# Secularism



## Polednice

*N.B. This is to discuss secularism, not theism or atheism.* :tiphat:

I am firm in my particular views on the question of a Deity, and I like a good debate about them. I especially love it on those rare occasions when I make someone think differently, or even change their mind. But so much of the focus on the theist/atheist divide these days is about how the make-up of society is affected, and how public policy is impacted by personal ideology.

In that arena, we are facing political issues, not philosophical ones, so I think it is a huge waste of time for us to be arguing over whether or not a Deity exists when we should instead be extolling the virtues of secularism, regardless of the answer to the Big Question.

Is there anyone here who thinks secularism is a bad thing? I get the sense that the religious are more inclined to think it is a bad thing because there is that temptation for someone who thinks they know the desires of a ruling Lord to want to impose those desires on their peers. It also must seem like a strange prioritising of values for someone who says: "X law should not be implemented because my god is against that" to be told, "in fact, your personal god is not taken into consideration in legislation."

It seems to me to be a mark of civilised society to have freedom to and from religion, and that means keeping scripture firmly out of public policy, and letting everyone have their go at equality and happiness under the law, even if that happens to go against your own personal belief systems.

Why do some people not value this? Are there convincing arguments against secularism? It just seems to me that if people were educated about it and its benefits much more, we would be in a happier, more live-and-let-live society.


----------



## Ukko

I'm not even sure the is such a beastie as 'secularism'. Considering what's been going on in the US Congress in 'modern times', I think 'venalism' is as likely a word.


----------



## Kopachris

Hmm... I keep thinking "secularity," from the word "specularity" in my 3D graphics training. :/ Oh, hey, Wiktionary has an entry for "secularity," and a more specific one (which fits the context of the OP better) for "secularism." Huh.

On topic! I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mr. Pig. I have two reasons for my support of secularism in government:

1. Letting religious beliefs decide policy would be one step short of forcing one's religion on the entire group.
2. God (if you believe in such a deity) doesn't care about our laws. If there _is_ a law He cares enough about, He'll give the politicians their own reasons for passing it. He doesn't need us to do His dirty work for him--He's omnipotent.

However, I don't think religion is ever going to stop interfering with politics. Politicians have come to embrace the Will to Power (to borrow a concept from Nietzsche). They _love_ hierarchy, and those they see as "higher ups" will always influence how they vote to prevent retribution in the form of a loss of power.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Nothing is secular.

:tiphat:


----------



## Lenfer

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Nothing is secular.
> 
> :tiphat:


As a member of the *National Secular Society* I beg to differ. 

I am a non-believer and a secularist but secularism isn't really about what you believe. It's more about agreeing that what you believe shouldn't be a forced onto others who may believe or think differently.

Example there is a charity I am involed with that builds secular schools in *Africa*. There are no fees and children of all beliefs and backgrounds are welcome. The teachers are not restricted by dogma and can give unbiased views on sexual health and rights of women in their society etc.



Polednice said:


> Why do some people not value this? Are there convincing arguments against secularism? It just seems to me that if people were educated about it and its benefits much more, we would be in a happier, more live-and-let-live society.


Some people have a vested interest in religion and the power and riches it gives them. These people fear that people may see that they don't need someone to tell them how to live their lives. After all they've been doing so for thousands of years and the world isn't better off for it.

Nice to see your piggy back *Polednice*.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Nothing is secular.
> 
> :tiphat:


Just to turn your remark into something a little more serious: I can perfectly understand that a religious person sees and appreciates their god in everything. In society, art, music, science, nature - everything is a manifestation of your perceived creator. But don't you think, as most people do, that a fundamental right in a democracy should be to believe or disbelieve whatever you like? If so, does it not therefore follow that someone who does not believe in your god should also not have your god's rules imposed upon them?

[I will anticipate the fear of anarchy by quickly repeating that we are capable of being moral without god. That's not a question to get into here. What matter here are not fundamental morals all sects agree on, but contentious issues - such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. - where there is no consensus and, as such, people ought to be allowed, under the law, to conduct their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs. Take the question another way: if I want to marry a man or have an abortion and don't believe in your god, why should the rules of your god forbid me in a multi-faith democracy?]


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> Just to turn your remark into something a little more serious: I can perfectly understand that a religious person sees and appreciates their god in everything. In society, art, music, science, nature - everything is a manifestation of your perceived creator. But don't you think, as most people do, that a fundamental right in a democracy should be to believe or disbelieve whatever you like? If so, does it not therefore follow that someone who does not believe in your god should also not have your god's rules imposed upon them?
> 
> [I will anticipate the fear of anarchy by quickly repeating that we are capable of being moral without god. That's not a question to get into here. What matter here are not fundamental morals all sects agree on, but contentious issues - such as gay rights, women's rights, etc. - where there is no consensus and, as such, people ought to be allowed, under the law, to conduct their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs. Take the question another way: if I want to marry a man or have an abortion and don't believe in your god, why should the rules of your god forbid me in a multi-faith democracy?]


I don't like the word secular. There is only right and wrong to me. I believe that humans don't have the right to _impose _a religious belief or law on someone else, that would be a Theocracy. But they sure have a right to suggest ideas that are inherently _right_, such as punishment for crime, or that physical abuse and murder is a crime. The conscience is taken for granted way too often. If an idea happens to be religious, and is right at the same time to most people's consciences, then do we have to worry about it? It's for the greater good.

And have you ever thought that not imposing one's religious ideas on another is a religious idea as well?


----------



## Lenfer

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I don't like the word secular. There is only right and wrong to me. I believe that humans don't have the right to _impose _a religious belief or law on someone else, that would be a Theocracy. But they sure have a right to suggest ideas that are inherently _right_, such as punishment for crime, or that physical abuse and murder is a crime. The conscience is taken for granted way too often. If an idea happens to be religious, and is right at the same time to most people's consciences, then do we have to worry about it? It's for the greater good.
> 
> And have you ever thought that not imposing one's religious ideas on another is a religious idea as well?


I think the point is that "*don't kill anyone*" isn't a religious idea. It just happens to be a good idea that religious people adopted that they later contradict further on down the line I might add.

You are right though religion in itself isn't a bad thing I just haven't come across one that doesn't have at least a few "_questionable_" teachings or views of the world.

I don't want to get into a *** for tat thing about religion though. In a secular society you would be free to choose and practice your religion in private. Just like you can today in most western countries I wouldn't go down the *Soviet* path and try to ban it.

I would however try and prevent parents forcing relgion on their children. I would wait until the children were old enough to make up their own minds. Especially when it comes to permanent changes with that child that can't be undone.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I don't like the word secular. There is only right and wrong to me.


Of course, we _all_ have that sense, no matter what belief system we adhere to. But you must accept that _some_ aspects of _your_ sense of right and wrong are not the same as many other people's, so while it is fair for you to "suggest" your ideas of right and wrong, it would be unfair (and theocratic) to aim to have your ideas of right and wrong legislated. No matter how fervently you or I feel about certain issues of morality, if there is a contentious law (such as the ones I mentioned previously), we do not have the right to take the opportunity of happiness away from others by imposing our ideas on legislation.

Another safeguard for this is the idea of harm. Let's entertain the ridiculous example that a community of people arose whereby the members thought that murder was OK. Can we have a live-and-let-live attitude in that situation, with some people thinking murder is good and others thinking it bad? No. The will of the people who think murder is bad _must_ impose their ideas on the law, because to do otherwise would cause _harm_.

Now take gay rights (as an exemplar). There are different communities in the western world that hold opposing views on certain ideas and practices being right and wrong. Can we have a live-and-let-live attitude in that situation, allowing a gay couple to get married? Yes, because it doesn't cause anyone else harm. All such legislation could _ever_ do is allow the gay couple a chance at happiness. Other people absolutely have the right to be as disgusted as they wish, and they can state openly with indignation that it is against the desires of their Lord - but their Lord is not everyone's Lord, and so not everyone must live under that Lord's rules, with the exception of where harm would be caused. Otherwise, as you said, that would be theocracy.

In short: no matter how repugnant you may think certain things are, sometimes you have to bite your lip and allow for legislation that respects different belief systems and desires, because no one sect has a monopoly on right and wrong, and if there is no potential for harm, then what does it have to do with you and the way you live your own life?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Then having religious beliefs must be _right_, because my religious belief is to love other people despite differing beliefs. Love involves not persecuting them or killing them, but being compassionate and caring toward their feelings. The secular World didn't teach me that.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Then having religious beliefs must be _right_, because my religious belief is to love other people despite differing beliefs. Love involves not persecuting them or killing them, but being compassionate and caring toward their feelings. The secular World didn't teach me that.


Does love include allowing them to pursue happiness on their own terms without harming others, even if you morally disapprove?


----------



## Dodecaplex

I dislike organized religion. It makes half-deists/half-agnostics like myself look bad, especially when people think the God we're referring to is the same as the one that's described in their sacred books.


"Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

I think that quote perfectly sums up everything that could be said about this issue.


----------



## Blue Hour

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Then having religious beliefs must be _right_, because my religious belief is to love other people despite differing beliefs. Love involves not persecuting them or killing them, but being compassionate and caring toward their feelings. The secular World didn't teach me that.


Your totally missing the point of what said. For any belief to be religious one must bestow that belief with one's own religiousness. What about all the people who's religious beliefs contradict your own? By your logic they are right but your religious teachings whatever they may be would say the opposite.

You are obviously a religious person who to me at least seems threatened by the very word secular. It's not a competition between the two religious vs. secular or vice versa. The fact you can love or hate someone has nothing to do with religion these are human emotions that existed long before any religion.


----------



## Polednice

Some good points are still being made, but let's steer a little further away from hostile tones because I'd quite like to keep talking to Hui on this issue. :tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

_Surreal_:

"You are obviously a religious person who to me at least seems threatened by the very word secular. It's not a competition between the two religious vs. secular or vice versa. The fact you can love or hate someone has nothing to do with religion these are human emotions that existed long before any religion."

This 'love or hate' injection is a side-step. Whatever the basis for morality/ethics is now, the principles almost certainly were developed in religious frameworks. It is nowadays possible, and debatably desirable, to shed the religious trappings; but to deny origins is to lose the grounding. If you don't appreciate the peril in that, nothing _Huilun_ or I can say will contribute to your understanding.


