AJ Philips,

I read your three posts very carefully. I noticed especially the places where you are personal, to use a mild word:

“than you've ever been willing to admit”, “You err so many times”, “(you) fail to realise”, “many of your sentences being in the form of”, “your staring of this thread was a result of”, “if you are suggesting that”, “it is uncouth to suggest such things”, “ to demonstrate the problems in your line of reasoning”, etc.

Please do not expect me to answer in the same tone, neither to react in any rational way to your objections because, among other things (if you can excuse me sarcasm), I “err so many times”, and have “problems in my line of reasoning”. Remember, we have been through a similar marathon of arguments and counter-arguments once already, and it lead to nowhere.

You certainly will not get me to accuse you of faulty reasoning, unfair intentions or express other personal insinuations. Nevertheless, I appreciate that you seem to want me to confirm you in your world-view. However, as I wrote before, you have to find those confirmations for yourself. The choice of a personal world-view depends on many things, and it cannot be arrived at purely through reasoning, faulty or not, although it obviously should not go against reason. Beecause, as Pascal put it, "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".

David (of the AFoA),

The Pope either speaks to the world at large, in which case he cannot command, only recommend, or to his fellow Catholics, even then there is a difference whether he “commands” or rather instructs Catholic bishops, the clergy or speaks to the laity. As for the latter, there is still something called freedom of conscience. Yes, there are many who see his instructions as moral norms that not only inform but form, create, personal consciences and decision to act or not to act. You would have to quote him explicitly, if you want me to be more concrete.

There is no doubt a problem with Catholics, including bishops and clergy, who apply rigidly the unfortunate encyclical of Paul VI about contraception, especially in African situations that you obviously had in mind. As far as this Pope’s expressed views about condoms are concerned, see my http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11303#191173 .

Otherwise, I can just refer to my post to david f concerning different opinions about this Pope even among educated atheists. You can check e.g. Google to see that there is a great variety of opinions about the views expressed by the Pope on many topics; positive as well as negative, including those that coincide with yours, and in-between. And it is good so.

Let me repeat that this is a different can of worms that I opened unintentionally. The thread was suppoosed to be about belief or unbelief in God and afterlife and whether both "world-view orientations" could coexist (in a sense to be determined) in an open secular society .

George,

Threads have a way of diverging. A greater picture can develop with an expanded view of any topic.

It is not just Africa and condoms where the Pope stands condemned of misuse of power via doctrinal influence. But, I see it would be to no avail to nudge you off the fence about it. I say that light-heartedly by the way…kinda. I’m willing to let you sit there on this one.

Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about. Don’t tell me to Google it thanks. I know and know of most of the “educated atheists” and none have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope. I’m really looking forward to reading the views of these “educated atheists” of which you speak and what they have to say.

The closest I have seen this was with Ayaan Hirsi Ali who suggested that Muslims would be better off converting to Christianity. Not for the god aspect but because Christianity has already been tamed by civilised society and is not as threatening as can be Islam to others.

David

Dear George,

Getting back to your original question of proselytising. As a former resident of a communist country you have been forced to listen to the official Marxist line and have been expected to adhere to it. I get the idea that you didn’t enjoy the experience. When the experience is forced on a victim of a beast of pray of any persuasion it can be an ugly thing. It is especially ugly when backed by the power of the state.

It is going on in Australia at this time in the public schools. Religious instruction as currently carried on in Queensland public schools is dominated by ill-trained volunteers belonging to various fundamentalist Christian sects. Sometimes children are included ignoring parental wishes. Children not participating may be made to feel excluded, bullied, given rubbish duties or left alone in libraries. The Queensland Education Act of 1875 specified that education be free, compulsory and secular. In 1910 the state government removed the word, secular, from the act following a referendum inspired by the Bible Society of Qld.

