An interesting issue of religious freedom

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I'm surprised at that. Do you know what Scientologists believe? Do you know that they are a cult that try to alienate their members from their families? That they are a proscribed organisation in Germany, classed as 'organised crime', and that they are on their 'last warning' in France?

 

Read that lot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

 

Then read that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

 

Then read about Lisa McPherson

 

then tell me that you think they should be allowed to meet anywhere? Would you like any of your kin getting in tow with that lot?

 

I'm not mad on PETA or the commies either, but they don't destroy peoples lives and destroy families.

 

I think there would be a large number of people who would disagree with the highlighted section of the quote.

 

However I digress parents do influence the way a child grows up especially in the early days, but as a child develops it well question certain facets of the early learning curve. Fortunately for me my parents were very open minded and whilst we attended Sunday school and became members of our local choir it was never force fed. In retrospect I figure the Sunday church sessions allowed my parents a bit of quiet petting time.

 

I remain very open minded neither school managed to convince me either way, whilst I admire our most learned scientist one can't help wondering what if anything encases the universe, so one can't help thinking along the lines of "Worlds without ends".

 

Religion like most things has it's positives and it's negatives and if it imparts a good moral standing to a young child onto which the child can develop an all round respect for life I can see little harm in it.

[Ken L]

You're not happy. But does that mean you think there should be a law precluding it?

 

Actually, I've never heard of prayer meetings with kids present - they'd be bored stiff! It's hard enough to get the under 40s to attend. Far more likely to have an influence are lively Kids Klubs geared to the right age group where the faith in question is presented in a 'cool' way. You may not be happy that such clubs are presenting a faith you don't believe in, but I'd be surprised if you wanted to make them illegal.

 

I've heard of so-called 'all age' home groups, but in practice what tends to happen is that the children are in for a bit at the start which is geared to them, and then they go into the next room to play or watch a dvd.

 

Actually it's hard for any group to indoctrinate their kids unless they are the dominant group in the society. So I could understand that criticism being made against some parents in parts of USA, if the children go to christian schools. The most likely group to deserve that criticism in UK are secularist fundamentalists, since that is the dominant faith in practice in government in UK and in many schools - despite assemblies, RE lessons, George Brown being a child of the manse etc.

 

Not a law against it just a requirement that any homes where church/prayer meetings are taking place be registered (along with Kids Klubs, Sunday Scools, madrassas etc), subject to inspection and required to have every adult present CRB checked.

 

Of course, parents are free to tell their children whatever lies they like but there's a world of difference between making legitimate parenting choices and force feeding kids with dogma.

 

I don't think you need to be a domiant group in society to indoctrinate kids at all. All you need is a small group of zelots who will shove their kids off to a madrassa or it's christian or jewish equivelant as soon as they come out of school and a government that insists that the BS that these kids are force fed isn't contradicted within the schools that they attend - all in the name of community cohesion.

 

I'm fascinated by what you mean by "secularist fundamentalists". Are they by any chance people who are unable to find a school that doesn't teach religion as fact and are prepared to say that this makes them unhappy ?

[Newt]

"All you need is a small group of zelots who will shove their kids off to a madrassa or it's christian or jewish equivelant as soon as they come out of school and a government that insists that the BS that these kids are force fed isn't contradicted within the schools that they attend"

 

 

- the written equivalent of fishing with an auto battery or hand grenade while looking like you are using maggots; emotionally explosive phrases simulating reasoned argument.

[The Flying Tench]

Not a law against it just a requirement that any homes where church/prayer meetings are taking place be registered (along with Kids Klubs, Sunday Scools, madrassas etc), subject to inspection and required to have every adult present CRB checked.

 

In churches, and I am sure for other religions, the same requirements for CRB checks, registration etc apply for meetings in homes as in church buildings.

[The Flying Tench]

I'm fascinated by what you mean by "secularist fundamentalists". Are they by any chance people who are unable to find a school that doesn't teach religion as fact and are prepared to say that this makes them unhappy ?

 

The word 'fundamentalist' is really just a word for anyone who you think is more definite, rigid, perhaps intolerant and closed, than you think they ought to be.

 

As for 'secularist fundamentalist', I would apply that to the kind of atheist or agnostic who thinks it's self apparent that they are right, and that all religions are obviously on a par with believing in the tooth fairy. Also those who, in a society such as ours where most people believe in God, try to ban civic carol services and stop employees wearing crosses, turbans etc

[Ken Davison South Wales]

There is nothing wrong with any adult person having strong religious beliefs providing those beliefs are not forced upon any other individual regardless of age, or used to excite extreme opposition to other beliefs.

 

I do not think laws banning people from holding meetings within private dwellings will prevent extreme elements of any disposition from trying to force their views onto children or indeed any other age bracket. Simply by their very nature they will be devious and determined to find ways around those types of laws to inflict their beliefs on others. The fact is those laws will drive these situations even deeper underground and make them more difficult to locate.

