 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
People think that it's not right to force your religious moral values into legal system.
But people do force their moral values into legal system - that's democracy. Why should be moral values based on religion worse than based on personal thoughts of someone? |
Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant and unprovable. Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth, and that other religions are false teaching. The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other, is because the world has become very secular in the last two centuries.
If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth". This is all good in some African country where the winner takes all, and the loser gets ****ed, but it isn't good in modern democracies that are built against the tyranny of the majority.
quote:
People complain if You convert someone by force - but if a state conquers a region, doesn't it force its citizenship over its members, forces them out, kills or enslaves? |
I don't see many people who support outright conquest here.
And even when people switch nationality, they are generally not expected to abandon all of their beliefs, to embrace beliefs that are not theirs because of force. Only States that have enforced religion force a religion swithc along with a nationality switch, when they conquer a territory.
quote:
People complain that clercks and fanatics want to forbid telling that or telling that - a state has its secrets too and wants to defend them.
There are laws against offending high officials of the state... |
Depends where. Just look at the American campaign, or at an ordinary British newspaper, and you'll see high officials can get legally offended quite often.
quote:
People want "religious neutrality".
Such thing does not exist. Lack of any religious background=/forums/atheism, as we see on french example |
France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church, while most countries "passively" separate State from Church. In France, worship is legal and unrestricted. What is restricted, however, is proselytism from all sides of society... while most other countries consider that only the State should shut up, and that the civil society can say whatever it wants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant
|
Oh c-mon....
Of course they are. Every religion is very good in proving itself...
quote:
Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth, and that other religions are false teaching.
|
Well, isn't it true about any ideological conflict?
Attitude towards death penalty, abortion etc - it's all the same
quote:
The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other, is because the world has become very secular in the last two centuries.
|
You're simplyfying it too much. I think that at least catholic church made a great progress, and a course back to its roots at least. Even if it could, it wouldn't try to do different things it did in past centuries. Do you imagine John Paul II burning someone on stake?
Surely it has to do with general trend in society, but You can't exclude religion, at least Christian, out of it. The people that create this "secularism" trend, are Christian or "post-Christian". It's not that religions are forced by some great secularism force to tolerating each other.
quote:
If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth". This is all good in some African country where the winner takes all, and the loser gets ****ed, but it isn't good in modern democracies that are built against the tyranny of the majority.
|
You can have your own, personal, "absolute truth". A party, a secular ideology (like marxism) can have its absolute truth too. And it tries to force it through the same way
quote:
I don't see many people who support outright conquest here.
|
I do 
quote:
And even when people switch nationality, they are generally not expected to abandon all of their beliefs, to embrace beliefs that are not theirs because of force. Only States that have enforced religion force a religion swithc along with a nationality switch, when they conquer a territory.
|
If a state conquers some place, it forces it into its educational system, in which it forces people to learn its language, its history, its ideology, and sometimes even demands to consider yourself a part of nation of this country (in states such as France, in which nation is closer to demos than to ethnos), and of course demands loyalty.
quote:
Depends where. Just look at the American campaign, or at an ordinary British newspaper, and you'll see high officials can get legally offended quite often.
|
Oops, it should've been clerics or whatever, not clercks...
You're right, anyway
quote:
France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church
|
So it is atheistic country. That a state has an official religion it doesn't mean that other cults are prohibited.
The lack of an official cult, if treaten as in France, is atheism as an official cult.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Well, isn't it true about any ideological conflict?
Attitude towards death penalty, abortion etc - it's all the same |
No.
Attitudes towards death penalty, abortion etc. are definitely discussing social issues. As such, what must be weighted are the societal consequences of these decisions. Not the spiritual concerns.
quote:
You can have your own, personal, "absolute truth". A party, a secular ideology (like marxism) can have its absolute truth too. And it tries to force it through the same way |
When an ideology is turned into dogma, the same problem arises as with religion. Ideologies, however, are suppored to cater for the problems of this world, and its propositions can be evaluated on the actual performance. Many people nowadays think that Communism is a bunch of horseshit, and they base it on the horrors that have been done in the name of Communism. They "rationally" dismiss Communism.