----------



## Blue Hour

Hilltroll72 said:


> _Surreal_:
> 
> "You are obviously a religious person who to me at least seems threatened by the very word secular. It's not a competition between the two religious vs. secular or vice versa. The fact you can love or hate someone has nothing to do with religion these are human emotions that existed long before any religion."
> 
> This 'love or hate' injection is a side-step. Whatever the basis for morality/ethics is now, the principles almost certainly were developed in religious frameworks. It is nowadays possible, and debatably desirable, to shed the religious trappings; but to deny origins is to lose the grounding. If you don't appreciate the peril in that, nothing _Huilun_ or I can say will contribute to your understanding.


Not necessarily so people were surely able to feel before they developed the ability to fathom religion. You can still be devoutly religious and be a secularist. No matter what I think I'm not saying religious people are wrong to be religious it's just wrong to assume religion came first and without religion people are amoral beings. I do apologise if I came off as accusatory or hostile it was not intended.


----------



## Blue Hour

I think we should all refer back to Polednice's original post and not fall into the Theism vs. Atheism trap.


----------



## Chrythes

I reckon Zappa predicting the movement of US towards Theocratic Fascism, what do you think about that?
When I lived in Israel we used to celebrate Yom Kipur. During that day driving was forbidden by Traditional Jewish laws (the Israeli Law doesn't forbid), apart from the occasional emergency drive the streets were pretty much filled with bicycles (public transportation and some roads are closed as well). I loved that day as a kid. But it had a let down though. Broadcasting was forbidden during Yom Kipur (again - by Traditional Laws) so the TV was mostly blank - at least I had toys. But I remember hearing about unpleasant incidents when people holding a different belief (or due to emergency, as not all ambulances worked that day) were driving their car that day and encountered hassidic Jews that stoned them. During Passover you won't be able to find bread in stores, as it's considered Chametz ("something that is both made from one of five types of grains, and has been combined with water and left to stand raw for longer than eighteen minutes"), so we usually had to go the small Russian's store in town. The most famous one is with pork - as no Israeli store sells food that is not kosher - once again a trip to the Russians. 
Essentially I am not against it, as Israel is considered the country of Jews, and one might say that these traditions are an essential part of being a Jew. My only problem was with the power that the Jewish Fundamentalists had - they would boycott stores or firms working during Sabbath or holidays calling them anti-zionists or stone driving cars during Yom Kipur without consequences. They are a strong section of the government, though I remember that many were unpleasant with them intruding to the life of not so traditional Jews, so during the last few years their effect on Israel has been reduced. 
My second problem is that Israel is not a country of Jews by religious means, but rather by the means of a nation. Being Jewish doesn't necessary oblige you to celebrate holidays or even believe in it. It's the same as being French, German or Russian.
What I'm trying to say is that comparing Israel to the USA by how religion intrudes our life - Israel is, of course, much profound in this case, but it's possible to justify this as the religion has strong roots to the identity of the Jew. USA on the other hand lacks these grounds - especially when it hosts so many different cultures and traditions it clearly seems wrong to define USA with a single religious moral code.


----------



## Ukko

Surreal said:


> Not necessarily so people were surely able to feel before they developed the ability to fathom religion. You can still be devoutly religious and be a secularist. No matter what I think I'm not saying religious people are wrong to be religious it's just wrong to assume religion came first and without religion people are amoral beings. I do apologise if I came off as accusatory or hostile it was not intended.


Jeez, you managed to lose logical focus maybe three times there. However, your heart is pure. Lets move on.


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> Jeez, you managed to lose logical focus maybe three times there. However, your heart is pure. Lets move on.


In his defense he has been up for four days without sleep looking after me...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> Does love include allowing them to pursue happiness on their own terms without harming others, even if you morally disapprove?


Yes, but that doesn't mean you give certain people privileges above others. Isn't it good enough that there aren't laws that will ask certain minorities to be discriminated/executed? Am I going to ask my government to give _me _ or something I favor special privileges that other people wouldn't get?

Also, I would like to challenge your idea of happiness, or whether it is ever possible not to hurt anybody in the pursuit. Your idea of happiness is likely very different from mine, and I guess that's where I would come in and suggest to you another kind of happiness you could acquire not through intimacy, special privilege, or anything like that. And if you were to accept what I said, you might realize certain laws wouldn't make you or anyone else so happy after all. That is as far as I would be able to go without _imposing _an idea. It's the use of a rational argument to persuade, not a gun or abusive words.

I rest my case there.


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...Are there convincing arguments against secularism?...


Not really, not if it is a moderate secularism. Taken too far, I think it led to a bad result in totally banning religion (eg. in Communist countries, eg. USSR or China).

In Australia, we are secular society, but there is a role here for the churches. Eg. we've always had a mixed education system, of both government funded, private and religious schools (most of which receive some government funding, but also raise their own funds).

So what I'm saying it's not two extremes, all secular or all religious dominated society or polity. As someone said above, you can be both religious and secular, well at least as far as how a society or country is run. There is a role for tradition and change as well, there's not only one side of the coin.

Remember the old English towns, at the town centre was (still is in many places, probably), the pub/tavern, the town hall and the church. Maybe now it's not only Anglican church but also other denominations. That's what I'm saying, it's kind of like a mixed system, there is room for diversity...


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean you give certain people privileges above others.


Which is precisely why, for example, _all_ people should be allowed to marry. Not just some people who deem their type of relationship special.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Isn't it good enough that there aren't laws that will ask certain minorities to be discriminated/executed?


Absolutely not! Absolutely, unequivocally, utterly emphatically not! "Look, guys, stop complaining because it's not like we're murdering you."?!?!



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Am I going to ask my government to give _me _ or something I favor special privileges that other people wouldn't get?


I'm not quite sure what you mean by special privileges. The whole drive between various civil rights movements is equality, not privilege. The precise opposite of privilege, in fact. It's not about bestowing special rights upon a minority; it's about levelling the playing field with people who are so privileged that they don't even realise how damn privileged they are.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Also, I would like to challenge your idea of happiness, or whether it is ever possible not to hurt anybody in the pursuit. Your idea of happiness is likely very different from mine, and I guess that's where I would come in and suggest to you another kind of happiness you could acquire not through intimacy, special privilege, or anything like that. And if you were to accept what I said, you might realize certain laws wouldn't make you or anyone else so happy after all. That is as far as I would be able to go without _imposing _an idea. It's the use of a rational argument to persuade, not a gun or abusive words.


I'm not suggesting that a law would make someone happy; I'm suggesting that people ought to have the same legal opportunities, so that they are not refused certain kinds of happinesses if that's what they want.


----------



## starthrower

I believe you'll obtain your equal rights in time, but change comes slowly. It may take even longer here in America where religion still has a great hold on much of the voting population.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I believe you'll obtain your equal rights in time, but change comes slowly. It may take even longer here in America where religion still has a great hold on much of the voting population.


Yes, even with all the injustices, at least the trajectory of recent history provides hope, and I can be smug that I'll be on the 'right side of history' instead of going down as a bigot.


----------



## starthrower

Funny thing is I've talked with Christians who fear homosexuals as evangelists for their lifestyle/sexual preference. Not only is it preposterous and untrue, but they don't seem to have a problem with their own evangelizing of their religious beliefs.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Funny thing is I've talked with Christians who fear homosexuals as evangelists for their lifestyle/sexual preference. Not only is it preposterous and untrue, but they don't seem to have a problem with their own evangelizing of their religious beliefs.


"Evangelists"? Maybe a meaning of the word I am unfamiliar with. The concept of the homosexual as militant liberal and/or atheist? That could be more alarming, that 'those people' have a cause beyond ordinary atheism. It's a notion that is nourished by gay parades...


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Evangelists"? Maybe a meaning of the word I am unfamiliar with. The concept of the homosexual as militant liberal and/or atheist? That could be more alarming, that 'those people' have a cause beyond ordinary atheism. It's a notion that is nourished by gay parades...


The silly notion that many conservatives have is that simply seeing and knowing about homosexuality can cause someone to become gay. So to strive for public acceptance is to strive for converts. Strange how my adolescent years being made to feel ashamed didn't kill the gay then...


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Evangelists"? Maybe a meaning of the word I am unfamiliar with. The concept of the homosexual as militant liberal and/or atheist? That could be more alarming, that 'those people' have a cause beyond ordinary atheism. It's a notion that is nourished by gay parades...


*Evangelists*:

1: A person who seeks to convert others to the Christian faith, esp. by preaching.

2: A layperson engaged in Christian missionary work.


----------



## Blue Hour

Hilltroll72 said:


> The concept of the homosexual as militant liberal and/or atheist? That could be more alarming, that 'those people' have a cause beyond ordinary atheism. It's a notion that is nourished by gay parades...


I know that the word liberal has a very different meaning here in the UK or Europe than the one that is commonly used in the States. I think you mean liberal you mean the opposite of conservative, sort of left-wing vs right-wing? Being gay doesn't mean that you are automatically a liberal/left-winger nor does it make you automatically an atheist. I have friends who are openly gay and believe in God, some of them even tend to be conservative in their views.

I agree with Polednice homosexuality isn't a religion or club that one can be converted to or join, nor is it something you can catch.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> The silly notion that many conservatives have is that simply seeing and knowing about homosexuality can cause someone to become gay. So to strive for public acceptance is to strive for converts. Strange how my adolescent years being made to feel ashamed didn't kill the gay then...


About five minutes after I shut down my computer, the possibility of a closer cognate of evangelism struck me. Is there a notion among the evangelistic Christian sects that gays are 'returning the favor'? That gay organizations (I am tempted to type 'cabals') are on the watch and waiting to swoop upon any of the evangelists' children who have any sense of ambiguity about their sexuality? That wouldn't surprise me; the Bogey Man scares adults as much as children.


----------



## Blue Hour

Hilltroll72 said:


> About five minutes after I shut down my computer, the possibility of a closer cognate of evangelism struck me. Is there a notion among the evangelistic Christian sects that gays are 'returning the favor'? That gay organizations (I am tempted to type 'cabals') are on the watch and waiting to swoop upon any of the evangelists' children who have any sense of ambiguity about their sexuality? That wouldn't surprise me; the Bogey Man scares adults as much as children.


Gay people don't work as a whole to "turn" people gay. The only "gay organizations" I know of offer support to gay people and fight for equality. There is no need to start getting nasty Hilltroll I've read lots of your other posts you don't seem like a nasty guy but you have no evidence to support any of these claims.