At the Separation of Church and State Conference of 13-14 October 2012 a high school teacher from a large urban state school in south-east Queensland claimed that creationism is being taught as science to 11th and 12th year biology students. The speaker read from one of the prescribed texts, Case: the Case against Evolution, the Case for Creation, (1984):

"The controversy over creation and evolution then is really a battle between two religions. You must choose the chance, randomness, no-God evolutionary philosophy which provides the basis for the religion of humanism in which ‘anything goes’: homosexuality, nudity, abortion, incest, etc. cannot be evil, for evil does not exist. Or you must choose the absolutes of the Creator God who made everything and therefore has the authority to choose what is right or wrong for His creation. The choice, therefore, is between the religion of Christianity with the basis of its Gospel in a literal creation, or the religion of humanism with its basis of evolution."

continued

continued

Teachers who object to teaching the fundamentalist babble may not be teaching biology next semester.

Ron Williams, a Toowoomba parent, found the ubiquitous chaplaincy in the schools his children went to disturbing so he bravely went to court contending that commonwealth funding for the chaplaincy program was a violation of Australian law. Successive federal governments have committed nearly a half billion dollars toward the program. From the Scripture Union website: SU QLD and School Chaplaincy ACT requires that the successful candidate agrees to and operates under one or both of the creeds of the Christian Church (Apostles’ Creed and/or Nicene Creed).

Chaplains come cheaper than trained counselors and are not supposed to be counselors. However, they not only act as counselors but some also proselytize their fundamentalist faith even though they are not supposed to. Student interaction with the chaplains are supposedly voluntary, but one parent said, “It’s not voluntary if the chaplain is the groundsman, the teacher’s aide and says prayers on assembly! It’s a logistical nightmare to withdraw my child from assembly, speech nights and all the activities in which the chaplain’s involved!”

http://www.highcourtchallenge.com/ tells about Ron Williams’ court challenge to commonwealth funding for the chaplaincy program.
In Charlemagne’s realm pagan Gauls were given the choice of Christianity or decapitation. Equivalent choices occurred in much of Christendom.

When people ask to hear about the worldview of some belief system or philosopher there is nothing wrong in telling them. There is also nothing wrong in telling of one’s worldview if the recipient of the information has no obligation to remain and listen.

However, when there is compulsion involved it is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

My vision of a secular state is that it must not impinge on human dignity and freedom. However, religious fundamentalists contend that teaching children about the accepted scientific thought of the day is an impingement of their dignity and freedom as such teaching is incompatible with Biblical or Koranic literalism. The conflict continues.

David (of the AFoA),

>>Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about.<<

I never said the atheist thinkers, I mentioned in my posts to david f, agreed with the Pope, although they must have found a common ground otherwise they would not have coauthored a book with him.

In those posts I was referring to two philosophers-atheists. One is Pera - http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-ebook/dp/B009SAV4W6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358783749&sr=8-1&keywords=Pera+Marcello - whom I know nothing about, except what you can read in Wikipedia.

The other is the sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who coined the term “legitimation crisis” (c.f. http://www.amazon.com/Legitimation-Crisis-Juergen-Habermas/dp/0807015210). I have known of him for years while still in Melbourne, as one of the prominent German philosophers. Philosophy of science, where I feel somewhat more at home than in sociology, was not his field. Only later, when already in Germany, did I find out that he exchanged views with Ratzinger on matters of faith and reason http://www.amazon.com/Awareness-What-Missing-Reason-Post-secular/dp/0745647219/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-7&keywords=habermas as well as how the secular society should function http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-10&keywords=habermas.

Habermas is a well known and respected name in contemporary German philosophy and Germany in geberal. I am not going to comb those books to see where the two authors agree and where they disagree. Still, one such comparison might be in http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.iet/articolo/125081?eng=y, although, I suppose, not from a source you would normally consult. Perhaps Habermas and the Pope found each other because they both “think in German”.

So I saved you searching in Google or amazon.com, hopefully to your satisfaction.