Such cannot be said of religion. Nobody can claim with certitude that Jesus / Allah / The Pink Unicorn doesn't save souls, except those blinded in their own faith (be it religionist or atheistic). And that's the big difference between religion and ideology. Between religion and science. Between religion and the rest of culture: religion is about a dogma that is supposed to be the same, and to be the only one that is true (again, this mostly concerns monotheism)
quote:
If a state conquers some place, it forces it into its educational system, in which it forces people to learn its language, its history, its ideology, and sometimes even demands to consider yourself a part of nation of this country (in states such as France, in which nation is closer to demos than to ethnos), and of course demands loyalty. |
Yes, and it is bad.
quote:
So it is atheistic country. That a state has an official religion it doesn't mean that other cults are prohibited.
The lack of an official cult, if treaten as in France, is atheism as an official cult. |
False. There is no subsidised "Church of UnGod", teachers don't teach that "God doesn't exist" etc. God is simply absent from our politics. It doesn't mean we state it doesn't exist. It does mean it is not taken into account, at all.
Heck, Palau is completely absent from our politics as well, yet there is nothing official that denies the existence of this minuscule country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Because religion -at least the monotheistic ones- is inherently intolerant
|
So? Every moral code is intolerant, in the sense that it believes itself to be the truth for everyone.
Sure you could be a relativist, but that's not a very productive creed.
Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist.
quote:
Each monotheistic religion pretends to have the one truth,
|
And so do many other philosophies that believe there to be an absolute truth for everyone.
quote:
and that other religions are false teaching.
|
Gandhi, a Hindu acknowledged the truths that he saw in Christianity, and in Islam. Yet, he still remained a Hindu.
Even if one believes that one's moral code is the correct one, it does not prevent you from recognising the areas in which other codes overlap with your own.
quote:
The only reason why the three great monotheistic religions currently tolerate each other,
|
Islam tolerates Christianity? Islam tolerates Jews? I suggest you amend that statement.
As for the other two, they more than tolerate, in many cases, they collaborate. Why? Because they have much more in common with each other than they do with the secularists. So you are partially right, that it is because the world has become more secular that brings the believers together, but not because the believers compromise their own beliefs to become more worldly.
quote:
If you base laws on religious values, you de facto expel all those who don't share these values, who don't share the same "absolute truth".
|
Why is this? Christianity teaches that Christians must love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore, in a Christian state, one would expect groups of different faiths to congregate.
quote:
France is not an atheistic country. France is a country that "actively" separates State from Church, while most countries "passively" separate State from Church.
|
France persecutes believers by restricting their religious expression.
France not only protects atheism, but affirms atheism in their constitution.
This is why they have crossed that line, from a passive separation to an active separation, and why they have something in common with the Islamic states in the Middle East.
quote:
In France, worship is legal and unrestricted. What is restricted, however, is proselytism from all sides of society
|
Does France bar atheists from preaching against religion? Do they restrict atheist expression in any way?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist. |
Indeed. And it's not even the question. The debate here is not whether there is a God, several Gods, no God, or a Pink Unicorn.
The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality.
quote:
Gandhi, a Hindu acknowledged the truths that he saw in Christianity, and in Islam. Yet, he still remained a Hindu. |
Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists. I would be much less reluctant to base politics on polytheistic religious teachings than on monotheistic ones. Simply because Polytheism allows for an open pantheon, and thus for an open and adabptable dogma.
quote:
Islam tolerates Christianity? Islam tolerates Jews? I suggest you amend that statement. |
Yes it does. There is a Muslim representation in pretty much every oecumenical celebration.
quote:
As for the other two, they more than tolerate, in many cases, they collaborate. Why? Because they have much more in common with each other than they do with the secularists. So you are partially right, that it is because the world has become more secular that brings the believers together, but not because the believers compromise their own beliefs to become more worldly. |
This is what I had in mind. I should have expressed it better, thanks for doing it for me 
quote:
Why is this? Christianity teaches that Christians must love everyone, including their enemies. Therefore, in a Christian state, one would expect groups of different faiths to congregate. |
When I said "expel", I dodn't mean "physically expel from the State". I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)
quote:
France persecutes believers by restricting their religious expression. |
France also persecutes politicians by restricting their political expression. You are speaking with someone who was horribly persecuted: when I'm distributing fliers on the marketplace, or in front of highschools, I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.
HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED !
quote:
France not only protects atheism, but affirms atheism in their constitution. |
I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.
quote:
Does France bar atheists from preaching against religion? Do they restrict atheist expression in any way? |
Yes. Exactly in the same fashion as with all the religious and political expression. It is forbidden to proselytise people under 16.
So far, I have never heard of a symbol commonly used by active atheists. But if there had been one, it would have been banned in public shools along with the rest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality. |
Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes.
So I really don't see empirical means entering into the question, until people start asking whether one action or another can be shown to increase liberty.
Even then, since there isn't really a way to measure liberty, empirically, you are still in the realm of philosophy.
quote:
Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists.
|
Tell that to the Sikhs in India. The polytheists stripped the Sikhs of all rights to buy property and this is one of the reasons why so many come to Canada, because we have land, and Sikhs need land for their families.
Sure, they can own land, but they cannot buy land to increase their holdings in India.
Sikhs, by the way, are monotheists, yet if you look at their beliefs systems, you would consider them to be very tolerant.
quote:
I would be much less reluctant to base politics on polytheistic religious teachings than on monotheistic ones. Simply because Polytheism allows for an open pantheon, and thus for an open and adabptable dogma.
|
And you would be just as wrong to establish a polytheist religion over a monotheist. The same problems arise from both.
Gandhi was a unique figure, killed not by a foe of another religion, but one from his own religion. His outlook is not something common to all Hindus.
quote:
There is a Muslim representation in pretty much every oecumenical celebration.
|
In areas that are primarily Christian. They do not return the favour in areas of Muslim majorities.
You cannot say, that where the Muslims are minorities, that they tolerate others, when the larger faiths invite them in. By nature, they will be ecumenical when they are minorities.
quote:
I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)
|
Yeah, and many Christian denominations also feel the difficulty of upholding their own moral standards and those of the state, since the two do not necessarily coincide.
For a religion to become a state religion alters both the state and the religion. Christianity is no exception.
quote:
I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.
|
That's a dumb law. We are permitted to protest in areas where there are young people provided we do not target them.
quote:
I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.
|
What principle do children violate when wearing headscarves in school?
Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot?
Why do you erect bubble zones around your schools? That to me seems detrimental to their education, that the only influence that can be provided comes from the state.
Also, are there viable private schools in France?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Through empirical means? Many things cannot be measured empirically, but that does not mean they do not exist. |
Indeed. And it's not even the question. The debate here is not whether there is a God, several Gods, no God, or a Pink Unicorn.
|
Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people?
quote:
The debate here is whether we should base our politics about dogmas that cannot be proven (nor disproven), and who belong to faith rather than the domain of shared reality.
|
Every logical thinking has some emotional base.
quote:
Polytheists are much more tolerant than monotheists.
|
Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans and barbarians, or to Muslims and Christians in India who are persecuted by Hindu majority
quote:
When I said "expel", I dodn't mean "physically expel from the State". I did mean that the worshippers of other faiths would not recognize themselves in a State whose principles are based on false teachings (= other teachings)
|
Similarily, I may not recognise with a state that approves death penalty, abortion, war in Iraq, whatever.
quote:
France also persecutes politicians by restricting their political expression. You are speaking with someone who was horribly persecuted: when I'm distributing fliers on the marketplace, or in front of highschools, I must take extra care not to influence people under 16. It's quite tricky when done in front of a highschool.
HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED !
|
France is not the only state which does so
quote:
I dare you to find one sentence in our constitution that states that there is no God.
|
Well, French blackmail-like fight against mentioning of Christian roots of European cultur, which is a fact, and willingness to accept mentionings of ancient roots, shows, that France has an obsession of "religious neutrality"
quote:
Yes. Exactly in the same fashion as with all the religious and political expression. It is forbidden to proselytise people under 16.
So far, I have never heard of a symbol commonly used by active atheists. But if there had been one, it would have been banned in public shools along with the rest. |
The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes.
So I really don't see empirical means entering into the question, until people start asking whether one action or another can be shown to increase liberty.