----------



## Ukko

Surreal said:


> Gay people don't work as a whole to "turn" people gay. The only "gay organizations" I know of offer support to gay people and fight for equality. There is no need to start getting nasty Hilltroll I've read lots of your other posts you don't seem like a nasty guy but you have no evidence to support any of these claims.


No 'claims' are involved. Maybe you could examine the notion of 'notion', or even attempt to parse a sentence? Oh hell, never mind.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Hilltroll72 said:


> About five minutes after I shut down my computer, the possibility of a closer cognate of evangelism struck me. Is there a notion among the evangelistic Christian sects that gays are 'returning the favor'? That gay organizations (I am tempted to type 'cabals') are on the watch and waiting to swoop upon any of the evangelists' children who have any sense of ambiguity about their sexuality? That wouldn't surprise me; the Bogey Man scares adults as much as children.





Surreal said:


> Gay people don't work as a whole to "turn" people gay. The only "gay organizations" I know of offer support to gay people and fight for equality. There is no need to start getting nasty Hilltroll I've read lots of your other posts you don't seem like a nasty guy but you have no evidence to support any of these claims.


Hmm, I don't read this as Trolly getting nasty, when he talks about the Bogeyman I think he means as perceived by by evangelical Christian sects, not as perceived by Trolly himself.

Let's not get into a personal argument.


----------



## Ukko

mamascarlatti said:


> Hmm, I don't read this as Trolly getting nasty, when he talks about the Bogeyman I think he means as perceived by by evangelical Christian sects, not as perceived by Trolly himself.
> 
> Let's not get into a personal argument.


Not to worry, _mama_. I avoid _senseless_ argument via the Standard Approved Method: _Surreal_ is on my Ignore list now, so any 'nastiness' should subside.

:tiphat:


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Surreal said:


> Gay people don't work as a whole to "turn" people gay. The only "gay organizations" I know of offer support to gay people and fight for equality. There is no need to start getting nasty Hilltroll I've read lots of your other posts you don't seem like a nasty guy but you have no evidence to support any of these claims.


Hilltroll's not a nasty guy. I think if you re-read his post you'll find that's not what he's saying--he's just asking whether this attitude actually exists among evangelical Christians. (Unfortunately, when it comes to many of them, I think that it does).


----------



## Blue Hour

I may have misread Hilltroll's comment and perhaps because I'm new to the forum I may have overreacted. I do hope he removes me from his ignore list there was no malice in what I said. It just seemed to me that it was slipping a rather vitriolic idea in through the back door, under the guise of a hypothetical statement.

I apologise though and hope you will see fit in time to remove me from your ignore list Hilltroll.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Surreal said:


> I may have misread Hilltroll's comment and perhaps because I'm new to the forum I may have overreacted. I do hope he removes me from his ignore list there was no malice in what I said. It just seemed to me that it was slipping a rather vitriolic idea in through the back door, under the guise of a hypothetical statement.
> 
> I apologise though and hope you will see fit in time to remove me from your ignore list Hilltroll eventually.


I think this was just a misunderstanding--but if the two of you continue to argue as to which came first, religion or morality, I might have to put you *both* on my ignore list--or else come up with an argument that religion and morality actually pre-date humanity, based on my observations of the food reward behaviour of tropical catfish.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Is there a notion among the evangelistic Christian sects that gays are 'returning the favor'? That gay organizations (I am tempted to type 'cabals') are on the watch and waiting to swoop upon any of the evangelists' children who have any sense of ambiguity about their sexuality? That wouldn't surprise me; the Bogey Man scares adults as much as children.


I was a little concerned about what you meant with this, but I understand you after having read this page of the thread. It wouldn't surprise me if some evangelicals thought that - it seems to me to be a logical extension of my earlier point that showing gay couples in TV, or teaching about it in school therefore "promotes" it, encouraging children to "choose" to become gay. Maybe the manifestation of this 'fear' is not that there are actually gay people preying on individuals, offering personalised conversion treatments, but rather that the simple acknowledgement that gay people exist is enough for the confused to feel like it's OK to experiment.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> I think this was just a misunderstanding--but if the two of you continue to argue as to which came first, religion or morality, I might have to put you *both* on my ignore list--or else come up with an argument that religion and morality actually pre-date humanity, based on my observations of the food reward behaviour of tropical catfish.


Hah. There is some fairly persuasive evidence that morality/ethics exists in primate communities. Don't know if the scientists have looked for it in catfish though. How about barracuda?


----------



## Sid James

Some more of my thoughts on the secular issue in the OP. Not about gay rights, which I don't know why people are focussing (inordinately?) on that.

In France, no religious symbols can be worn in schools or (I think) government organisations/offices, etc. I understand that there it's a fully government funded school system. No private schools. A case of 5 years ago was controversial. A girl was not allowed to wear the hijab (veil that Muslim women wear) in school. I think she took it to court claiming discrimination but she lost. The court upheld the law of secularism. She cannot wear hijab, as Christians cannot wear the cross, same with people of Jewish faith cannot wear the skull cap in the schools in France.

What do people think of this? I think it's okay if it's applied across the board. Eg. secularism not favouring one religion over others.

Another issue is cults. Here in Australia, we have a group called the Exclusive Brethren. They say they're a religion, others say they're a cult that should be banned. Apparently, they have caused grief for many people who were drawn in by the cult, driven them to depression and suicide. They have split up families. Apparently this group donated to former Prime Minister John Howard, people say that's the reason why he didn't touch them or encourage them to be investigated. In Germany, the Scientologist cult is banned for similar reasons. They are too harmful for the greater society. I think it's fair enough. The idiot TOm Cruise coming on national television saying people shouldn't take psychiatric drugs, even if they need them - due to his Scientology ideology - is just plain wrong. & highly irresponsible.

So these issues are related. More interesting I think than the old gay debate? What's people's opinions on these issues?...


----------



## Lenfer

You are right *Sid* I remember people saying it would mean a kind of civil war in *France*, mass civil unrest on the streets of *Paris*. It didn't happen and I don't think it will not in *France* anyway perhaps in other countries. I could very much see it happening in the *UK* if that kind of law was enforced.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Sid, you've just neatly rescued me from having to prove that religion and morality exist in catfish--but it's almost midnight here, so I'll have to promise to get back to you tomorrow....


----------



## Sid James

Lenfer said:


> You are right *Sid* I remember people saying it would mean a kind of civil war in *France*, mass civil unrest on the streets of *Paris*. It didn't happen and I don't think it will not in *France* anyway perhaps in other countries could see it very much happening in the UK if that kind of law was enforced.


I think there is a rather disenfranchised North African minority in French cities (ghettos?). A lot of Algerians went there after that country split from France, became independent. I think with the coming of more people of Islamic faith to France, they have to maintain the secular focus.

Of course it's not new, I think that after the French Revolution of 1789, this separation of church and state in France has been the norm. The aftermath of the revolution was not good for the churches in France, a lot were desecrated, a lot of clergy and nuns killed. But now, it's not like that, it's just that the French state - in terms of running of government including schools - puts secularism above ANY religion. They don't discriminate, or aim not to, against any religion. They just try to keep it at arms length from the functions of government, but they don't go so far as banning it outright (eg. as was the case in eg. the USSR & other Communist countries - Albania under the dictator Hoxha was officially an atheist state, and that is going too far imo)...


----------



## Lenfer

Sid James said:


> Another issue is cults. Here in Australia, we have a group called the Exclusive Brethren. They say they're a religion, others say they're a cult that should be banned. Apparently, they have caused grief for many people who were drawn in by the cult, driven them to depression and suicide. They have split up families. Apparently this group donated to former Prime Minister John Howard, people say that's the reason why he didn't touch them or encourage them to be investigated. In Germany, the Scientologist cult is banned for similar reasons. They are too harmful for the greater society. I think it's fair enough. The idiot TOm Cruise coming on national television saying people shouldn't take psychiatric drugs, even if they need them - due to his Scientology ideology - is just plain wrong. & highly irresponsible.
> 
> So these issues are related. More interesting I think than the old gay debate? What's people's opinions on these issues?...


I went away and read up on this and they do seem an awful bunch. They are obviously are a cult and I agree should be banned and some of them tried and jailed if convicted.

If I can play devil's advocate for a moment I know *Surreal* would say that other people in the "time of *Christ*" *Jews*, *Romans* and other established sects would have said that that *Jesus* and his 12 followers were a cult. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist that sort of thing.

It's not simple either becuase it's not always "cults" like those you mentioned. *Sufi* muslims and other sects in the middle east that have been around for centuries and the goverments there try to crush them as they are "cults". Becuase they don't follow the religion those in power do.

I suspect though that these *Exclusive Brethren* are more along the lines of the *Branch Davidians* (*Waco siege*). Thank you though it was an interesting read. I'd never heard of this cult before obviously it doesn't get reported much outside of *Australia*, lets hope they don't do something to change that.


----------



## Lenfer

Sid James said:


> I think there is a rather disenfranchised North African minority in French cities (ghettos?). A lot of Algerians went there after that country split from France, became independent. I think with the coming of more people of Islamic faith to France, they have to maintain the secular focus.
> 
> Of course it's not new, I think that after the French Revolution of 1789, this separation of church and state in France has been the norm. The aftermath of the revolution was not good for the churches in France, a lot were desecrated, a lot of clergy and nuns killed. But now, it's not like that, it's just that the French state - in terms of running of government including schools - puts secularism above ANY religion. They don't discriminate, or aim not to, against any religion. They just try to keep it at arms length from the functions of government, but they don't go so far as banning it outright (eg. as was the case in eg. the USSR & other Communist countries - Albania under the dictator Hoxha was officially an atheist state, and that is going too far imo)...


Yes there are a lot of people from the "*French Maghreb*" in *France*. *Algeria* is a strange one becuase in *France* *Algeria* was treated as part of mainland *France* unlike the rest of the *Magherb*. That's why there was such a battle for *Algeria* - I think you'd like the film *The Battle of Algiers* - and even to this day some people would still like *Algeria* back.

There is a huge muslim population in *France* the biggest in *Europe* but the same can be said about our *Jewish* population. This is party due to the *French* "*Empire*" but also due the freedom people had to follow their own religion etc. I think becuase of this your relgeion is less of an issue than it is say *America*. Look at the articles on *Obama* being a muslim and the polls of how many people think he a muslim. I don't think this would happen in *France* although I can't see a muslim president in the near future I didn't think I'd see a Black president of the *United States* in my life time.

