Dear Joe,

"provided you abide by the common law of the country"..."unless it is relevant to your pretty drastically breaking of the law"

How un-funny: a humanist majority (or a materialist+humanist+environmentalist coalition) could legislate anything they like whatsoever, then they can claim that religious people are breaking the law. Something like this happened in democratic Germany, 1933.

"and provided your religion does not"..."everybody's right TO their religion"..."any right by any religion"

-Seems you missed my earlier point: there is no such thing as "my religion" or "your religion", there is only religion, period, defined as whatever brings one closer to God. You may not believe in God, which is fine (and at times and circumstances, in fact, disbelief in God may even bring you closer to Him than if you were believing), but some of the things you do (such as my earlier examples of loving and respecting your parents, or caring for the environment) bring you closer to God regardless, hence to that extent you are being religious whether your recognize it or not.

I strongly respect and support everyone's right to live anyway they want (without those caveats that you mentioned such as abiding by human/secular law), simply because free-choice is essential for religion. One can be forced to act in certain ways, but nobody can ever be forced to come closer to God: one can only come closer to God by their own free-choice. Making one behave "as God expects" (supposedly) is a terrible mistake because it denies the other person the option to express their goodness and surrender to God of their own free will.

Dear Pelican,

"But nobody is arguing for Christians to be thrown to the lions Yuyutsu"

-I was not referring specifically to Christians, but to religious people, to lovers of God. Christians may or may not be religious, and so are atheists.

"murder and oppression done in the name of God"

-As above: using the name of God is not an indicator of religiosity, neither today nor in history.

(continued...)

(...continued)

"God is not a good tool for ensuring peace, man needs to look to himself for a peace based in reality to that end"

-If you mean what I think you do, then I agree that ideas-about-God, in themselves are not a good tool. The only source of peace AND the only reality is God, not ideas about Him. If man actually knew himself, they would find their divine essence, and with it peace.

Back to the lions: read for yourself how much venom there is here towards religious people or any mention of God. Yes, Christians are tolerated somewhat better, but that is because they are perceived by many atheists more like a peculiar social-club than as an actual spiritual discipline. Once there is serious discussion of God however (as opposed for example to the usual nagging about sexual behaviours to which they are already used), humanists feel threatened as they sense that their ideals may be exposed for the nonsense which they are and fall from grace. When they feel that their doctrine is threatened, they are likely to resort to violence. The problem is that they feel threatened merely by the sight of people who care not for their ideas.

Dear Lea,

Indoctrination is not a religious act. Currently the worst indoctrinators of children are the government (through the [compulsory] school-system) and the media. Religious parents allow their child to explore their spirituality, which in public schools today is likely to be a cause for ridicule and bullying.

If you don't want to receive E-mail notifications, you can click on "Email Alerts".

"Religion is and should be, a private thing"
- I fully agree.

"We are all the same organism"
- We are indeed the same in the deepest sense, except that God is not an organism.

"the evolution of man"
- While individually we all evolve, as a society, I'm afraid, I currently see more devolution around. A society that attempts to deny and suppress God is not going to get far.

Yuyutsu
I don't see any venom towards religious people. Disagreement is not venom.

Many non-believers also get their fair share of criticism often being accused of having no values or morals, which is clearly false. The possession of morals and values is not related to a belief in God.

I certainly don't have any resentment towards religious people, many of my family and friends are religious.

I do see people defending themselves against what they see as intrusions into their personal space and the lack of respect some religous people have for other faiths or for atheists/agnostics. This comes out in discussions, for example, about religion in schools.

It is too easy to dismiss criticism as venom. What is most appalling is the accusations of anti-Catholicism in relation to the handling of child sexual abuse cases within the Catholic Church. It is indefensible to accuse people of being anti-Christian for finally making these cases known. Evil must not be allowed to prosper even within the Church. Church authority should not be used to protect criminals. There is still some concern on recent reports that the Catholic Church is still protecting some of these vile men.

While these concerns are portrayed as venomous or anti-Christian, but nobody, religious or otherwise should ever be afraid of the truth. If that is venom then I don't hold out much hope for honesty in religous discussions of this kind.

Dear Pelican,

The problem is that people tend to identify religion with certain organizations (such as the Catholic Church which you mentioned), then blame religious people for the faults of those organizations.

Belonging to particular organizations is not necessarily an indication of religion and intrusion into other people's personal space and lack of respect are not religious acts.

I did point it clearly here that "religions" is not the plural of "religion". Religion is any method that brings one closer to God. Belonging to religious orders may or may not promote religion, depending on individual circumstances.

Earlier I raised the issue of religious obstacles: "the problem is greed and avarice" and got in reply: "Oh here we go again - more religiosity". At least Peter Hume was honest about it! I propose that the origins of most objections to religion are not the criticism of churches (these are just easy targets, even when some deserve criticism) or the love of truth and logic, but rather the desire to protect one's weaknesses that set us apart from God. Those weaknesses are traditionally depicted as the seven deadly sins. There's an excellent wikipedia entry about those that could make any reader, believer or otherwise, feel uneasy.

Historically, churches did intrude into people's personal space and attempted to enforce righteous behaviour on society at large. That was extremely wrong. I would never advise on taking away people's rights to hold onto their weaknesses for as long as they want (and in any case, even when we do want to lose them, those weaknesses do not go away in one day), such matters should remain private between each one and God, but somehow people feel threatened and as soon as they hear the name "God" they get worried about their rights to retain their sins!

Hi Yuyutsu,

Well, I'm very glad that the bitter struggles in ideology and politics over the hundreds of years leading up to the Enlightenment culminated in a clear separation of church/mosque/temple and State, and the recognition of equal rights for the private practice of religion on the one hand, and the freedom FROM religion on the other. That is a principle that we must fight to uphold, in the face of constant reactionary demands to weaken it and give some crackpot religion or other special rights to exclude some of their own captives from the benefits of a democratic society.

'Left', take note.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"a clear separation of church/mosque/temple and State, and the recognition of equal rights for the private practice of religion on the one hand, and the freedom FROM religion on the other. That is a principle that we must fight to uphold, "

So far so good, I agree.

"in the face of constant reactionary demands to weaken it"

To Whom are you referring and what are those demands? 'Reaction' is always in relation to a prior action, so what action are you referring to? could it possibly been some act of oppression against religious people? Please clarify!

"and give some crackpot religion or other special rights to exclude some of their own captives from the benefits of a democratic society."

How clever... but why bring in democracy? is democracy really a benefit for everyone?

Democracy allows, for example, a humanist majority to impose its beliefs and practices on religious people. What if the majority made it a law, for example, to worship Gaia, then sent anyone that refused to bow to Her to prison or re-education camps?

I am not asking for religious people to be given "special rights", only that our inherent rights not be taken away from us. A democracy is capable of plundering people's natural rights just as any dictatorship. What about the right of religious people (or anyone else for that matter) to be left alone and not be forced to take part in your 'democratic society'?