Even then, since there isn't really a way to measure liberty, empirically, you are still in the realm of philosophy. |
It is possibly to roughly measure many societal phenomenons, with social science. Sure, the measure is crude in comparison with a very complex reality, since concepts such as "liberty" get reduced to mathematically useable indicators (such as "# of encounters with the police last month", "# of times the subject felt being oppressed last month" etc.
As imperfect as it is, it is still possible to evaluate the impact of a policy on the real world. It is impossible to evaluate the impact of a policy in terms of "does it make God happy ?", unless you agree with the basic and unprovable premises that there is a God, and that his demands are known to us.
quote:
And you would be just as wrong to establish a polytheist religion over a monotheist. The same problems arise from both. |
That I can believe. I merely expect the problems not to come as strongly from a polytheistic religion . But in my book, a complete separation of Church and State is the way to go.
quote:
For a religion to become a state religion alters both the state and the religion. Christianity is no exception. |
And do you wish to see your religion become tainted again by petty politics?
quote:
That's a dumb law. We are permitted to protest in areas where there are young people provided we do not target them. |
I am permitted to protest near highschools, as long as I don't deliberately target students of less than 16 with my message. However, it is strictly forbidden for me to preach within the school, no matter the age. Same for protests - btw, this is probably one of the reasons there are so few student strikes in highschool.
quote:
What principle do children violate when wearing headscarves in school? |
AFAIK, the principle they "violate" (they actually only violate it in the minds of zealots who uphiold the letter rather than the spirit of the law) doesn't belong to the constitution. It is however a principle that has an extremely strong cultural value to us: School is to be "laďc". Religion-free.
This principle was said at the beginning of the third Republic, in the late 1870's, back when the fledgling Republic used the new Public Schools to promote the French nationality in a country that was an accumulation of various languages and traditions, and where the powerful Catholic church adamantly opposed the Republic. It has guided our public education system ever since.
quote:
Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot? |
Others can, provided the parents agree. Unsolicited propaganda is banned, but solicited propaganda isn't. Many parents put their children at Sunday's School. Many parents speak about politics to their kids (I must admit, however, that no parent ever granted me to directly talk politics with their kids). Until 16, it is considered that Children must be shielded from manipulation, and the parents are the obvious shield-bearers.
quote:
Why do you erect bubble zones around your schools? That to me seems detrimental to their education, that the only influence that can be provided comes from the state. |
We erect bubble-zones (we even speak about "Sanctum School") because of the belief that, by doing so, the children's education will be free of interference that will slow it, and that will hurt the integration within French society the Children can derive from School.
quote:
Also, are there viable private schools in France? |
About 17% of our ~12 million students are in private schools. The huge majority (more than 90%) of them is catholic. Some are Jewish. A fringe is evangelical. And recently, the two first Muslim private schools opened their doors.
Most private Schools get subsidized, as they teach the same contents, with the same methods than in public schools. However, religious education is allowed in private schools (without subsidies), and the headscarf-ban doesn't apply there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people? |
Wow, I didn't know there were so many people viewing 'Poly. That sure explains the lags 
quote:
Similarily, I may not recognise with a state that approves death penalty, abortion, war in Iraq, whatever. |
Yep, but you can change it (provided the State in question is a democracy - if it is not, it has more important problems than the separation of Church and State). In a State having an endorsed religion, you cannot democratically change something in a way that radically hurts said religion.
quote:
Well, French blackmail-like fight against mentioning of Christian roots of European cultur, which is a fact, and willingness to accept mentionings of ancient roots, shows, that France has an obsession of "religious neutrality" |
We do. What does it have to do with atheism already?
quote:
The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism |
The school does mention religions. Actually, religion is taught in history classes during junior highschool. Any junior-high student that paid attention in class knows basics about Christianty (especially our many Christian holidays), about Judaism, and about Islam. Hinduism and Protestantism are also supposed to be mentioned, albeit faster.
Our schools mention religions much more than they mention the country of Palau. Does it mean the State proselytises the inexistence of Palau?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
Spiffor: I seem to recall that you can research Ceremonial Burial & Mysticism pretty early in the game, but Monotheism/Religion is for later after your civilization wants to become more tolerant for its unhappy members, and needs to placate 4 of them at a time. Clearly monotheists are MORE tolerant than polytheists.
