Religion in the Public Square

[colmcille1]

I must admit, I’m looking at this from a more european rather than american persepctive. In European countries like sweden, humanists want to ban religion entirely from education system. Even in Ireland there is now a debate.

By the way, thanks Colmcille for highlighting that link. I’ve read the book and its very good. Sadly a fact too often ignored by historians. If it wasnt for the Irish monks, Western civilsiation would also have lost Latin secular texts, many of which formed the inspiration to the American founding father’s “secular” constitution.
Anyway Its amazing to think that in Ireland today, after centuries of standing up to religious persecution, people are now falling away. Not all thankfully, but the attacks are relentless. The irish media is an utter disgrace, but its nothing compared to the venom you read in the general european press. Americans have it easy in comparison.

You’re welcome, kildare!
Very good post, btw. The Irish media is indeed a downright embarrassment. Only yesterday (Aug 23), the national broadcasting station aired a radio phone-in programme in which a nationwide radio poll was conducted. The topic was: ‘Who do you want to see as the next President of Ireland?’ The radio producers had whittled a list of many famous names to a top ten. An ordinary Joe/Joan was then invited to explain why they would vote for the candidate of their choice. This was all going fine and dandy for the first three candidates who were given good support by anonymous people throughout the land. Then bang! The fourth candidate, a prominent Irish senator and openly gay activist was supported by who…? None other than Stephen Rea, the editor of the Evening Herald, a daily national tabloid! If ever there was needed any more blatant proof of a national broadcaster’s (RTE) downright bias, then here it was, booming out over the airwaves. You’re right, kildare, Americans have it easy by comparison.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Betterave]

No, that isn’t it. I am not trying to muzzle anyone. I am just describing why things are as they are with regard to the relationship of religion to government, so that the religious stop blaming the atheists because we didn’t do it, secularize government and political discourse that is. There is a far less insidious reason why the government is secular. It is because it always has been, and political discourse has become more secular because religious premises cannot be presupposed in political arguments today. Secularization of political discourse didn’t happen because people felt pressure to taylor their arguments to atheists. It happened because even within the modern Christian community, there is a broad diversity of opinion about the authority given to Biblical passages and the interpretation of those passages. It is that fact in addition to the fact that there are more and more members of non-Christian religions that religious traditionalists can no longer rely on the authority of Bible quotes or the Church to argue for their political positions. Nothing prevents them from attempting it other than the imprudence of pursuing such a strategy of presuming agreement on premises upon which there is such a diversity of opinion.

They can “no longer” rely on the authority of Bible quotes…?? What are you talking about? Bible quoting used to be a staple of politicking and now can no longer be?? Really? What do you even mean by “secularization of political discourse”? When and where do you suppose that happened? I know you’re fond of painting history with enormous and inaccurate brush strokes, but I don’t think your doing so is very enlightening (to yourself or others).

The reason I want to get politicians to stop all the Southern Strategery and playing on cultural enmities that are irrelevant to government (since religious reasoning cannot enter the law anyway) is because it gets people to vote against their own interests and takes all our eyes of the ball so that the plutocrats have their way. Theocracy is NOT a big threat to democracy by itself. What is a threat to democracy is the way the plutocrats are exploiting the theocrats and getting us all to argue about nonsense like this ground zero mosque.

I don’t know what you’re referring to here, but wow, you really are good at missing the point and carrying on your merry little way. When you make these silly comments about ‘theocracy’ and ‘democracy’ you are abusing these words so as to paint those you disagree with in a negative light. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that but it’s a simple point and if you really can’t understand it or respond intelligently to the criticisms offered against your claims, you shouldn’t consider yourself capable of offering fair comment on these issues. Your rhetoric is blatantly unfair. There’s more than one way to ‘muzzle’ someone and attempting to marginalize them by the use of dishonest rhetoric is one of them and it appears to be clear that that is what you’re after, even if you don’t realize it.

 

[colmcille1]

They can “no longer” rely on the authority of Bible quotes…?? What are you talking about? Bible quoting used to be a staple of politicking and now can no longer be?? Really? What do you even mean by “secularization of political discourse”? When and where do you suppose that happened? I know you’re fond of painting history with enormous and inaccurate brush strokes, but I don’t think your doing so is very enlightening (to yourself or others).

I don’t know what you’re referring to here, but wow, you really are good at missing the point and carrying on your merry little way. When you make these silly comments about ‘theocracy’ and ‘democracy’ you are abusing these words so as to paint those you disagree with in a negative light. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that but it’s a simple point and if you really can’t understand it or respond intelligently to the criticisms offered against your claims, you shouldn’t consider yourself capable of offering fair comment on these issues. Your rhetoric is blatantly unfair. There’s more than one way to ‘muzzle’ someone and attempting to marginalize them by the use of dishonest rhetoric is one of them and it appears to be clear that that is what you’re after, even if you don’t realize it.

I recall making a note about about the OP’s apparent obsession with “Bible quotes”.
I don’t know what is the cause of this obsession but what I do know is that far better debaters than yours truly have more than amply defended the Bible’s place in the active Faith of Catholicism on another thread. The OP was involved in that thread so she would know to which thread I refer. I detect (and I’m more than happy to be corrected) that the OP’s apparent “blockage”(sorry for the clumsy word) with the Bible is inhibiting what might otherwise be a good self-contained (albeit atheist) hypothesis.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.