 |
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
1. It is consequential. The mention of Christianty (not even religion, but Christianty) would mean the EU is a Christian club,
|
well, isn't it?
quote:
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.
|
Because they actually are. Even Turkey, Albania and Bosnia have Christian history before being Muslim.
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it
Such radical vision of secularism was only french and belgian as far as I know
quote:
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.
|
Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed?
quote:
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.
|
Who said that everyone should cherish them? I can understand democracy, but enlightement doesn't have to be judged good. French revolution was, after good start, a giant misunderstanding, to say the least
quote:
Again, including Christianty into this, is the best way to insure non-Christian countries will stay out, or will be considered as "something else".
|
EU is not just common market and politics. It's also common history and culture. And it was and still is Christian history and culture. Turkey was an alien element in in, and tried to destroy it. And Albanians and Bosnians are result of Turkish conquests. They want to be in - welcome, of course. But it's exception from a rule.
quote:
Precisely, this is the role of school.
|
Who says so?
quote:
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.
|
The same You can say that if the parents want their children about anything, they can learn it elsewhere.
Why is it compulsory to learn about poetry, but not about
The Truth?
The further part of Your post proves that You know the answer to "and"
quote:
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? |
Again, comparing baseball to religion is not appropriate.
And again yes, if You can not play baseball at school, and You only have subject "sports" in which You learn theory of each one. And note: You can play several sports, and it is kind of less important part of life
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else
|
No it isn't.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.
A religion is most usually a system of faith and worship.
I do not 'worship' in the way a Catholic or Muslim or Jew worships.
I have no holy books, no sites of pilgrimage, no sacred buildings or grounds, no special ceremonies, rites of passage, bodily mutilations, special foods, belief in the supernatural, ritual purification ceremonies, special celebratory days, nor do I need anyone to act as an intercessor between me and some unspecified otherworldly realm.
I am entirely free from irrational commands relating to animal foodstuffs, types of clothing, menstruating women, people with disabilities, and the disposal of dead bodies.
I suggest if you can find any criteria which cause my atheism to resemble a religion in any significant respect, then please let us all know what they are.
Otherwise, it's just blether on your part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
They aren't. However, they differ from monotheistic ones in that they are much more open-minded.
[ |
Where did you get that idea? How tolerant was the Roman empire towards those who refused to acknowledge the deity of their emporer? How tolerant were the pre-WW2 Japanese?
Buddhism originated in India and rapidly flourished and spread across the sub-continent. Some of the great dynasties of India were Buddhist. Yet by the time that westerners arrived Buddhism was extinct within its homeland. The indigenous peoples had even forgotten the meaning of the ancient shrines and stupas left behind by Buddhist rulers, and the life of Buddha was considered to be a myth. Evidently Hindus felt threatened by Buddhism and over a period of many centuries managed to obliterate the religion from the face of India while simultaneously incorporating many elements of Buddhism into Hinduism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Because they actually are. Even Turkey, Albania and Bosnia have Christian history before being Muslim.
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it
Such radical vision of secularism was only french and belgian as far as I know |
Indeed, our understanding of secularism is different from many other countries. Our national mottos don't mention God. Our taxes don't pay the clergy (unlike Germany). There aren't crosses or other religious symbols in public schools.
If your point was to say the French brand of secularism is uncommon, it was already obvious. If your point was to say that France promotes atheism as its state religion, I'm still waiting for arguments.
quote:
Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed? |
So what?
quote:
EU is not just common market and politics. It's also common history and culture. |
You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others.
The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways.
The argument that the EU should be a Christian club is utterly absurd. There are as many differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as between Christianty and Islam.
Maybe one day, if the EU ever becomes a devout organization, it will fear the rise of atheistic China and polytheistic India. And on this day, it'll unite with the Muslims on the grounds there is a common history between us, and a common culture of monotheism. These claims would be just as real as today's claims that there is a common Christian culture within Europe.
quote:
And it was and still is Christian history and culture. Turkey was an alien element in in, and tried to destroy it. |
Turkey was an alien element of Europe that tried to conquer it. Same for the Vikings. Heck, German tribes were even external to Europe in a Roman perspective. I've heard people who claim that only France, Germany and Benelux can form a true Europe, because only they belonged to Charlemagne's empire. Such a claim would make Poland "something else", something that doesn't naturally belong to the EU, but you're in because we true Europeans were nice enough to invite you.
quote:
The same You can say that if the parents want their children about anything, they can learn it elsewhere.
