I’m familiar enough with the posters here to know that most of us regard religion as an obvious cognitive impairment – at best, a mild form of insanity.

So why, I ask, is “religious freedom” regarded by many of the world’s people as a “human right”? Is there really any non-religious defense for such a status?

When one bears in mind that the religious interpret their “human right” to mean that they have a right to engage in a wide spectrum of anti-social behaviour, and to indoctrinate their children in all kinds of monstrous bullshit, why on Earth do we quietly acquiesce to this claim of “rights”?

I propose formulating a new scheme of human rights in which the status of religious freedom is recast as: “freedom from religion”. Each individual has a right to be free of the imposition of anyone else’s religion, and that’s the only “religious freedom” we really require.

Nice idea. But we can’t even keep the god botherers out of state schools.
Lotsa luck.

guess who

Bubblecar said:

I’m familiar enough with the posters here to know that most of us regard religion as an obvious cognitive impairment – at best, a mild form of insanity.

So why, I ask, is “religious freedom” regarded by many of the world’s people as a “human right”? Is there really any non-religious defense for such a status?

When one bears in mind that the religious interpret their “human right” to mean that they have a right to engage in a wide spectrum of anti-social behaviour, and to indoctrinate their children in all kinds of monstrous bullshit, why on Earth do we quietly acquiesce to this claim of “rights”?

I propose formulating a new scheme of human rights in which the status of religious freedom is recast as: “freedom from religion”. Each individual has a right to be free of the imposition of anyone else’s religion, and that’s the only “religious freedom” we really require.

I agree with all of that.

todays religions have their roots in medieval mysticism, 1500 years of ideology that mostly never changes while the rest of the world changes around them

believing in something that has never been proved to exist is silly

practising and teaching it is irresponsible

to preach that something exists when there is no proof of any God is dishonest

I wish politics was free from religion

I wish the media was free from religion

the ABC and other media outlets really need to look at the ethics of propagating medieval nonsense

There seems to be a general failure of a lot of people to understand human rights.

with religious people, a lot of religious people have a failure to understand how their religious ideology interferes with human rights

with western religions and we keep seeing the same behaviour from them

women who want abortions should be free from religious interference

gays who want marriage should be free from religious interference

people who want euthanasia should be free from religious interference

with Islam we see similar interference with human rights, restrictions of education for women, restrictions on women to travel,

and it keeps coming back to this

that a lot of religious people have a failure to understand how their religion interferes with other peoples rights

CrazyNeutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m familiar enough with the posters here to know that most of us regard religion as an obvious cognitive impairment – at best, a mild form of insanity.

So why, I ask, is “religious freedom” regarded by many of the world’s people as a “human right”? Is there really any non-religious defense for such a status?

When one bears in mind that the religious interpret their “human right” to mean that they have a right to engage in a wide spectrum of anti-social behaviour, and to indoctrinate their children in all kinds of monstrous bullshit, why on Earth do we quietly acquiesce to this claim of “rights”?

I propose formulating a new scheme of human rights in which the status of religious freedom is recast as: “freedom from religion”. Each individual has a right to be free of the imposition of anyone else’s religion, and that’s the only “religious freedom” we really require.

I agree with all of that.

todays religions have their roots in medieval mysticism, 1500 years of ideology that mostly never changes while the rest of the world changes around them

believing in something that has never been proved to exist is silly

practising and teaching it is irresponsible

to preach that something exists when there is no proof of any God is dishonest

I wish politics was free from religion

I wish the media was free from religion

the ABC and other media outlets really need to look at the ethics of propagating medieval nonsense

Judaism goes back a lot further than 1500 years.

Judaism goes back a lot further than 1500 years.

Ok and others

I was referring mostly to Christianity and Islam

we need to shut down Scientology

it propagates bullshit onto people

Parents need to consider the ethics and logic of teaching their children religious nonsense too.