I just want to add this little bit as I think it's the kind of thing that would interest you *Sid*. White people of *French* origin that lived in *Algeria* before it's independence are called *Pieds-Noirs*. These are people born in *Africa* but who are *French* and many if not all of them came back to *France* after the war but their not "*Africans*" and should not be confused with *Arab* and non-*Arab* *Africans*. Famous examples of *Pieds-Noirs* include *Albert Camus* and *Yves Saint Laurent*.


----------



## Sid James

*@ L'enfer* -

Re the Algerian situation. I know what you're talking about. I've seen that film, _The Battle of Algiers_. I was meaning Algerians and other North Africans who went to live in France after those countries became independent. I mean the native people of those countries, not those of French ethnicity.

Re the Exclusive Brethren. If they would be like the Branch Davidians, it probably would be easier to deal with them in some way. The "EB," like their name, are very secretive and it's hard to know what's going on in that cult. Well, as you say, there can be a thin or arbitary line as to what is a cult and what is a legit religion. There was a good article in the _Good Weekend _magazine, which is published as part of the_ Sydney Morning Herald _broadsheet here, a year or two back, about the Exclusive Brethren. I only glossed over it, it was quite depressing. Lives ruined, people alienated from family members who excommunicated them from the cult, making people live like zombies and be beholden to the cult only. Pretty horrible stuff, that's why I didn't read it in depth. I don't know what the prime ministers after John Howard have done about this cult. There have been two governments since. I'm not up on what's been done to deal with this cult which seems very negative overall...


----------



## Blue Hour

Sid James said:


> They just try to keep it at arms length from the functions of government, but they don't go so far as banning it outright (eg. as was the case in eg. the USSR & other Communist countries - Albania under the dictator Hoxha was officially an atheist state, and that is going too far imo)...


The communist countries wanted to banned religion as they did not want to share the limelight. They wanted to turn themselves into Gods to be worshiped by the people, the cult of personality under *Stalin* and *Mao* terrible and can be seen today in *North Korea*. The people also went along with this becuase the church or equivalent were close to the established powers and was used to keep people in line. Throughout history most rulers have been "divinely appointed" directly chosen by god himself or so they'd have us believe.

I agree atheist state, Christian state, Islamic state, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu whatever state is too far. Credit where it's due America was the first to say we're just a state and the church is over there. The only thing that I would say is that atheism doesn't tell you what what that person, people or state think. It just means they don't believe in a god or gods unlike the other states their laws are not set out before them. But it's still not right to ban anyone from believing a god or gods of their choice (as long as their not harming others like the cultists).


----------



## Lenfer

Sid James said:


> *@ L'enfer* -
> 
> Re the Algerian situation. I know what you're talking about. I've seen that film, _The Battle of Algiers_. I was meaning Algerians and other North Africans who went to live in France after those countries became independent. I mean the native people of those countries, not those of French ethnicity.
> 
> Re the Exclusive Brethren. If they would be like the Branch Davidians, it probably would be easier to deal with them in some way. The "EB," like their name, are very secretive and it's hard to know what's going on in that cult. Well, as you say, there can be a thin or arbitary line as to what is a cult and what is a legit religion. There was a good article in the _Good Weekend _magazine, which is published as part of the_ Sydney Morning Herald _broadsheet here, a year or two back, about the Exclusive Brethren. I only glossed over it, it was quite depressing. Lives ruined, people alienated from family members who excommunicated them from the cult, making people live like zombies and be beholden to the cult only. Pretty horrible stuff, that's why I didn't read it in depth. I don't know what the prime ministers after John Howard have done about this cult. There have been two governments since. I'm not up on what's been done to deal with this cult which seems very negative overall...


I thought that's what you meant *Sid*. 

While reading your comments about the EB and comments from others I was reminded of the *Sciencetologist*. There was a program about them a few years ago you might find it on *Youtube*, it was from the *BBC's Panorama* program.


----------



## Sid James

Surreal said:


> The communist countries wanted to banned religion as they did not want to share the limelight. They wanted to turn themselves into Gods to be worshiped by the people, the cult of personality under *Stalin* and *Mao* terrible and can be seen today in *North Korea*. The people also went along with this becuase the church or equivalent were close to the established powers and was used to keep people in line. Throughout history most rulers have been "divinely appointed" directly chosen by god himself or so they'd have us believe...


I'd also add that in some former Communist countries, the move towards democracy (or ending Communist rule, at least) was spearheaded by the churches. One of the unionists behind Poland's Solidarity movement, Lech Walensa, said that the fact the the Pope back then - John Paul II - was Polish had pretty big bearing on things happening in Poland. In other words, they were inspired by him & probably other religious leaders on the ground there to stand firm against the dictatorship.

Same in East Germany and Romania, the churches there became a home for dissenters, and eventually the churches took a big role in making a push to end Communism. In Romania, Hungarian Reformed church pastor Laszlo Tokes basically avoided a complete and total bloodbath when Ceacescu's loyalists moved into Timosoara to quell the uprising against the Communist regime. Of course there was bloodshed, but there could have been more had it not been for Tokes' guidance and humanity.

So you're right, the Communists and other regimes banned religion basically for reasons you suggest, but I'd add that religion basically showed up the oppressor's lack of conscience.

Of course there were Communist and other countries where it wasn't religion that took a major, or any, role in ending the oppression. Eg. the Samizdat underground movement was largely political as far as I know, not religious, based on restoring the values of civil society in these countries. The recently departed Vaclav Havel was one of those more secular anti-Communists.



> ...I agree atheist state, Christian state, Islamic state, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu whatever state is too far...But it's still not right to ban anyone from believing a god or gods of their choice (as long as their not harming others like the cultists).


That's basically where I stand on this as well...


----------



## Lenfer

You'd get on famously with *Surreal* IRL *Sid* it's like you lifted that comment from his brain. Too much Communists vs. anti-Communists for me this early in the morning.

Bonne Nuit :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

^^Well, European Cold War politics can be engrossing for a history nerd! For all the wrong reasons though, those countries went through - still are - a lot of horrible times. 

But the principle of what I said remains. Eg. the church was, during the post war years of dictatorships in Latin America, a big force behind social justice and eventually bringing democracy to those countries. It doesn't matter if it's Communist oppressors as in East Europe or rightist military juntas as in Latin America. The so-called "liberation theology" in these countries is still controversial in some quarters who believe religion & politics should not mix, eg. social justice by the church just limited to charitable causes, not to pushing for political freedom, democracy, etc. Archbishop Romero of El Salvador paid for it with his life.

In some ways, it's not about either the secular or religious but both, both come together to make up a healthy functioning state imo, but no ideology should dominate to the detriment of others...


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> Some more of my thoughts on the secular issue in the OP. Not about gay rights, which I don't know why people are focussing (inordinately?) on that.


I just chose that as an example because secularism is hard to talk about without concrete examples (hence why you moved onto examples of your own). 

On cults: what's the difference between a religion and a cult? Number of followers. And I'm not being facetious here. All of the horrible things that you mentioned the cult has caused have happened (and worse happens) in conservative religious communities, but our reactions are slightly different (or the events simply get less coverage) because a religion has a disproportionate amount of legitimacy.

On the issue of secularism in any space affiliated to government, I think it is absolutely right to ban religious symbols, but more especially prayer (I think the holdings of Christian prayer at the openings of some U.S. governmental meetings is outrageous).


----------



## mamascarlatti

Polednice said:


> I just chose that as an example because secularism is hard to talk about without concrete examples (hence why you moved onto examples of your own).
> 
> On cults: what's the difference between a religion and a cult? Number of followers. And I'm not being facetious here. All of the horrible things that you mentioned the cult has caused have happened (and worse happens) in conservative religious communities, but our reactions are slightly different (or the events simply get less coverage) because a religion has a disproportionate amount of legitimacy.


I tend to disagree with this, I think the difference is that a cult deliberately and systematically tries to cut the member off from all but non-cult members, in all aspects of life, and however close. Religions might have some tendencies to exclusivity, but not all and not to this extent.


----------



## Polednice

mamascarlatti said:


> I tend to disagree with this, I think the difference is that a cult deliberately and systematically tries to cut the member off from all but non-cult members, in all aspects of life, and however close. Religions might have some tendencies to exclusivity, but not all and not to this extent.


Yes, I think you're right. If I went about making my point less dramatically, it would have been fairer for me to point out that I think the level of outrage we assign to the effects of cults (especially when our tact is to ridicule their 'silly' beliefs) is disproportionate when all of those outrages also occur in the major religions. Although you cannot say that _all_ religion deliberately and systematically tries to do these things, this is only because the label 'religion' is too broad. If you narrow your focus slightly to certain denominations of Christianity or Islam, you see very clearly that there are large insular communities of people who attempt to cut off their families from outside influences and, in some cases shame, cast out, or even murder them for mingling in the wrong ways.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Yes, I think you're right. If I went about making my point less dramatically, it would have been fairer for me to point out that I think the level of outrage we assign to the effects of cults (especially when our tact is to ridicule their 'silly' beliefs) is disproportionate when all of those outrages also occur in the major religions. Although you cannot say that _all_ religion deliberately and systematically tries to do these things, this is only because the label 'religion' is too broad. If you narrow your focus slightly to certain denominations of Christianity or Islam, you see very clearly that there are large insular communities of people who attempt to cut off their families from outside influences and, in some cases shame, cast out, or even murder them for mingling in the wrong ways.


You are still painting with a broad and bloody brush. Religion ain't that simple. Religious communities aren't that monochrome.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are still painting with a broad and bloody brush. Religion ain't that simple. Religious communities aren't that monochrome.


Are cults?


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Are cults?


Damned if I know. Are/were the Moonies meanies, or just... something else. What's the bloodletting propensity among some of the Eastern cults?


----------



## science

I would offer that we could try to distinguish between an ordinary religion and a cult by the degree of commitment required. If 2-5 hours a week (or even less) are all that is required, that's just a religion. If several hours a day are required - from the laypeople, not only from the professionals - then that is a cult. 

This is one of those sliding scales too; there will not be a perfectly clear line between an ordinary religion and a cult. 

Finally, I would say that cults may not be as bad as we make them out to be. It isn't always a matter of some clever predator types carrying off middle-class girls from the suburbs. There is some reason to believe that cults are good for some people, that they need that kind of intense personal environment. 