Why is it compulsory to learn about poetry, but not about
The Truth? |
Just the same way the school teaches different brands of poetry, it does teach several brands of The Truth. Just like it is up to the kid to decide what kind of poetry he likes (if any), it is up to the kid to decide what brand of Truth he wants to believe (if any).
quote:
Again, comparing baseball to religion is not appropriate.
And again yes, if You can not play baseball at school, and You only have subject "sports" in which You learn theory of each one. And note: You can play several sports, and it is kind of less important part of life |
To a great many people, sports is far more important than religion. And the kids who want to practice their favorite sports, if not featured at school, can try to look at the ample offer given in every reasonably-sized town.
And you can worship several religions as well, if you so wish. Nothing legal prevents you from worshipping whatever and however you like, as long as it doesn't disturb public order (i.e if your brand of religion requires sacrificing children, that will be punished)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
A view in religious matters or voting in elections is a common matter of all citizens |
False. Religion is just one thing on the agenda. It is one of the great many issues that must be adressed by the community. Just like waste disposal is one political issues among many others.
In most countries, elections are held to give one opinion about the whole bunch of issues, all bundled together (when you elect representatives). However, sometimes, referenda are held on a very specific issue people may not care about. I think that in Switzerland, the nearly-weekly referenda often have less about 20% participation. That's because most of the population couldn't care less about some agricultural subsidy, about the location of the next statue, about the specifics of the immigration law, etc. In these issue-specific votes, not voting doesn't mean anything, except that the voter has no opinion nor interest on the topic.
I wonder why religion should be held in any different regard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it |
Indeed, we are opposed to naming specific religions, because it would mean that our Sikhs, our Buddists, our Zoroastrians, our Hindus... have no place in the Union our country adheres to.
The only way to avoid disfavoring any religious person is to not specify religions by name at all.
BTW, we did agree to leave the word "Religion" in the constitution at all, which is an immense compromise already. As an agnostic, I am quite displeased that the Union to which I'll adhere bundles religion with the many other positive aspects of European history, and even pretends to "draw inspiration" from it among others.
If I wasn't opposed to this crappy constitution already, the statement that Europe should take inspiration from our religious past may be enough for me to vote against it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
If your point was to say the French brand of secularism is uncommon, it was already obvious. If your point was to say that France promotes atheism as its state religion, I'm still waiting for arguments.
|
It's a matter of opinion. For me French "secularism" is a state atheism. It just goes too far.
quote:
quote:
Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed? |
So what?
|
So my special concern about christianity in this discussion is not without a cause
quote:
You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others.
The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways.
[quote]
And what?
Btw, modern nationalism is a child of "enlightement" and french revolution.
[quote]
The argument that the EU should be a Christian club is utterly absurd. There are as many differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as between Christianty and Islam.
|
You must be kidding. Speaking strictly, catholicism and orthodox church are still the same denomination, and the separation is a schism, not a heresy, hough some people may think so.
quote:
These claims would be just as real as today's claims that there is a common Christian culture within Europe.
|
If You don't see cultural unity between christian cultures of each culture, You must be blind.
quote:
Turkey was an alien element of Europe that tried to conquer it. Same for the Vikings.
|
Which were christianised after some time, weren't they...
quote:
Heck, German tribes were even external to Europe in a Roman perspective.
|
Is there a bigger cultural difference between France and Germany today than between France and Greece?
quote:
I've heard people who claim that only France, Germany and Benelux can form a true Europe, because only they belonged to Charlemagne's empire. Such a claim would make Poland "something else", something that doesn't naturally belong to the EU, but you're in because we true Europeans were nice enough to invite you.
|
Don't be silly. Two big countries and three tinies in the west don't have a right to call themselves Europe. The same Poland could form an "Europe" with surrounding states. We must find something that unites almost all countries on the continent. And it is roman/greek and christian heritage
quote:
Just the same way the school teaches different brands of poetry, it does teach several brands of The Truth. Just like it is up to the kid to decide what kind of poetry he likes (if any), it is up to the kid to decide what brand of Truth he wants to believe (if any). [quote]
You can be fan of many poeths at the same time, while You can either belong to some church, or do not.
[quote]
To a great many people, sports is far more important than religion.
|
quote:
And the kids who want to practice their favorite sports, if not featured at school, can try to look at the ample offer given in every reasonably-sized town.
|
But if enough of them wants to practice it at school, and there is such a possibility, their plea won't be denied by law.
quote:
And you can worship several religions as well, if you so wish. |
No
quote:
False. Religion is just one thing on the agenda. It is one of the great many issues that must be adressed by the community. Just like waste disposal is one political issues among many others.
|
Bravo. Comparing religion to waste disposal.