On a more serious note, there's the difference between the worshipper in the street who cheerfully accepts what his religious leader tells him, what his friends of other religions tell him, good luck charms, horoscopes, whatever on one extreme, and the theologians in the university. I think you'll find that Muslims in the street in the India of old were quite tolerant (less so now, of course, with better communication and the lack of a common enemy like the British to unite the Hindus & Muslims), but the more removed you get from that, you end up with things like the Catholic theologians who invalidated some girls communion since it was done with rice wafers, and you have to use wheat. I have no doubt that the Romans had some priest somewhere who detailed an exact list of the gods and proper ways to worship them, and anybody who messed up the sacrifices or claimed they had a new god was committing heresy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Certain principles cannot be proven emprically, such as liberty, even equality is a philosophical concept without any physical attributes. |
These philosophical concepts have been adopted by revolting against their opposite (aristocracy+slavery). Empirically, you will find that people tend to resent being restricted rights, so it's quite hard to take them away.
quote:
Secondly, why is the state permitted to influence those under the age of 16, but others cannot? |
Parents can. And not just the state, but the state gives a basic education to everyone, and protects children from those outside their family.
quote:
Also, are there viable private schools in France? |
Yes, a lot of them, almost all of them being Christian. This means they usually have catechism courses, but these cannot be mandatory.
quote:
Aren't You aware that by comparing God to a Pink Unicorn You offend several bilions of people? |
Why? The GReat Bull was considered a god by millions, so comparing God to a Great Bull makes sense. He's just going one step further. Since you probably see as much divinity in the great bull and a pink unicorn, what's your point?
quote:
Tell that to Christians massacred through history by pagan Romans and barbarians, or to Muslims and Christians in India who are persecuted by Hindu majority |
Tell that to Roman pagans, Incas, Aztecs, native americans that were burnt to yhe stake by Christians. Romans tolerated polytheists and monotheists (jews for example). They didn't tolerate a religion that explicitly said their state religion was false.
quote:
The state controls the schools, and the state does not mention religion - ergo it proseiltises atheism |
Let me see the reasoning: You haven't been talking about baseball, therefore you are actively discriminating against baseball. Got it right?
Not separating church from state leads to problems when the heads of church and state enter a conflict. So unless you go the anglican way (the King is the head of church), you'll end up having problems. You can read Voltaire (a christian theist) to see how useful clergy can be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
These philosophical concepts have been adopted by revolting against their opposite (aristocracy+slavery). Empirically, you will find that people tend to resent being restricted rights, so it's quite hard to take them away.
|
However, one man cannot be allowed unfettered freedom in a society. For the rights to one end where another's begin.
So it is not enough to say that all restrictions should be lifted, or even that the restrictions that some people find chafing ought to be lifted.
There are very good reasons as to why they are needed in a civilised society.
Secondly, when you say that 'empirically' people tend to resent restricted rights, you must first have some method of gaging this resentment, or to gage the extent to which liberties have been curtailed. This cannot be done.
This is why I say that liberty is not based on empirical proof, but rather, on social conventions.
quote:
Parents can. And not just the state, but the state gives a basic education to everyone, and protects children from those outside their family.
|
So if parents and teachers are permitted influence, why not clergy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Simple. Countries are different from religions. Any other question?
|
The question is, why should they be different?
quote:
That's Separation of Church and State. It is the flip side of freedom of religion. It just says politics don't go messing around with religions, but religions also leave politics alone.
|
TThe wyestion is if separation of church and state is right. and if it is possible without falling into state atheism
quote:
That's not. You rarely find any modern legal systems based on any sort of moral systems. In fact, most countries are getting away from these laws.
|
ekhem, LAW IS A MORAL SYSTEM
quote:
Have you noticed these things aren't allowed anymore?
|
So... what is legal then to do with the citizens of conquered territory?
Say, if Corsica would become independant, wouldn't it demand loyalty of its citizens?
quote:
A state operates for its citizens - at least in theory - a religion doesn't. It operates for itself.
|
You are wrong. Religion is most often a way of getting divine help. Auspicia - to predict the future. Sacrifices - to make Gods pleased so that they wouldn't interfere or would help. Also, in religion such as Christianity, it is also about helping other people
quote:
Atheism is not a religion, just FYI. |
Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else
quote:
Tell that to Roman pagans, Incas, Aztecs, native americans that were burnt to yhe stake by Christians.
|
In antiquity, no-one forced nobody to convert. Even after Theodosius. Even Libanius admits that; just pagan cult was prohibited.