Anyway, it's not like the standard life of the modern world is all that great for any of us: wake at some time after not enough sleep, commute through painful traffic, work in artificial light pretending to like your coworkers who pretend to like you, commute back through that traffic, more work or if you're lucky the entertainment of choice for a few hours, and then sleep. Get the bills nearly paid, try to keep up with the status of your peer group. Probably no wonder that some people are willing to trade all this for some community that knows how to do love bombing.


----------



## Sid James

I think the basic thing is the safety of the whole society, with cults I mean.

In Germany, they obviously decided that the so-called Church of Scientology was not good for their society. I'm not up on what reason but reading between the lines of what I know about that group, I think that I can understand why they banned it. & they wouldn't take banning lightly, with their history of the Third Reich and East German regime of oppression, censorship, etc. They would have weighed the pros and cons of banning this group and they came out with the decision to ban it.

The Scientologists operate here in Australia, but as far as I know, they have not caused harm. If someone wants to part with large sums of cash and believe in a church set up by a science fiction writer, well good for them. I'm more worried about cults like the Exclusive Brethren which have been documented to destroy families, destroy lives, brainwash people and make them live like zombies, etc. 

I draw the line at choice. It's your choice to go to church or take part in a group centred on some belief system. But if you get locked in and you cannot get out, it becomes a type of prison, then that's not acceptable. Or if they control you in a way some hard core Scientologists do, eg. they are against psychiatric medications, even if people need them, then that's simply not on. A few years ago, a woman here committed suicide, as she was being brainwashed by a cult to do this, eg. not properly treat her psychological disorder. She ended up jumping out of a window, it was highly publicised. I don't remember which cult it was, but they have been thoroughly investigated, and legal action was taken against them by the Director of Public Prosecutions. If this kind of harm is caused, the government has to get involved in religious organisations, separation of church and state is not rock solid in these cases...


----------



## Polednice

I wonder what people who think it's perfectly fine to legislate Judeo-Christian morality think of comparisons to Sharia law? No doubt the comparison "doesn't work" because their morality is better.


----------



## Sid James

^^The issue is, from where I stand, is that radical Christianity stopped after the inquisition died down. That kind of "burn anyone who doesn't agree with us" eg. Giordano Bruno, or put them under house imprisonment - eg. Gallileo - is way over with the Chrisitan churches. The Vatican in recent years/decades has apologised for the way they treated Gallileo and they also apologised for what they did during the crusades in places like Greece. Eg. apologised for the murder and bloodshed those hundreds of years ago. So basically, on the Christian side, they're coming to terms with the wrongs they've done in their history.

I can't really comment on Judaism, I don't know a great deal about that. But in terms of radical Islam, they are basically still where the Christians were in the times of the inquisition hundreds of years ago. The Chrisitan churches absorbed things like the Enlightenment, they have moved on. AS I said, Christianity has done things like social justice, eg. taken part in ending dictatorial regimes. I don't see this democratic push from Islam, really. The Middle East seems to be a web of quite nepotist dicatorships, which are now finally under challenge. People have had enough, basically. Afghanistan was the worst, it was in the dark ages. You can't argue that in Judeo-CHristian countries today, most if not all of them I mean, they do public executions and have laws that say men have to wear a beard or women have to wear the burqua. That was Afghanistan before the Taliban was displaced by the allied invasion or liberation, whatever you want to call it.

Of course, the Taliban was the worst example. Even Iran has more of a civil society and some aspects of basic governance compared to AFghanistan. Saudi Arabia is quite hard line with sharia law, eg. the usual things we know - cutting off hands if you steal, etc. That's an extreme example, but there's more (eg. women can't drive cars there, I think).

Surely you're not comparing these basically dark ages things to countries with Judeo-Christian - or at least I have addressed the Christian - heritage? We have gotten over the extremes, the Islamic world is still struggling with them. I think they'll have to sort it out eventually to move forward, etc...


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> Surely you're not comparing these basically dark ages things to countries with Judeo-Christian - or at least I have addressed the Christian - heritage? We have gotten over the extremes, the Islamic world is still struggling with them. I think they'll have to sort it out eventually to move forward, etc...


No, I wasn't comparing the individual barbaric acts, I was comparing the underlying principles. Underlying the application of Sharia law is the fundamental assumption that it is right and proper to base state legislation on religious texts, and even though Christianity might look a little nicer than Islam, I think that ought to be an assumption Christian politicians question.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sid James said:


> I think the basic thing is the safety of the whole society, with cults I mean.
> 
> In Germany, they obviously decided that the so-called Church of Scientology was not good for their society. I'm not up on what reason but reading between the lines of what I know about that group, I think that I can understand why they banned it. & they wouldn't take banning lightly, with their history of the Third Reich and East German regime of oppression, censorship, etc. They would have weighed the pros and cons of banning this group and they came out with the decision to ban it....


Further consternation with Tom Cruise's ValKyrie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valkyrie_(film)


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> No, I wasn't comparing the individual barbaric acts, I was comparing the underlying principles. Underlying the application of Sharia law is the fundamental assumption that it is right and proper to base state legislation on religious texts, and even though Christianity might look a little nicer than Islam, I think that ought to be an assumption Christian politicians question.


Well, speaking for Australia, we have things here that in most Islamic countries would be a dream -

- "No fault" divorce
- No capital punishment
- No punishment for marital infidelity, or other personal moral issues, etc.
- Practising of homosexuality is legal
- Rights of minorities enshrined in legislation - eg. various anti-discrimination acts
- Right to assembly and right to peaceful protest
- Abolition of slavery (it did happen here in the past - with Kanaka slaves bought in from Pacific Islands - that was stopped about 100 years ago, slavery did exist here but not to the extent of the USA & some of the emirates, the oil gulf countries, basically have a from of slavery, or feudalism at best, of course not called that).
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of the press

That's just what I can think of now. Some of these are implicit in our Constitution. Other rights are in legislation only, not in the Constitution. Some of it is a matter of custom/convention rather than hard law.

Of course there's limits to some of these freedoms here. Eg. the discussion about cults in regard to religious freedom, how the goverment cannot allow harmful cults to operate.

I think it's a big mistake of some people in the West to cry foul about Judeo-Christian values, when in at least some cases, those values were behind in modernising the society. Eg. the abolition of slavery was spearheaded by the famous Dr. Livingstone. & of course, Abe Lincoln in the USA took up the cause (some say for largely economic reasons, but in any case slavery was abolished in the USA during his presidency).

That's what I'm saying. To be balanced, Christianity has come far from the era of burnings at the stake and the Crusades. It has added positive things to development of human rights in Western democracies. Not that these are perfect, but really, if you had to choose to live in either the Middle East, or in the UK where you are, or in Australia where I am, surely the choice would be a no-brainer based on the above things (and more). & yes, these things are about underlying philosophies, etc. There are enlightened Muslims in those countries. Many intellectuals who don't agree with the nepotism and using religion to oppress people. But they don't have power, basically. Well, that may well be changing, we have to stay optimistic in that regard...


----------



## science

Ok, but I don't think that's balanced. You can't compare a theocracy to a former theocracy that is now secular and then say which religion has better values. Christianity and Islam have essentially the same values, but capitalism and science took root in one society earlier than the other, and the diversity of that society made them impossible to crush, while their success made them necessary to copy. 

Had the Muslims conquered Europe in the 8th century, who knows what would have happened, but a very reasonable guess is that the scientific revolution and Enlightenment would have happened at least as soon as they did against Christian opposition.


----------



## Sid James

^^I'm not comparing them literally to say which is better or has "better values," what I'm doing is saying that the Middle East has yet to go through the changes that Western or "Judeo-Christian" countries have already gone through.

In the Middle Ages, what was referred to as the "dark ages," the Islamic region was more advanced than Europe was at that time. Eg. in terms of scientific knowledge. & other things, look at the legacy of the Moors in Spain, which was not all bad as far as I know. They were the enlightened side of Islam, they let Christianity and Judaism exist side by side with Islam there, their aim was not to convert the Spanish to it by force. The Alhambra Palace is testament to what they did, for example. The Spanish Inquisition was much more backward and damaging than the Moors ever where, as far as I know. But Christianity kind of went through that extremism and came out through the other side knowing that it was not getting them anywhere. & I think the Enlightenment finally hit the last nail in the coffin of Christian extremism.

I'm not sure exactly why Europe took a forward step in terms of advancement of society, and the Middle East region went backward from about that point. But the current rumblings of change in the region give me hope that the dark ages there have finally passed, and they can kind of move on into the modern age.

I'd add that Christianity did do some damage here in Australia. Orphans under care of Christian homes were abused. So were they in government funded homes, many of them. There was the abuse of Aborigines in the missions run by various denominations. The "stolen generations." The churches are now dealing with this as well here.

But they did give positive contribution to development of human rights. Of course, religious conservatives tried to block changes, but ultimately they weren't successful. They used the hard right's Cold War bogeyman, or straw-man, of the Red Peril (or Yellow Peril, but they wouldn't admit their racism). If people are interested in that, read up on the late Bob Santamaria and his antics, bringing "the best" (more like worst) of religious conservative dogma from Europe right here to Australia & trying to prevent the changes from happening (but luckily, he failed)...


----------



## Polednice

I'll come back to this properly later, but I would conjecture that despite the coincidentally religious figures behind some advances in freedoms, our advances in that respect would have happened regardless of religious ideas. As is so abundantly clear throughout the 20th century and the start of the 21st, Christian theology is always doing its best to catch up with the moral zeitgeist - it never leads us to greater tolerance and acceptance.

EDIT: I think this is underlined by the time periods we are talking of. When we consider the progress we made before the 20th century, _of course_ any figures pushing for greater freedoms would happen to be religious because faith was almost universal. It is also not surprising that they may have held a religious occupation, because that links them with an interest in the human condition. Similarly, to be fair, I wouldn't therefore state that any progress made in the 20th and 21st centuries is down to a lack of belief. The characteristic inherent in those that push us further towards tolerance and acceptance is simply liberalism. A few centuries ago, liberalism was tied to theism simply because theism was everywhere. Now, liberalism is more correlated with a lack of faith. It's not the faith that matters, and so the progress made cannot be claimed by religion, especially given, as I said, religion's repeated limping behind current social mores in the past 100 years.


----------



## dmg

The thing is, the United States was founded on secularism. The only way to form a nation where its inhabitants are able to freely practice religion is to make it secular. While fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity existed early on, it was not all that popular until after the Civil War. In fact, most Christians accepted Darwin's ideas when they were first published. It's only after the spread of the fundamentalist movement did Christians begin to reject it.