But that's not what I ment. I ment not dealing with the problem with organised community, but rather dealing with the problem by each member of it.
Each person has some view in the matter of religion
I didn't mean that 100% people are interested in elections or referenda, but that at least theorethically, they are supposed to be and their opinion, or lack of opinion, matters in the case
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Fine, go ahead and make up your own definition as to what religion is.
|
And why can't I? Is there some universal definition of religion?
quote:
By your logic, Catholics who do not believe in Hindu gods actually believe in them, because their unbelief in Hindu deities is just as much a belief as their belief in Jesus and the Christian god.
|
You are mixing it up, being unwilling to understand my point. Read again my definition of religion.
First of all, a Christian can believe in Hindu gods - He can think they are evil demons.
Secondly, even if He just believes they are made up, it's a belief, and as such, it is a religious belief, just opposite.
It is the same line, just opposite direction.
quote:
I haven't killed anyone. By your strange conception, I share a category with serial killers and mass murderers.
|
Read my posts, than discuss.
quote:
Indeed, we are opposed to naming specific religions, because it would mean that our Sikhs, our Buddists, our Zoroastrians, our Hindus... have no place in the Union our country adheres to.
|
They are late immigrants, guests on this soil.
Hindus, Sikhs etc are free to stay and participate. After several centuries perhaps they'll make enough impact to place them in preamble. As for Zoroastrians, why not, though their influence is mostly influencing Christianity, ancient mithraism and Freddie Mercury
quote:
BTW, we did agree to leave the word "Religion" in the constitution at all, which is an immense compromise already. As an agnostic, I am quite displeased that the Union to which I'll adhere bundles religion with the many other positive aspects of European history, and even pretends to "draw inspiration" from it among others.
|
Greek/Roman ancient philosophy, science, art - based on religion
Christian philosophy, science, art - based on religion
Muslim philosophy, science, art - based on religion.
Indeed, the religion was an evil factor all the way.
Lets destroy the cathedrals and burn Plato's and Aristocle's works on a big stake.
quote:
Clergy can influence children. If parents want it.
|
But state is allowed to force children into its schools, and religions aren't.
Last edited by Heresson on 12-09-2004 at 19:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
The question is, why should they be different? |
For starters, the principles to found a state on could and did change over time, and so did the forms of governments. OTOH, religion doctrines are inerrant.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
TThe wyestion is if separation of church and state is right. and if it is possible without falling into state atheism |
If you don't mind giving up freedom of religion. You can't have one without the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
ekhem, LAW IS A MORAL SYSTEM |
Not so.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
So... what is legal then to do with the citizens of conquered territory? |
Since a country is not supposed to annex territories by force, I am not sure what your quesiton is.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Say, if Corsica would become independant, wouldn't it demand loyalty of its citizens? |
Those who aren't probably would have fled during the process of independence.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
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 |
First of all, lets put aside this divine help business.
Religions do not exist to serve the believers, only to form institutes that would survive perpetually. If any services were provided, they were merely incidental, as means to gain more converts.
They only serve those at the tip of the hierarchy. Much like most of the governments that had ever existed in history. That's why you are confused.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else |
This can't be further from the truth. Atheism is freedom from religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
A Christian can believe they might win the lottery if they buy enough tickets. That isn't religious belief.
What part of Christianity is a belief in Hindu gods?
None that I know of.
You're still failing to show that atheism is a religion.
You haven't shown in any substantive way how it resembles a religion, a creed, or faith in the supernatural.
That's because it isn't any of them. |
You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.
Agnotism is basically just apathy.
Last edited by General Ludd on 12-09-2004 at 20:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
For starters, the principles to found a state on could and did change over time, and so did the forms of governments. OTOH, religion doctrines are inerrant.
|
You are wrong. Religion doctrines change, though sometimes the religion itself doesn't want to admit that.
The same for secular ideologies: USA still bases its identity on people who lived 200 years ago, though its modern doctrine had to change through that time.
quote:
If you don't mind giving up freedom of religion. You can't have one without the other.
|
Why?
Of course it is. It judges some behaviours as wrong, some as right and gives answers how to deal them. Isn't it a moral system?
quote:
Since a country is not supposed to annex territories by force.
|
Who says so?
quote:
Those who aren't probably would have fled during the process of independence.
|
Yes, of course, all of them
quote:
First of all, lets put aside this divine help business.
