper to be a theocrat? IYV, is George W. Bush a theocrat?

Also Sweal, why do passengers in the Middle East and Asia clap when a landing plane touches the runway?

[The Terrible Sweal]

We should distinguish between people who follow the "scientific method" and those who don't, regardless of their religious beliefs.  (Einstein believed in God, and was a devout Jew.)

I readily agree with that.

Maybe the ditinction we are seeking is beteen people whose choices are based in reason and those whose choices are not. (Bearing in mind that that may differ from one choice to the next for many people. In fact probably the focus should be the choices, not the people -- something for me to reflect on.)

Sweal, you use the term "theocrat".  What do you mean exactly?  Would you consider Stephen Harper to be a theocrat?  IYV, is George W. Bush a theocrat?

I'm using it with a whole lot of poetic licence. Practically licentiousness!

If I were to be precise, I would say instead of 'theocrats': persons who advocate the relevance of religious belief in the formulation of pulic policy. By this definition, yes to Bush, a tepid yes to Harper.

Also Sweal, why do passengers in the Middle East and Asia clap when a landing plane touches the runway?

Why are you asking me that?