Now, you have a large religious base in the United States, many who practice a fundamentalist form of Christianity. They're somewhat revisionists on the founding of the nation, by saying that the nation was founded to be Christian - when in fact it is well documented that this was not so. Not even close. Thomas Jefferson was very outspoken against large organized religions, and guess what? Some states are trying to marginalize his contributions by altering school textbooks! They've even gone a step further to make 'secular' into a bad word of sorts, which can be very damaging to a free society. As fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, if they were go travel back to the founding of the nation, they'd find themselves in the minority, and would quickly understand the importance of a secular nation. What if their brand of religion became the minority, and they'd set the standard that the majority gets to dictate the 'national religion'?


----------



## Sid James

dmg said:


> ...In fact, most Christians accepted Darwin's ideas when they were first published. It's only after the spread of the fundamentalist movement did Christians begin to reject it...


I think that "debate" is dead and buried here. I know heaps of Christians who accept Evolution. Around my neck of the woods, this is a non-issue. As I said, Christianity is now modernised, or has a strong modern branch (or modern branches). What the fundamentalists are about seems to me a subversion of the basic tenets of Christianity, or more importantly, common sense, the natural law, etc.



> ...Now, you have a large religious base in the United States, many who practice a fundamentalist form of Christianity. They're somewhat revisionists on the founding of the nation, by saying that the nation was founded to be Christian - when in fact it is well documented that this was not so. Not even close...


Well, I think both our nations, USA & Australia, were founded along many lines, religious, but also humanism was already around then, and also secularism. In America, the pilgrims of Plymouth Rock or places like that, they were religious. They were part of the foundation of that country. So too here, the churches have always played a role. There was a strong Jewish community here in the 19th century. Since 1945, people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths have made Australia their home. I'm okay with that as long as we can coexist under the banner of what is "Australia."

As for twisting of history, "the left" does that as well. Classic example of that is in (former) Communist countries. Trotsky was written out of the history books for decades in the USSR. That kind of stuff. Whatever dogma you're talking about, religious or not, they will try to re-write history as they see it. Despite what the left used to say about the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, it was more likely not a "glorious people's revolution" or tripe like that, but it was basically a political coup, backed up with a fair deal of military force. Just like Pinochet in Chile, for example, or Rabuka in Fiji. Nothing glorious about it. A number of Aussie historians have written about this, I remember reading this 15 years ago, I forget the historian's name. I don't have time to look it up.

But history can and will be twisted by bias and ideology, left or right, religious or atheist. Any historian will cut throught that cr*p, admit his bias and try to make well reasoned conclusions based on careful analysis of facts. Inevitably, many of the best historians are little known to the general public, it's often the more exteme/biased guys on either side that garner the limelight from the media, etc. That's sad. If a former politician here does a book launch, any book launch but esp. written by a historian, you can bet your bottom dollar that nine times out of ten, that book is not worth the paper it's written on. It will be seen as biased by the broader historical community, who don't have their books launched by pollies and are most likely not millionares themselves to "hire" a mouthpiece like that...


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> ...It's not the faith that matters, and so the progress made cannot be claimed by religion, especially given, as I said, religion's repeated limping behind current social mores in the past 100 years.


I would put the other side. Religious leaders where informed by what was going on around them. Eg. the American philosopher Thoreau had little success in his lifetime, in the 19th century. But in the 20th century, guys who read them like Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King took his ideas about eg. non violent protest and put them into action. Religion was integral to that, but so was humanism and just the good of the greater society. One can add to that the Burmese campaigner, Aung San Suu Kyi. Even Archbishop Tutu in Africa has said that there were many people in the Anglican church, white ministers and reverends, who did not agree with the Apartheid dictatorship & sometimes shielded dissidents who were against the dictatorship (some black, some white, it didn't matter). Tutu said that he recognised that religion can be colour-blind when he was a kid, a white reverend of the church near his town tipped his hat to his (Tutu's) black mother. That moment made him see that the "real" church was on the side of human rights of South Africa. It was one of the many little things that led to the broader society joining together to end Aparthied and institutionalised racism there.

Similar thing here, many christian leaders are for change and human rights. Bob Santamaria, who I mentioned earlier, was like the Senator McCarthy of Australia. He fostered division and used religion as an excuse to do it. That was a perversion of religion. I knew people who hated what Santamaria did, they were literally glad when he died in the '90's. Religion, if used to shore up ultra conservatism, is not "real" religion, it is just plain old oppression...


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> I would put the other side. Religious leaders where informed by what was going on around them. Eg. the American philosopher Thoreau had little success in his lifetime, in the 19th century. But in the 20th century, guys who read them like Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King took his ideas about eg. non violent protest and put them into action. Religion was integral to that, but so was humanism and just the good of the greater society. One can add to that the Burmese campaigner, Aung San Suu Kyi. Even Archbishop Tutu in Africa has said that there were many people in the Anglican church, white ministers and reverends, who did not agree with the Apartheid dictatorship & sometimes shielded dissidents who were against the dictatorship (some black, some white, it didn't matter). Tutu said that he recognised that religion can be colour-blind when he was a kid, a white reverend of the church near his town tipped his hat to his (Tutu's) black mother. That moment made him see that the "real" church was on the side of human rights of South Africa. It was one of the many little things that led to the broader society joining together to end Aparthied and institutionalised racism there.
> 
> Similar thing here, many christian leaders are for change and human rights. Bob Santamaria, who I mentioned earlier, was like the Senator McCarthy of Australia. He fostered division and used religion as an excuse to do it. That was a perversion of religion. I knew people who hated what Santamaria did, they were literally glad when he died in the '90's. Religion, if used to shore up ultra conservatism, is not "real" religion, it is just plain old oppression...


My contention is that who's to say what the "real church" is and what the "real church" stands for? No bishop and no denomination has a true authority on how to interpret scripture, which is why my point was that it's not the _religion_ that informs these religious people of their progressive values; it's their inherently liberal personality to begin with, which is simply framed in their religious outlook. Put it this way: there may be religious leaders advocating liberal issues, but it's certainly not the Bible pushing them in that direction; they're just reading the Bible to be compatible with their friendlier outlook.


----------



## Sid James

^^I suppose we are getting into the area of how one interprets religion, it's essence, the writings, the history. Eg. theology which I'm not qualified in. But from my readings of history, yes, the religious community is diverse. What some call "liberalism" or humanism or natural law, natural justice, many philosophies, have impacted on Christian churches through time. I think it's hard to kind of know what comes first with people like Ghandi or Dr. Martin Luther KIng, is it just their humanity, a kind of compassion or empathy regardless of any religion, or whether it's just religion. I suspect it's a mix of both.

& another biggie I forgot to add, a Christian who was a humanist and died for it, as a martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Another one was FAther Maximilian Kolbe, who has been canonised as a saint. But that's not important, it's that a large part of the churches - both Catholic and Protestant - were totally against Facsist oppression and the Nazis. They put their lives on the line, these were not just theologians in ivory towers. It's their legacy as humans that inspires me and can inspire anyone, regardless of any factors, incl. religion...


----------



## science

We might be focusing on the wrong thing if we're looking at the effects of any worldview at all on progress. It might not matter what you believe, but how you believe it. If you're certain that the powerful are right, and that it's your duty to silence opposition and to defend their exploitation of the weak, then you're part of the problem, no matter what else you believe. 

But if you're willing to consider new ideas, to let people who disagree with you state their case fairly and without intimidation or threat, and to oppose the exploitation of the weak, then you're part of the solution, no matter what else you believe.


----------



## Alberich

Secular humanism, insofar as it assumes a morality not grounded in a theist worldview, is as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. There is no strictly rational basis for saying that "People should be allowed to do x", since if you base your affirmation of such a statement on something like "There is no consensus that x is wrong", you have made a subjective and irrational judgment. Affirmation of any kind of morality can only be based on subjective valuation of its utilitarian value. For example, as an atheist, I would be overjoyed if all of Western Europe converted to militant Islam, since it might put their fertility rate at least to replacement level, instead of the massive population decline it is now facing.


----------



## Polednice

Alberich said:


> Secular humanism, insofar as it assumes a morality not grounded in a theist worldview, is as much a religion as Christianity or Islam.


You are banished from the discussion. Offence: tired old nonsense.


----------



## science

Alberich said:


> Secular humanism, insofar as it assumes a morality not grounded in a theist worldview, is as much a religion as Christianity or Islam. There is no strictly rational basis for saying that "People should be allowed to do x", since if you base your affirmation of such a statement on something like "There is no consensus that x is wrong", you have made a subjective and irrational judgment. Affirmation of any kind of morality can only be based on subjective valuation of its utilitarian value. For example, as an atheist, I would be overjoyed if all of Western Europe converted to militant Islam, since it might put their fertility rate at least to replacement level, instead of the massive population decline it is now facing.


The first sentence appears to assume that "a morality not grounded in a theist worldview" must be a religion. That's not obvious to me.

The second sentence appears to assume that a subjective judgment must be irrational. That's not obvious to me.

The third sentence appears to assume that all non-theistic ethical philosophies are utilitarian. That's not obvious to me; the fourth sentence seems to be an appeal to ridicule against utilitarianism, but even if I've understood your intent there, and even if non-theistic ethics had to be utilitarian, I suspect a utilitarian would have a plausible response.

Really, though, we should probably discuss these things in the religion group.


----------



## Alberich

Polednice said:


> You are banished from the discussion. Offence: tired old nonsense.


If that was a banishable offense, this topic never would have started. You think the discussion about separation of church and state isn't old as hell?


----------



## Alberich

science said:


> The first sentence appears to assume that "a morality not grounded in a theist worldview" must be a religion. That's not obvious to me.
> 
> The second sentence appears to assume that a subjective judgment must be irrational. That's not obvious to me.
> 
> The third sentence appears to assume that all non-theistic ethical philosophies are utilitarian. That's not obvious to me; the fourth sentence seems to be an appeal to ridicule against utilitarianism, but even if I've understood your intent there, and even if non-theistic ethics had to be utilitarian, I suspect a utilitarian would have a plausible response.
> 
> Really, though, we should probably discuss these things in the religion group.