Religions do not exist to serve the believers, only to form institutes that would survive perpetually.
|
I don't think Jesus created Christianity just to create an ever-lasting institution. Institutions of religion are means, not goals. There was a guy who created a theory of institutions, that originally they are supposed to organise people to achieve some goals, and are emanation of people creating them, but they soon get independant, and tend to create their own goals. It may be true, but thinking that religion is only about institutions is simply silly. Getting divine help was the goal.
quote:
If any services were provided, they were merely incidental, as means to gain more converts.
|
Perhaps - but it doesn't mean the people don't believe in them
quote:
They only serve those at the tip of the hierarchy. Much like most of the governments that had ever existed in history. That's why you are confused.
|
So You think that actually all priests of the world are just cunny atheists that manipulate the masses? Some perhaps, but making general rule out of it is primitive anticlericalism.
quote:
This can't be further from the truth. Atheism is freedom from religion. |
Depending on definition of religion. If You think it is "belief in supernatural powers", yes. But it's not religion. Religion is any view in this matter, and again I say, atheism falls into that cathegory
quote:
So is yours. There's no parallel between voting and religion.
|
There is. As I said before, no matter if You participate in it or not, You are making a choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
No. What about the atomists, for example, or the various sceptics? Greek natural theology as it occurs in the other schools is quite a bit different from what most people think of as religion, it is generally metaphysics and involves the transformation of the person to a degree not seen in mainstream religion.
|
And what? It was religious speculation.
The Academy and Museion were officially religious cult groups.
quote:
No. Based on Greek philosophy, which was used by these faiths to give their doctrines some intellectual punch.
Christianity is really just Platonism for everybody, as Nietzsche correctly pointed out. |
You're exagerrating; do You think that Islamic and Christian though is just platonism? Of course, they were influenced by it, and I think late neoplatonism was influenced by christianity too.
Anyway, the point is?
Why do You criticise Christianity when You were supposed to prove me religion was something wrong?
Platonism is a part of religious thought of mankind.
According to You, it is worth nothing, because
all religions of the world didn't make anything worth drawing inspiration from.
What about wonderful ancient greek and roman religious art, Christian art, Muslim art? Even secular modern art draws inspiration from religion
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.
Agnotism is basically just apathy. |
No, I'm not.
I do not have a priest, and I don't put 'faith' in scientists.
You're also confusing irreligious and anti-religious with non-religious.
I believe that those with religious beliefs are welcome to them, more to the point have a right to hold them and express them, insofar as the holding and expression of those beliefs does not infringe upon the rights of others. Usually I find this is rather more of a liberal view than a great many of the religious are willing to embrace themselves.
Atheists do not invariably oppose the religious, nor is there any defining doctrine of atheism, because there is no singular all embracing 'atheism' that one opts into or out of.
As I'm discovering with this thread, there are a few people who think they know what atheism is, but they clearly haven't thought about it in any depth.
Heresson, atheism has no CREED.
I am an atheist.
On my own, for myself.
I find there is no reasonable argument for a belief in the existence of a god, or a multiplicity of gods.
No club for me to join, no rituals for me to perform, no one to give me a book to guide me, or offer counselling, or intercede with invisible beings, or wear brightly coloured clothes and chant in an ancient language.
It is not a creed, in the sense that a set of religious doctrines or summary of religious beliefs is a creed.
That is because my atheism does not rely on supernatural entities, holy books or commandments, contradictory acts or messages, or any other of the distinguishing features of religious creeds
It is only a 'creed' in the broadest sense of the word, when 'creed' applies to a person's or nation's set of ethical principles, or code of honour or set of opinions.
If you think as you keep saying, religion means any 'view about spirituality', is spiritualism a religion?
Using a ouija board?
Is a New Age bookshop a religion?
How about a piece of poetry? Frequently one finds views on spirituality in poems, or novels.
So far your attempt to shoehorn an absence of belief in religion or the supernatural/spiritual into some broad all embracing category of religious faith is working only for you. Possibly because you're the only person I've so far come across who has (seriously?) advanced this notion.
I'll put it another way: a complete absence of colour is not indication of pigmentation, latent or otherwise, nor is it a view on hues, tones, colours, or shades.
Albinism isn't negative suntanning.
Being barefoot isn't being anti-footwear.