[Ken L]

"All you need is a small group of zelots who will shove their kids off to a madrassa or it's christian or jewish equivelant as soon as they come out of school and a government that insists that the BS that these kids are force fed isn't contradicted within the schools that they attend"

 

 

- the written equivalent of fishing with an auto battery or hand grenade while looking like you are using maggots; emotionally explosive phrases simulating reasoned argument.

 

Of course. The toungue is rather firmly in the cheek but that doesn't alter the general point - or make it any less valid.

 

As for 'secularist fundamentalist', I would apply that to the kind of atheist or agnostic who thinks it's self apparent that they are right, and that all religions are obviously on a par with believing in the tooth fairy. Also those who, in a society such as ours where most people believe in God, try to ban civic carol services and stop employees wearing crosses, turbans etc

 

I come close but the devil is in the detail.

It's not self apparent that I'm right but the onus of proof is with those making the claim.

If your starting position is one of never having read a religious text and never having heard of this god character, all religions are on a par with the tooth fairy because there's not a shred of evidence that their main protagonist has any more substance than a fairy tale.

Do most people believe in god ? They do in the US but I doubt it's the case in Europe.

Why would anyone wish to ban a carol service ? Carols are nice enough but I reserve the right to get upset about such things if they are paid for (directly or indirectly) with public money.

No problem with employees wearing crosses or turbans so long as they're not in a public facing environment where a demonstration of religious affiliation could or does cast doubts on the proffesionalism with which they do their job.

 

Does that make me a funamentalist ?

Can I start an empirisist jihad ? - mind you, we don't do suicide bombings (and even my Irish ancestors worked this one out) because that's just dumb.

[The Flying Tench]

Do most people believe in god ? They do in the US but I doubt it's the case in Europe.

 

In the 2001 Census for UK 72% identified themselves as christian, 5% other religions, 15% no religion and 8% didn't answer.

 

As to the Tooth Fairy, I'm puzzling to try and understand your argument. Of course those who haven't even heard of God or read a religious text have limited reason to believe - though there are cases of such people who have believed through dreams etc. But you then seem to skip and start talking about those who have heard, and for such people still you say there is 'not a shred of evidence'. (So I'm not quite clear how the bit about those who haven't heard of God fits into the argument, since you are saying there is zero evidence for both groups).

 

Now most of the christians I know have become christians because of the strength of the evidence as they see it. And there are plenty of professors of science, for example, who would come in this category, also. I can understand you saying that in your view the balance of the evidence is against there being a God, but to say there is no evidence is extraordinary. It sounds as if you are saying that the balance of the evidence is 100 to zero! Presumably you would have to say that someone like Anthony Flew, strongly atheistic philosopher for most of his life who became a theist in later life purely because of the evidence (as he sees it) has gone bonkers?

 

Actually I am familiar with this kind of thing because I know christians also who claim they have 100% certainty that they are right. The fact that large numbers of thoughtful people have weighed up the evidence differently is irrelevant to them. In general parlance I would describe them as 'fundamentalist', though that is a different use of the term from how it is used in theology. So I guess it would be fair to describe you also as a fundamentalist, Ken, albeit a secular one. From what you have said I can't imagine you will object to such a label in the least!

[Ken L]

Now most of the christians I know have become christians because of the strength of the evidence

Indulge me.

What (if any) evidence is there for the existance of a god - or for that matter any supernatural being ?

 

As for the census, unfortunatly it didn't differentiate between people who see themselves as culturally christian and those who actually believe in the basic tennents of trinitarian christianity - and the 2011 census will be no better.

I've seen figures quoted that over 70% of europeans don't belive in a personal god".

 

You're right though, I don't have any real issue about being dubbed a "fandamentalist athiest" but I'm a bit confused about how you can be a fundamentalist agnostic !

"I don't have enough evidence to make up my mind and Im going to be bolshy about it" just doesn't seem to work......

 

Edit: Not quite conclusive and three years old but still telling:

The 2007 British Social Attitudes Survey, which covers England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland, indicated that 20.87% were part of the Church of England, 10.25% non-denominational Christian, 9.01% Roman Catholic, 2.81% Presbyterian/Church of Scotland, 1.88% Methodist, 0.88% Baptist, other Protestant 1.29, URC/Congregational 0.32%, 0.08% Free Presbyterian, Brethren 0.05% and 0.37% other Christian. Among other religions, 3.30% were Muslim, 1.37% Hindu, 0.43% Jewish, 0.37% Sikh and others 0.35%. A large proportion had no religion at 45.67%. 0.50% did not answer or N/A

Edited March 24, 2010 by Ken L

[Ken Davison South Wales]

This business of believing and not believing gets honed to a very sharp point when one is looking into the black abyss of nothing. I have known several non-believers who changed their tune on the slippery slope, one of which was very vocal about any form of religion until he unfortunately found he had the big "C".

 

Say what you like it definitely helps to calm the inner man when the pressures on