I'm not sure about Aztecs, but I think religion had little to do with the way they were treaten
quote:
Romans tolerated polytheists and monotheists (jews for example). They didn't tolerate a religion that explicitly said their state religion was false.
|
Jews claimed that too, and they weren's mistreaten - because their religion was ancient. Worshippers of Bacchus didn't claim Roman religion was wrong, and they were still slaughtered
Romans fought against cults that were still slaughtered
1 - allien to them
2 - new (without sanction of tradition)
That's why the worshippers of Bacchus, manicheans and christians were persecuted. In the latter cases it is also about that Christians didn't want to make sacrifices, thus endangering the empire with the wrath of gods.
Anyway, it is visible again how hostile to Christianity You are. I didn't say Christians were tolerant through history, You said polytheists were much more tolerant. I mentioned the cases to prove they were persecuting Christians too. Your post was unnecessary
quote:
Let me see the reasoning: You haven't been talking about baseball, therefore you are actively discriminating against baseball. Got it right?
|
Isn't comparing baseball to religion a bit rude? But the answer is yes, if You can't play baseball at school, can not wear baseball t-shirts or whatever
quote:
Yep, but you can change it (provided the State in question is a democracy - if it is not, it has more important problems than the separation of Church and State). In a State having an endorsed religion, you cannot democratically change something in a way that radically hurts said religion.
|
Whether it is bad or not, it's a different story.
You have a point, but You can always force through "other interpretation": christianity does not give detailed answers to everything.
quote:
We do. What does it have to do with atheism already?
|
Why is France so enraged on even justified and no-consequential mentioning of Christianity if it is not hostile to Christianity itself? You can't say it's about separating religion and state: it was supposed to give historical basis for European unity. Removing christianity out of it is as wise as removing it from school books - they are means in state educational system
quote:
The school does mention religions. Actually, religion is taught in history classes during junior highschool. Any junior-high student that paid attention in class knows basics about Christianty (especially our many Christian holidays), about Judaism, and about Islam. Hinduism and Protestantism are also supposed to be mentioned, albeit faster.
|
Yes, it's a great presence of religion indeed. A child learns that there are many religions, and probably all are the same good. A child learns about religion as it learns anatomy of a frog.
quote:
Our schools mention religions much more than they mention the country of Palau. Does it mean the State proselytises the inexistence of Palau?
|
Does a majority of population, or even a significant number of it, speak Palau or even know what Palau is?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Why is France so enraged on even justified and no-consequential mentioning of Christianity if it is not hostile to Christianity itself? |
1. It is consequential. The mention of Christianty (not even religion, but Christianty) would mean the EU is a Christian club, and it would mean that potential Muslim members (such as Albania, Bosnia or Turkey) would be "something else". It would mean that Muslim and Jewish people are somehow less European than others.
2. It is not hostile to christianty, as we would have done just the same if any other religion was suggested. Stop being paranoid for your precious little religion. It is exactly the same as all the others, in that we don't want it interfere with politics.
quote:
You can't say it's about separating religion and state: it was supposed to give historical basis for European unity. Removing christianity out of it is as wise as removing it from school books |
Except that the constitution is not a school book. The Preamble of the European Constitution is about the common values every EU member should cherish. Values of democracy, values of enlightenment.
Again, including Christianty into this, is the best way to insure non-Christian countries will stay out, or will be considered as "something else".
quote:
Yes, it's a great presence of religion indeed. A child learns that there are many religions, and probably all are the same good. A child learns about religion as it learns anatomy of a frog. |
Precisely, this is the role of school. Religion does have a major influence on today's belief systems, and it is good to explain about them at school. If the kid (or rather his parents) want to teach the One Truth, there are Churches that do that. Heck, in my hometown, there's a Sunday School right in front of my highschool.
quote:
Does a majority of population, or even a significant number of it, speak Palau or even know what Palau is? |
Nope. And?
By the same token, plenty of people in France know about Baseball. Does it mean we discriminate against Baseball by it not being in the curriculum?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2004 03:52
|