Being bareheaded does not indicate any 'views' on hats, or their efficacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I do not have a priest
and I don't put 'faith' in scientists.
|
Who says religion needs priests?
quote:
I believe that those with religious beliefs are welcome to them, more to the point have a right to hold them and express them, insofar as the holding and expression of those beliefs does not infringe upon the rights of others.
|
How wearing a scarf in school, a cross in a classroom, or a mention of Christianity in Constitution would hurt religious expression of other religions?
quote:
Atheists do not invariably oppose the religious, nor is there any defining doctrine of atheism, because there is no singular all embracing 'atheism' that one opts into or out of.
|
You are an atheist or are not.
A religion doesn't have to be a church.
quote:
As I'm discovering with this thread, there are a few people who think they know what atheism is, but they clearly haven't thought about it in any depth.
|
Glad we helped You to discover something about Yourself
quote:
Heresson, atheism has no CREED.
|
Yes, it has - lack of faith in God.
quote:
On my own, for myself.
|
And?
quote:
No club for me to join, no rituals for me to perform, no one to give me a book to guide me, or offer counselling, or intercede with invisible beings, or wear brightly coloured clothes and chant in an ancient language.
|
Religion doesn't need that either necessarily
quote:
It is not a creed, in the sense that a set of religious doctrines or summary of religious beliefs is a creed.
|
The summary of atheist doctrine is lack of God. Nothing else is needed in that matter
quote:
That is because my atheism does not rely on supernatural entities, holy books or commandments, contradictory acts or messages, or any other of the distinguishing features of religious creeds
|
And what?
quote:
If you think as you keep saying, religion means any 'view about spirituality', is spiritualism a religion?
Using a ouija board?
Is a New Age bookshop a religion?
How about a piece of poetry? Frequently one finds views on spirituality in poems, or novels.
|
But they are based on other religions, and do not necessarily have an ambition to rule the spiritual life of someone completely. If so, yes, it's a religion.
quote:
So far your attempt to shoehorn an absence of belief in religion or the supernatural/spiritual into some broad all embracing category of religious faith is working only for you. Possibly because you're the only person I've so far come across who has (seriously?) advanced this notion.
|
I haven't convinced You, You haven't convinced me.
It is just a thought, I'm not sure about it. The real point is that "religious neutrality" is not quite possible.
For me, it's OK I guess, but France definitely overdoes it, and so do You. By claiming that religious past and presence of Europe has nothing to offer us, You are being blind with hatred to religion it seems.
quote:
I'll put it another way: a complete absence of colour is not indication of pigmentation
|
Actually, black is lack of colour, and is a colour nevertheless
quote:
Being bareheaded does not indicate any 'views' on hats, or their efficacy. |
But atheism isn't just not wearing a hat. Atheism is saying that the hats are wrong, are kind of mental disease, and stuff. Not wearing a hat because You can't afford it or You aren't sure which one to chose would be agnosticism
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
It's a matter of opinion. For me French "secularism" is a state atheism. It just goes too far. |
Saying the French secualrism goes too far is a matter of opinion all right. Saying that French secularism is State-sponsored atheism is not a matter of opinion, but an assertion that you are supposed to back. Especially now that you clearly distinguished atheism from agnosticism, and thus provided a definition of atheism.
quote:
So my special concern about christianity in this discussion is not without a cause |
Of course your concern is not without a cause, as you are christian. But it doesn't mean that Christianty should have a special position in a country's policies. That Christianty is a topic you're interested in, is normal. However, it doesn't mean countries should treat Christianty differently because Heresson has a special concern for this particular religion.
quote:
If You don't see cultural unity between christian cultures of each culture, You must be blind. |
I see quite a few differences between Latin countries and Germanic countries. On a great many topics, the attitudes of these populations are completely different. Of course, we are mostly the same: we are human people, with heads and hearts. We are human people, and we need to breathe, drink, eat and reproduce just the same. We are human people, and we are able of love and hatred, of genius and stupidity just the same.
The differences between these populations are small compared to their shared features. People tend to focus on the small differences instead of focusing on the bulk of shared features (IIRC, Freud called it the "narcissism of small differences).
And guess what? The differences between Muslims and Christians are equally very small compared to our similitudes. By pretending that we are "us", and they are "them", we are only emphasizing the small differences, just the same way Catholics did when they burnt Protestants at the stake.
quote:
Is there a bigger cultural difference between France and Germany today than between France and Greece? |
I don't know about Greece, and I don't think it is a latin country anyway. But France is definitely closer, culturally speaking, to Spain and Italy than to Germany. There's a reason why so many French people choose to learn Spanish instead of German. There's a reason so many French people prefer spending their vacation in Spain or Italy instead of Germany.
quote:
Don't be silly. Two big countries and three tinies in the west don't have a right to call themselves Europe. |
Yes they do.