People need to consider how religious cults work

we see the same kinds of people who start cults

they crave power, control, money, sex and exploitation

I see these cult leaders as criminals

we do see a lot of antisocial behaviour from cult leaders

and we also see antisocial behaviour from mainstream religion

they need to be shown that interfering with the rights of other people is antisocial and bordering on criminal behaviour.

and this

Vatican advises bishops it’s ‘not necessarily’ their duty to always report abuse to authorities

this is religion trying to place itself above the law

placing their beliefs above human rights

this behaviour extends back to the inquisitions

CrazyNeutrino said:

and this

Vatican advises bishops it’s ‘not necessarily’ their duty to always report abuse to authorities

this is religion trying to place itself above the law

placing their beliefs above human rights

this behaviour extends back to the inquisitions

Newly appointed bishops have been advised by the Vatican that it’s “not necessarily” their duty to report suspects of clerical child abuse to authorities.

we need laws that clearly tell these clergy that withholding that information is a crime

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents need to consider the ethics and logic of teaching their children religious nonsense too.

Religion does not rely on facts to determine proof; it is a Belief and originally largely a means to explain the workings of the world. With the advance of science this has presented many problems for them, when now there is greater emphasis placed on an afterlife.

It seems to be a need of humanity to know that their life does not simply end, and there is no glorious future for them within a mythical existence. Therefore any attempt to change a majority view, especially an intense emotional one, will not be easy and likely attract a hostile reception.

What’s your definition of religion? Is it-
-the belief in a god or in a group of gods
-an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
-an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents need to consider the ethics and logic of teaching their children religious nonsense too.

Religion does not rely on facts to determine proof; it is a Belief and originally largely a means to explain the workings of the world. With the advance of science this has presented many problems for them, when now there is greater emphasis placed on an afterlife.

It seems to be a need of humanity to know that their life does not simply end, and there is no glorious future for them within a mythical existence. Therefore any attempt to change a majority view, especially an intense emotional one, will not be easy and likely attract a hostile reception.

How does a court of law proof imaginary concepts?

If people are afraid of death they need to meditate on their existence before conception and birth

ruby said:

What’s your definition of religion? Is it-
-the belief in a god or in a group of gods
-an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
-an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

I suspect it is all of the above, but more importantly an order to life by an all-knowing deity.

How does the law balance the rights of non religious people against religious people?

we see religious people interfering with the rights of others – abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, paedophile priests abusing children

do we see non religious people interfering with the rights of religious people on the same scale?

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents need to consider the ethics and logic of teaching their children religious nonsense too.

Religion does not rely on facts to determine proof; it is a Belief and originally largely a means to explain the workings of the world. With the advance of science this has presented many problems for them, when now there is greater emphasis placed on an afterlife.

It seems to be a need of humanity to know that their life does not simply end, and there is no glorious future for them within a mythical existence. Therefore any attempt to change a majority view, especially an intense emotional one, will not be easy and likely attract a hostile reception.

How does a court of law proof imaginary concepts?

If people are afraid of death they need to meditate on their existence before conception and birth

You do not seem to appreciate that religions regard themselves as a law unto themselves.

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Religion does not rely on facts to determine proof; it is a Belief and originally largely a means to explain the workings of the world. With the advance of science this has presented many problems for them, when now there is greater emphasis placed on an afterlife.

It seems to be a need of humanity to know that their life does not simply end, and there is no glorious future for them within a mythical existence. Therefore any attempt to change a majority view, especially an intense emotional one, will not be easy and likely attract a hostile reception.

How does a court of law proof imaginary concepts?

If people are afraid of death they need to meditate on their existence before conception and birth

You do not seem to appreciate that religions regard themselves as a law unto themselves.

that is part of the problem, that a lot of these religious people do place themselves above the law

it extends back to the inquisitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

they clearly abused the rights of many people

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

what do you make of this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-12/anger-over-vatican-bishop-training/7164636

Newly appointed bishops have been advised by the Vatican that it’s “not necessarily” their duty to report suspects of clerical child abuse to authorities.

Bubblecar said:

I’m familiar enough with the posters here to know that most of us regard religion as an obvious cognitive impairment – at best, a mild form of insanity.