A belief in a true morality having a basis in something other than god assumes that there is some source superior to the matter that comprises the universe, and there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'superior' to or above the material universe that could provide a basis for morality. If there is only matter in the universe, then there is no 'true' morality; no right or wrong when all that happens is simply the movement and transformation of matter and energy. 
I should clarify; by irrational, I don't necessarily mean wrong. I mean that a subjective value is not a rational value, since all matter is equal and there isn't an objective, purely rational reason to hold certain arrangements of matter and energy above another. 
Furthermore, in my third sentence, the intended meaning was that if you hold a morality, the only basis for your holding it that is proven to exist is because you like the physical effects it has; for example, I like the traditional Abrahamic religious morality and its laws because I like the way it makes people act.


----------



## Polednice

Alberich said:


> If that was a banishable offense, this topic never would have started. You think the discussion about separation of church and state isn't old as hell?


It's old, but it's not nonsensical.


----------



## Ukko

Alberich said:


> A belief in a true morality having a basis in something other than god assumes that there is some source superior to the matter that comprises the universe, and there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'superior' to or above the material universe that could provide a basis for morality. If there is only matter in the universe, then there is no 'true' morality; no right or wrong when all that happens is simply the movement and transformation of matter and energy.
> I should clarify; by irrational, I don't necessarily mean wrong. I mean that a subjective value is not a rational value, since all matter is equal and there isn't an objective, purely rational reason to hold certain arrangements of matter and energy above another.
> Furthermore, in my third sentence, the intended meaning was that if you hold a morality, the only basis for your holding it that is proven to exist is because you like the physical effects it has; for example, I like the traditional Abrahamic religious morality and its laws because I like the way it makes people act.


You appear to be an adherent of a religion masquerading as a philosophy.


----------



## Alberich

What about what I've written is religious?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Alberich said:


> A belief in a true morality having a basis in something other than god assumes that there is some source superior to the matter that comprises the universe, and there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'superior' to or above the material universe that could provide a basis for morality. If there is only matter in the universe, then there is no 'true' morality; no right or wrong when all that happens is simply the movement and transformation of matter and energy


Actually, I think that's very well said. I don't believe in either God or absolute morality, and I don't really think physics is going to help us out. Morality (or the more neutral term I would prefer, altruism) is, in my opinion, a biological, historical, cultural and linguistic thing which is constantly evolving in the human species, namely us naked apes.

That's the only way of thinking about the subject that, to my mind, seems to be at least halfway capable of standing up on rational feet and walking.


----------



## Polednice

Fsharpmajor said:


> Actually, I think that's very well said. I don't believe in either God or absolute morality, and I don't really think physics is going to help us out. Morality (or the more neutral term I would prefer, altruism) is, in my opinion, a biological, historical, cultural and linguistic thing which is constantly evolving in the human species, namely us naked apes.
> 
> That's the only way of thinking about the subject that, to my mind, seems to be at least halfway capable of standing up on rational feet and walking.


You're absolutely right, and Alberich is right in the quote you provided, but what some people get _wrong_ is thinking that not having an absolute morality is a bad thing. No, it isn't.

EDIT: After all, even if there were a deity, no mortal can _absolutely truly_ know its intentions. Scripture provides a pathway, but it is open to interpretation. So whether you are religious or not, you are held accountable to mankind's authority, not a deity's - it's just that mankind's religious authority has a facade of divine authority (the evidence for this is clear given that religious morality has changed over the centuries. There is nothing absolute about that).


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> Actually, I think that's very well said. I don't believe in either God or absolute morality, and I don't really think physics is going to help us out. Morality (or the more neutral term I would prefer, altruism) is, in my opinion, a biological, historical, cultural and linguistic thing which is constantly evolving in the human species, namely us naked apes.
> 
> That's the only way of thinking about the subject that, to my mind, seems to be at least halfway capable of standing up on rational feet and walking.


I _think_ that that _way of thinking_ sucks walleyed woodpecker eggs.

Absolute faith in "rational thinking" is commendable among computers - they have no choice. We human critturs can do better.


----------



## science

Another thing is, what if a deity revealed itself to us and revealed its moral imperatives, and we found them repulsive? 

Like, imagine that the deity declared, "What?! No slavery? Equal rights for women? Democracy? Adultery without a humiliating and agonizing public execution? Absolutely not!" 

Then what would we do?

We all know that we would be morally obliged to disobey that deity. How do we know that? Because our morality actually comes from inside us rather than from a deity or any other external superior entity. 

Alternatively, imagine that somehow all of humanity became certain that no deity exists. Would any of us actually decide that gave us the right to kill our neighbor and take his car? I don't believe anyone would, except the people who do that even when they believe in a forbidding deity. 

In fact, the whole (supposed) power of the "morality exists hence God exists" argument is the repulsion we feel at the idea of living without moral restraint. 

So here's the thing. I really know nothing about any deity, and if nature is any guide it appears that the deity does not highly value anything I can recognize as morality. So who knows what's going on up there? But we humans are moral creatures, and that is the source of the power of morality. It comes from inside us. 

And then, wonder why some people are so eager to believe in a deity that shares their values and wants to impose them on us. I think that renders the whole subject transparent. "A deity must exist because otherwise my values would have no authority over you." It is not at all coincidental that belief in this kind of deity has been enforced by exploitative states for at least two and a half millennia. It is no wonder to me that powerful leaders, even in a democracy, are often eager to persuade us to believe in such a deity. But democracies make us mostly free to follow our own consciences, and unfortunately they also require us to do so. The moral world of a democracy becomes one with not only black and white but many shades of gray, often uncertain and sometimes confusing. So it is also no wonder to me that many people wish to flee from their duty as citizens of a democracy, surrendering themselves to whatever offer of certainty is rendered most plausible by their own personal experiences. The source of tyranny, like the source of morality, is in "we the people."


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> We might be focusing on the wrong thing if we're looking at the effects of any worldview at all on progress. It might not matter what you believe, but how you believe it. If you're certain that the powerful are right, and that it's your duty to silence opposition and to defend their exploitation of the weak, then you're part of the problem, no matter what else you believe.
> 
> But if you're willing to consider new ideas, to let people who disagree with you state their case fairly and without intimidation or threat, and to oppose the exploitation of the weak, then you're part of the solution, no matter what else you believe.


This rings true to me, the rest of the discussion after that (philosophising) goes over my head.

This was what I was trying to say in convoluted way, maybe. Religious values and things like humanism and natural justice feed off eachother and are linked. The people inspired by religion who I said earlier also had strong humanist values. Eg. Desmond Tutu, Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Dietrick Boenhoeffer, and so on. Trends were taken on board by all parts of society. Of course, some people twisted these. Some argue that Communism (esp. Stalinist type) and Fascism were ugly distortions of the Enlightenment. They had this idea of progress, both technological and human, but in practice it was just an agenda to cause division and hatred. Both Hitler and Stalin were atheists. So was Che Guevara. But so was Dr. Fred Hollows, a New Zealand opthamologist who came here to Australia and set up eye clinics to save the sight of Aboriginal Australians. He went on to set up a charity and go global, doing the same in less developed countries. He was a staunch Communist and atheist, but he was one I respect. He virtually went broke doing what he did, but his foundation continues to do his good work (he died about 20 years ago).

Hollows is admired across the board here, and across the world in the medical profession. But other atheists/Communists who did bad, like sentencing to death their political opponents, or even having people killed arbitarily, they will never be respected, it's the opposite with them.

It all boils down to humanity and human values for me, regardless of one's religion or lack of it. I hate it when people put together in a heap all religious people and all atheists or secularists or whatever. It's not common sense. You cannot generalise about people...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> I _think_ that that _way of thinking_ sucks walleyed woodpecker eggs.
> 
> Absolute faith in "rational thinking" is commendable among computers - they have no choice. We human critturs can do better.


I think you'll see that nothing I said was particularly deterministic, though, nor against the idea of human progress, nor against the idea of free will.

It's kinda like that good Terry Bisson story, called _Bears Discover Fire_.


----------



## dmg

Sid James said:


> I think that "debate" is dead and buried here. I know heaps of Christians who accept Evolution. Around my neck of the woods, this is a non-issue. As I said, Christianity is now modernised, or has a strong modern branch (or modern branches). What the fundamentalists are about seems to me a subversion of the basic tenets of Christianity, or more importantly, common sense, the natural law, etc.


My statement doesn't disagree with yours at all... what I'm talking about is Christianity here in the United States (which does not reflect the common views of Christianity in the rest of the world). The fundamentalist, anti-science attitudes here in my country run rampant, though they were not the majority at my country's formation. It's something that developed within the last 120 years or so, beginning at the end of the American Civil War.


----------



## Ukko

dmg said:


> My statement doesn't disagree with yours at all... what I'm talking about is Christianity here in the United States (which does not reflect the common views of Christianity in the rest of the world). The fundamentalist, anti-science attitudes here in my country run rampant, though they were not the majority at my country's formation. It's something that developed within the last 120 years or so, beginning at the end of the American Civil War.


You appear to be equating Christianity with fundamentalism. That does not agree with my experience.


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> You appear to be equating Christianity with fundamentalism. That does not agree with my experience.


What I interpreted dmg's post as saying was that Christian fundamentalism is stronger in the USA than elsewhere. Therefore, it's not typical of the wider Christian cohort, which I would say also is largely in the middle (eg. not fundamentalist).

Most Christians around my neck of the woods don't involve themselves in philosophical issues, they are more interested in practical things, how Christianity can enrich their lives, not use it to control how others live their lives, etc. As I said, it's a vocal minority of fundamentalists or extremists (call them, label them what you will) who often garner the limelight, eg. from the media, who love to do stereotypes and give false dichotomies regarding aspects of many things, from faith, to science, to culture, history, politics, the list is endless. Normal people, whether Christian or not, work together for the common good of the wider society. That's how I see it here, anyway...


----------



## dmg

Sid James said:


> What I interpreted dmg's post as saying was that Christian fundamentalism is stronger in the USA than elsewhere. Therefore, it's not typical of the wider Christian cohort, which I would say also is largely in the middle (eg. not fundamentalist).
> 
> Most Christians around my neck of the woods don't involve themselves in philosophical issues, they are more interested in practical things, how Christianity can enrich their lives, not use it to control how others live their lives, etc. As I said, it's a vocal minority of fundamentalists or extremists (call them, label them what you will) who often garner the limelight, eg. from the media, who love to do stereotypes and give false dichotomies regarding aspects of many things, from faith, to science, to culture, history, politics, the list is endless. Normal people, whether Christian or not, work together for the common good of the wider society. That's how I see it here, anyway...


This is correct. I was specifically differentiating between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christianity - not equating the two. The fundamentalist movement specifically is one that began to take off in the United States in the late 1800s. Not Christianity as a whole - Christianity itself was always the majority religion in the United States.