Heck, Moldova could call itself "Europe" if it so wished. Nobody would forbid them to do so. Nobody would care either.
quote:
The same Poland could form an "Europe" with surrounding states. We must find something that unites almost all countries on the continent. And it is roman/greek and christian heritage |
Why "almost all" rather than simply "all"? You are creating an imaginary barrier that will make it impossile to treat all members as equals, as genuine members of our community of Peace. Why so?
Again, why choose "Christianty" instead of "Monotheism" as a determining factor? Why pretend "Muslims are not European" rather than "Polytheists are not European"?
quote:
|
I know Poland is a highly religious country. But take a look at the rest of Europe, and you'll see how many people prefer spending time watching a football match rather than watching a religious ritual.
Yes. It just happens that you want to belong to a religion that bans you from worshipping anything else. If you picked some new-age groovy religion, you'll probably be free to practice different belief ssytems as well.
quote:
Bravo. Comparing religion to waste disposal.
But that's not what I ment. I ment not dealing with the problem with organised community, but rather dealing with the problem by each member of it.
Each person has some view in the matter of religion
I didn't mean that 100% people are interested in elections or referenda, but that at least theorethically, they are supposed to be and their opinion, or lack of opinion, matters in the case |
And this is where you're wrong. General elections are supposed to have everybody participate indeed, as they manage the entirety of our collective life. However, specific issues are not supposed to interest everybody. If I'm voting in Zurich for some administrative reason, but living in Bern, but , why should I care about Zurich's new sewage project?
I wonder why you want to make religion an issue that should be of interest for everybody. I completely oppose it. Religion should be a matter for the faithful. It should be something that matters only to those who are actually interested.
For the others, it shouldn't be a matter any more so that a football supporter club = the Religious can worship whatever they want, however they want, as long as they don't disturb the rest of society, which doesn't care about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
And what? It was religious speculation. |
It was mostly natural theology which is different from revealed religion. The Atomists have a very spartan view of the universe, the sceptics think we just don't know anything, and the Epicureans think that God exists, but just doesn't give a stuff about it.
quote:
You're exagerrating; do You think that Islamic and Christian though is just platonism? |
That's not what I said. It is Platonism "for the people" - a watered down no-elitist version.
quote:
Of course, they were influenced by it, and I think late neoplatonism was influenced by christianity too. |
Very late. And Christianity provided no intellectual content to neoplatonism. Plotinus, the premier neoplatonist, gets almost everything from Plato and Aristotle. His doctrines bear little resemblance to Xtianity.
quote:
Anyway, the point is? |
That popular religion in the ancient world, insofar as it has any intellectually worthy content, stole it from Greek philosophy.
quote:
Platonism is a part of religious thought of mankind. |
No it isn't. It is a philosophical doctrine with arguments in support of it, based on a particular metaphysical viewpoint for which Platonists supplied further arguments. I can't think of a platonic blood ritual.
quote:
According to You, it is worth nothing, because
all religions of the world didn't make anything worth drawing inspiration from. |
I never said that. My claim is that intellectually speaking they are worthless. They may have some emotional or literary influence on art, but as far as philosophy goes ancient Xtianity was a degenerate, fanatical and irrational cult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Here's my viewpoint on the headscarf ban:
1)It's stupid, stupid, stupid. However, that opinion is irrelevant.
2)Headscarves are a part of religious expression, as are various other forms of religious dress. Some of these things are integral to a person's religion - ie, their belief system requires that they wear them.
3)If attending school was voluntary, or if students could choose to attend schools were religious dress was permitted, there would be little problem in terms of rights violations. However, the vast majority of French students attend public schools, where the ban applies. As such, the French government is violating the religious freedom of students by telling them, in essence, that they must give up their religion to avoid breaking the law by staying out of school. Simply put, parents can violate the law by keeping their children out of school, or children can violate the law by wearing religious dress in school. The only way out is, in some cases, for students to give up their religion.
Whether or not this is fair isn't the point - the point is that it certainly does violate the student's religious freedom, while wearing religious dress does NOT infringe on the religious (or any other) freedom of anyone else. The law is both stupid, and discriminatory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
And?
(this refers to Agathon's post)
Last edited by Heresson on 13-09-2004 at 02:14
|
|
| |
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 17:04
|