So why, I ask, is “religious freedom” regarded by many of the world’s people as a “human right”? Is there really any non-religious defense for such a status?

When one bears in mind that the religious interpret their “human right” to mean that they have a right to engage in a wide spectrum of anti-social behaviour, and to indoctrinate their children in all kinds of monstrous bullshit, why on Earth do we quietly acquiesce to this claim of “rights”?

I propose formulating a new scheme of human rights in which the status of religious freedom is recast as: “freedom from religion”. Each individual has a right to be free of the imposition of anyone else’s religion, and that’s the only “religious freedom” we really require.

Would you accept a kind of asimovian hierarchy, with freedom of religion fairly close to the bottom. You shall have freedom of religion, except where such freedoms conflict with higher ranked freedoms.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

I see, so your conception of human rights concludes that:

5. Children have no human rights.

How can priests conform to the laws of the land when the Vatican is telling them to withhold criminal information?

dv said:

Would you accept a kind of asimovian hierarchy, with freedom of religion fairly close to the bottom. You shall have freedom of religion, except where such freedoms conflict with higher ranked freedoms.

I don’t think it’s necessary to recognise “freedom of religion” as a human right at all. “Freedom from religion” serves all defensible ethical purposes.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

I see, so your conception of human rights concludes that:

5. Children have no human rights.

And children have considerably more rights than animals.

I still want you to define religion, Bubblecar (as this is your thread).

Does it involve god or gods, or any belief system held by more than one person?

ruby said:

I still want you to define religion, Bubblecar (as this is your thread).

Does it involve god or gods, or any belief system held by more than one person?

Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme in which the universe has a “supernatural” human-like creator/ruler, who usually has a set of rules that humans are expected to follow in order to conform to his/her “plan” etc. Although this worldview is imaginary, the religious insist that it is objectively real.

CrazyNeutrino said:

How can priests conform to the laws of the land when the Vatican is telling them to withhold criminal information?

these priests will place themselves above the laws of the land

and they will be in contempt of the laws of the land

how the way in which Cardinal Pell left Australia to get away from the Royal Commision

and notice how he is using ill health now to avoid a video conference

you are in contempt George Pell

and I have no respect or trust of you

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

I still want you to define religion, Bubblecar (as this is your thread).

Does it involve god or gods, or any belief system held by more than one person?

Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme in which the universe has a “supernatural” human-like creator/ruler, who usually has a set of rules that humans are expected to follow in order to conform to his/her “plan” etc. Although this worldview is imaginary, the religious insist that it is objectively real.

Seems too specific.

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

what do you make of this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-12/anger-over-vatican-bishop-training/7164636

Newly appointed bishops have been advised by the Vatican that it’s “not necessarily” their duty to report suspects of clerical child abuse to authorities.

I would say that is obviously against the law (at least in Australia), and the people who gave this advice should be prosecuted, if they did so in Australia.

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

I still want you to define religion, Bubblecar (as this is your thread).

Does it involve god or gods, or any belief system held by more than one person?

Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme in which the universe has a “supernatural” human-like creator/ruler, who usually has a set of rules that humans are expected to follow in order to conform to his/her “plan” etc. Although this worldview is imaginary, the religious insist that it is objectively real.

Aha. So we can exclude religions involving political systems, leaders of countries, man (or person) made objects etc

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

I see, so your conception of human rights concludes that:

5. Children have no human rights.

No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

It does however recognise that children have lesser rights in terms of freedom of action, which is inevitable and unavoidable.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

I still want you to define religion, Bubblecar (as this is your thread).

Does it involve god or gods, or any belief system held by more than one person?

Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme in which the universe has a “supernatural” human-like creator/ruler, who usually has a set of rules that humans are expected to follow in order to conform to his/her “plan” etc. Although this worldview is imaginary, the religious insist that it is objectively real.

Seems too specific.

OK, it also includes imaginary schemes without such creators/rulers but which are also anthropocentric and include supernatural forces that determine events and usually include supposedly moral determinants, e.g., Buddhism.