----------



## Sid James

^^& to add, there are Christian fundamentalist "pockets" here in Australia. One prominent one is the Hills District of North-West Sydney. There were reports in the media that the local council there wanted to ban or prevent brothels from operating within it's borders. I understand that brothels can operate legally in most other council areas, if they have a license to do that (there are also some illegal brothels, but that's another story). I don't know what happened but my impression was that the Hills District, with their hard line conservative Christian stance on these types of issues, is largely out of step with the wider Australian population - both Christians and non-Christians...


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> ^^& to add, there are Christian fundamentalist "pockets" here in Australia. One prominent one is the Hills District of North-West Sydney. There were reports in the media that the local council there wanted to ban or prevent brothels from operating within it's borders. I understand that brothels can operate legally in most other council areas, if they have a license to do that (there are also some illegal brothels, but that's another story). I don't know what happened but my impression was that the Hills District, with their hard line conservative Christian stance on these types of issues, is largely out of step with the wider Australian population - both Christians and non-Christians...




That is a remarkable post, _Sid_. It took me awhile to clear my breathing passage after I read it. Anyway, you sheltered types don't really understand what fundamentalism is until you get 'down and dirty' with the precepts of the Aryan Nation. _That's_ _fundamental_.

:angel:


----------



## Sid James

^^I don't understand, but anyway.

HERE is an article from Sydney Morning Herald in October 2010. The Hills District council failed to ban brothels. The local government laws here require that every council have a zone within it for licensed brothels. The reasoning behind it is to prevent illegal brothels from operating, thus potentially jeapordising sex workers. & also for reasons of public health, etc. & let's face it, the government wants to collect taxes from any business, incl. "adult services."

I don't know why we can't talk about these issues. Same as with any other relevant issues. Fundamentalist views were in this case going against the grain of wider values, eg. common sense. The laws state that brothels should preferably not be near places that are not appropriate for that, eg. schools. It's not open slather allowing anything anybody wants without controls in place. But controls does not mean full control (denial?) and outright banning, as the fundamentalists love...


----------



## Lenfer

*Stephen Hawking*: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9672000/9672327.stm

*Stephen* 1 - "God" 0


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> ^^I don't understand, but anyway.
> 
> HERE is an article from Sydney Morning Herald in October 2010. The Hills District council failed to ban brothels. The local government laws here require that every council have a zone within it for licensed brothels. The reasoning behind it is to prevent illegal brothels from operating, thus potentially jeapordising sex workers. & also for reasons of public health, etc. & let's face it, the government wants to collect taxes from any business, incl. "adult services."
> [...]


I suppose, if a person's only way to make a living is to voluntarily get screwed, that's better than being on welfare... ?

Chances are pretty good that government gets off cheaper. Not at all sure that's good enough.


----------



## science

Probably the main difference in whether prostitution is legal or not is how safe it is at the low end. If I were the king of a country, it would be legal, carefully regulated to protect the girls, with a heavy and very steeply progressive tax.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> I suppose, if a person's only way to make a living is to voluntarily get screwed, that's better than being on welfare... ?


Depends how communistic the welfare is.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Hilltroll72 said:


> I suppose, if a person's only way to make a living is to voluntarily get screwed, that's better than being on welfare... ?


In this country one of the main reasons women turn to prostitution is drug addiction. They need enough money to buy heroin. And the pimps are often also the suppliers of the heroin, so they don't exactly encourage their girls to go into rehab.

I'm okay with legalizing prostitution--these women do not belong in prison--but I think it's safe to say that very few of them would choose it as a vocation if they had a better option. They're caught in a vicious circle.


----------



## Ukko

Fsharpmajor said:


> In this country one of the main reasons women turn to prostitution is drug addiction. They need enough money to buy heroin. And the pimps are often also the suppliers of the heroin, so they don't exactly encourage their girls to go into rehab.
> 
> I'm okay with legalizing prostitution--these women do not belong in prison--but I think it's safe to say that very few of them would choose it as a vocation if they had a better option. They're caught in a vicious circle.


Even without the addiction, seems like there ought to be a better option. Mind you, I'm not talking about courtesans here, nor top-o-the-line call girls working on their own.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> Probably the main difference in whether prostitution is legal or not is how safe it is at the low end. If I were the king of a country, it would be legal, carefully regulated to protect the girls, with a heavy and very steeply progressive tax.


This basically makes sense, the gist of it, to me. Yes, safety is the rationale behind the laws here, which see brothels just like any other business. Eg. to be regulated, not banned for various irrelevant agendas (eg. morality or whatever).

I understand what others are talking about above. Eg. that it's not the ideal job. Or not seen as that. But if the sex worker is not forced into doing it, it should be (and is in this country) legal. The problem here is with illegal brothels that get vulnerable low educated women from countries like China to come here on the promise of work. They are tricked into this and when they get here they are forced into the sex industry. The governments here on all levels have been working to stamp this out.

A funny thing is that you guys don't blame high profile doctors and lawyers who are heroin and cocain addicts for working to fuel their addiction. Acquaintances of mine who've revolved around high circles bump into these people all the time. On the surface, they are "normal" people. But in reality, they are addicted to hard drugs. So we can moralise with sex workers but not with high profile guys in suits.

The other thing is Communist countries banned prostitution. It still went on underground, of course. Funny how the "Communist morality" was not much different from the old Victorian morality. Chairman Mao of China literally took the prostitutes out of the brothels when he came to power. He put the girls to work in factories, working on machinery like lathes and drills, etc. He was thinking that he was doing a good thing. But the girls, a lot of them, would rather have been doing their old job. So that proves, it's better to deal with the issues openly rather than blanket ban them which is the easy option. & the old authoritarian one, basically based on moral or ethical codes that are basically outdated...


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> [...]
> The other thing is Communist countries banned prostitution. It still went on underground, of course. Funny how the "Communist morality" was not much different from the old Victorian morality. Chairman Mao of China literally took the prostitutes out of the brothels when he came to power. He put the girls to work in factories, working on machinery like lathes and drills, etc. He was thinking that he was doing a good thing. But the girls, a lot of them, would rather have been doing their old job. So that proves, it's better to deal with the issues openly rather than blanket ban them which is the easy option. & the old authoritarian one, basically based on moral or ethical codes that are basically outdated...


I can believe that operating a lathe was not fun for a woman whose only skill was laying on her back. And in Mao's factories her wages were probably poorer, and the work physically harder (those lathes weren't CNC machines). Metal chips and 'threads' sailing at her, the smell of hot coolant and crap from the surface of the work... yeah, life in the crib would have been better.

It's all relative, eh _Sid_?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Sid James said:


> A funny thing is that you guys don't blame high profile doctors and lawyers who are heroin and cocain addicts for working to fuel their addiction. Acquaintances of mine who've revolved around high circles bump into these people all the time. On the surface, they are "normal" people. But in reality, they are addicted to hard drugs. So we can moralise with sex workers but not with high profile guys in suits


I'm not moralising about sex workers, nor saying that women (or men) who work in this field should be ostracised or persecuted in any way. But read this:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders*

The two questions are, what could we have done, here in the UK, to prevent it, and now that it's happened, what can we do to stop it ever happening again?


----------



## Sid James

^^Well that was a shocking story.

It mentioned that in the UK they were thinking of doing what we are here, eg. having legal brothels. The issue of street prostitution is same here. Soliciting sex services on the streets here is totally banned. I'm not sure if it's tightly policed, but that's the law. If you want to do sex work here, you have to do it in a licensed brothel. It's the solution that we have, whether ideal or not.

With the issue of drugs, it links in to the wider debates around harm minimisation versus legalisation. Let's not get into that can of worms. We have a "safe injecting room" in this country in the red light district of Sydney, Kings Cross. Addicts can go in there and inject, there is supervision by nurses and doctors there. It was controversial when set up but it's saved so many lives since - eg. if people pass out they get immediate help, not as in some back alleyway or something - that it's been maintained by governments over the years.

It's a matter of pragmatism and common sense winning out over academic and theoretical debates which go around in circles while lives are lost.

Here is their mission statement, of the Sydney safe injecting room -

"The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) recognises that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition and that it is complex and difficult to treat. MSIC does not support or promote drug use; it simply acknowledges that it is a fact of life."

HERE is their website for further info...


----------



## Sid James

Hilltroll72 said:


> ...
> It's all relative, eh _Sid_?


Yep, what you say is true, I'd add it's relative to the actual context of what is happening. & what politicians do to deal with these complex issues. Obviously, with Mao's "one size fits all" ideology, he could have done better, offered more options, than putting the "working girls" of China into factories. Offering them a chance to get educated or re-training them after asking them what they want to do, that would've been more ideal. But it can be argued that totalitarian states run along the lines of factory assembly lines, so what Mao did was entirely apt in that context. Again, it was ideology over practical & long lasting solutions...


----------



## science

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm not moralising about sex workers, nor saying that women (or men) who work in this field should be ostracised or persecuted in any way. But read this:
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders*
> 
> The two questions are, what could we have done, here in the UK, to prevent it, and now that it's happened, what can we do to stop it ever happening again?


I'd be surprised if it's possible to totally stop things like that from happening. As long as there are bad guys, they're going to do bad things. But of course to reduce the likelihood...

One thing I'm sure of: If we're going to have prostitution be illegal, the purchasing should be illegal, and the selling legal. Attack it from the demand side. In the first place, no matter how much you hate prostitution, you have to admit that the prostitutes need protection, they need the ability to go to the police without fear - or else they will be cruelly exploited. To me, that is the key thing. I really don't care whether it is legal or not, but any system that makes the prostitutes afraid of the police leads to things much worse than prostitution.

Anyway, one of my minor interests is organized crime, and I'm fairly sure that making prostitution is basically just handing criminals a source of revenue. Even if you think prostitution is a terrible thing, it's better for the people (i.e. the state) to profit from it than for organized crime to do so. The people can reinvest that money in public schools, health clinics, and so on; the mafia reinvests it smuggling drugs and weapons, and of course, trafficked young women.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> ...
> Anyway, one of my minor interests is organized crime, and I'm fairly sure that making prostitution is basically just handing criminals a source of revenue....


That's EXACTLY what was the case in this country before the sex industry was partially regulated (eg. the licensing of brothels). Just read up on one of our organised crime extraordinaires, the late Abe Saffron...


----------

