Yuyutsu,

Sorry, and please don't read anything into this, but I have no interest in talking in riddles. Nor do I wish to jump from philosophical to practical to metaphysical concepts. It's entirely unproductive, leading to endless circular discussion.

Take care,

David

Hi George

I do agree with you, the question has nothing to do with about who is right but is as you say about '...whether for a better functioning of an open society one should respect both positions. Perhaps because they both have a point.'

'Your explanations and qualifications on whether when and how to proselytize or not can be applied to both sides, theist or atheist.'

Yes this was implicit in my post. My example was to demonstrate my view from the point of an atheist but there are many examples applicable to theists and non-theists.

I used the phrase 'a particular belief system' meaning religious prolesytizing as related to the example of religion being taught in schools.

As to belief systems generally it would be hard to argue atheists don't have a belief system. Barring some differing values about women or homosexuals in some religions, I could not imagine where theists and non-theists would part as regards desirable behaviours in the manner we should treat others.

It is interesting that Helen Mirren, the actress, described herself (according to reports) as a 'Christian who doesn't believe in God'. Now obviously that does not make sense from a purely logical perspective, but I think I know what she means.

The fact is most Christian values are natural and commonsense human values that work in the interests of all people in respecting and living with each other in harmony, helping and making the world a better place for all.

Everyone is entitled to their views but it is how one's views impact on others that really matter, which is why there is a judiciary and a Rule of Law to protect everyone's rights within the legal framework. The biggest evolutionary step in civilised communities that man has achieved was to formally stop punishing people for differing world views.

Dear George,

Thank you for the thread.

I find the greatest impediment to me respecting the right of the religious to proselytise is the notion they hold that sinning against the will of God is immoral behaviour. It is not.

Abraham would have committed a sin by refusing to kill his son as instructed by his God. Yet had he carried out the deed he would stand condemned by natural human morality, even at the time.

Also we have arrived at a time in human history when the vast majority of the world's population regard slavery as an abomination. Yet Jesus called on the slave to respect his master and the Old Testament God instructed Moses to enslave entire peoples.

Human morality is a vibrant living thing that can be quite majestic. In many ways the religious form struggles to keep up. That is not to say the religious institutions and their followers can not be strong servants of human morality but just as often they impede and distort. Proclamations against condoms, mostly impacting third world countries, is a case in point.

It is not hard to recognise that the type of religiosity espoused by the likes of runner would be capable of great evil, all done in the name of his God.

I recall visiting some artefacts from the ruins of Pompei and being told that the small clay busts recovered from the site would have been those of the parents or grandparents of the head of the house. It was believed that they were imbued with the spirits of the departed and were usually mounted on high shelving around the living area so they were in a position to look down upon the living thus having the supposed effect of curbing behaviour that would have brought disapproval from those on whom they were modelled.

Cont..

pelican,

You are correct of course that many factors make-up the reasons why such a ghastly law as the ‘Kill Gays Bill’ as it is known, would even be considered. It was initiated by David Bahati who is a fully-fledged member of The Family. (Google it) The right-wing religious connections are well established.

Uganda, very similar to other African nations has been swamped with Christian missionaries. The majority religious make-up is 85% of the population Christian (45% of that Catholic) and about 12% Muslims. Traditional religion is also in the mix.

Now, that is about as religious as a country can get. One would think that a bill of this kind, because religion is so opposed to killing, as you point out, that it wouldn't even be considered to be introduced. One would think that the religious public would revolt en masse but they haven’t.

The speaker of the Uganda parliament, Rebecca Kadaga who has lobbied for the ‘Kill Gays Bill’ as a Christmas present for the Ugandan people, which demonstrates she is backing the popular vote, has since been ‘blessed’ by the Pope. During that occasion there was no mention of the Bill. This is not to say the Pope condones the bill but it shows religion is in there boots and all with its anti-homosexual propaganda. Rebecca Kadaga didn't need a ‘blessing’; she needed a good talking to about human rights. A few days before Benedict said he is opposed to unjust discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Is that the strongest words he could come up with? Such a weak response really is beyond the pale. Placating Catholic numbers in developing nations comes at a heavy price.

But the reality of the situation is that the uneducated population of Uganda are being taken for a ride by religion and there is no excuse known that makes that right.

I respect that others do not see things of this nature as do I but I remain committed to point out the foibles of religion when needed. I have been shown no ethically justifiable reason why I shouldn't.

David

Cont..

I initially felt the words 'watched over by my father on high' took on a whole new meaning, yet it wasn't really all that different in either context. One could easily imagine both beliefs/acceptances and the threat of censure could have easily lead to “a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”.

Naturally as a non-believer I find it difficult to respect this mode of thinking.

Yesterday I was walking through a barely accessible part of the Otway Ranges. Late afternoon we came to a rather pleasant even beautiful clearing surrounded by large ferns and tall timber. It was moist and lush, and from the evidence a grazing place of a mob of local wallabies. The mood quickly changed when one of our companions observed numerous leeches crawling up her boots. Pretty soon all four of us were dancing around clearing them from our clothing. We quickly high-tailed it out of there.

Would the experience have been more pleasant without the leeches? Of course! As it would have been without the march-flies and mosquitoes we encountered earlier, or the stinging vines, or the prickly wattles, or the odd spider down the neck, or having to watch every step for tiger snakes. Yet if each person who visited the area was able to wave a magical wand and get rid of a species that gave them concern or discomfort what would be left? It is the diversity that makes places like that special and so it is with the human race.

It seems a little inadequate to say I respect the views of the religious because 'they make the world an interesting place'. To be more precise what I do respect, enjoy, revel in, thrive on and receive inspiration from is the capacity of the human race to exhibit such a great and wondrous diversity of beliefs.

I think we value/respect this aspect far too little.

George

'Let me repeat (also for runner and others), the questions this post was based on was not about belief or unbelief in God but about respecting other people’s convictions about what is a better incentive for moral actions. '

I don't believe a person who condones killing the unborn has convictions. They may be acting with a seared conscience like suicide bombers with fervour for their dogmas but not conviction.