>No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

The laws of the land don’t protect children from the imposition of their parents’ religion.

What are we going to do with the climate deniers? climate atheists I call them.

Bubblecar said:

>No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

The laws of the land don’t protect children from the imposition of their parents’ religion.

Quite rightly.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

The laws of the land don’t protect children from the imposition of their parents’ religion.

Quite rightly.

Then your conception of human rights is clearly very different from mine.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme in which the universe has a “supernatural” human-like creator/ruler, who usually has a set of rules that humans are expected to follow in order to conform to his/her “plan” etc. Although this worldview is imaginary, the religious insist that it is objectively real.

Seems too specific.

OK, it also includes imaginary schemes without such creators/rulers but which are also anthropocentric and include supernatural forces that determine events and usually include supposedly moral determinants, e.g., Buddhism.

Okay

george pell fled Australia to avoid giving evidence

notice the timely illness also to avoid giving evidence

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

The laws of the land don’t protect children from the imposition of their parents’ religion.

Quite rightly.

Then your conception of human rights is clearly very different from mine.

Car, it does seem that your plan is tantamount to government enforced atheism.

>Religion is a worldview created by the human imagination, in which an empirically accurate perception of the world is replaced by an anthropomorphic scheme

yeah probably given to delusional projection of the mind’s excecutive voice, involving hijacking of moral sentiments contributing, and more (at its worst), but regards the latter and confusion over realities other than what minds do, well, in fact distortions of both don’t need religion at all and are commonplace.

CrazyNeutrino said:

george pell fled Australia to avoid giving evidence

notice the timely illness also to avoid giving evidence

Wait, I thought he was too sick to travel

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>No, it quite clearly does not conclude that at all, since many human rights of children are enshrined in the laws of the land.

The laws of the land don’t protect children from the imposition of their parents’ religion.

Quite rightly.

Then your conception of human rights is clearly very different from mine.

Clearly.

My conception of human rights is that they should follow the principle of maximising the freedom of individuals from restriction by centralised authorities, rather than requiring all individuals to follow the dictates of a central authority, as you are advocating.

I see religion as something different to a belief in a supernatural deity.

Religion is all about control…imposition of control on another. A supernatural deity is a convenient excuse to form a religion to control one or many people.
A governmental imposition of aetheism would still be a religion for me.

dv said:

Car, it does seem that your plan is tantamount to government enforced atheism.

No. People are free to believe whatever they like as long as they don’t seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else, without their consent. Recognising “freedom from religion” as a human right would entail enforcing an “age of consent for religious participation”, presumably at 16 or suchlike.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Clearly.

My conception of human rights is that they should follow the principle of maximising the freedom of individuals from restriction by centralised authorities, rather than requiring all individuals to follow the dictates of a central authority, as you are advocating.

You are advocating that children should be the ideological playthings of their parents, who should be free to fill their heads with any kind of perverse bullshit they like.

>My conception of human rights is that they should follow the principle of maximising the freedom of individuals from restriction by centralised authorities, rather than requiring all individuals to follow the dictates of a central authority, as you are advocating

has a bit in common with the egalitarain ethic, which’s probably been around for thousands of years.

group norms are powerful, but ought not be imposed on any member of the moral community.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Clearly.

My conception of human rights is that they should follow the principle of maximising the freedom of individuals from restriction by centralised authorities, rather than requiring all individuals to follow the dictates of a central authority, as you are advocating.

You are advocating that children should be the ideological playthings of their parents, who should be free to fill their heads with any kind of perverse bullshit they like.

I think it is more or less inevitable that children will pick up various ideas from their parents

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Clearly.

My conception of human rights is that they should follow the principle of maximising the freedom of individuals from restriction by centralised authorities, rather than requiring all individuals to follow the dictates of a central authority, as you are advocating.

You are advocating that children should be the ideological playthings of their parents, who should be free to fill their heads with any kind of perverse bullshit they like.

Hmmm, state run child raising facilities then.
Didn’t China do this experiment already?

dv said:

I think it is more or less inevitable that children will pick up various ideas from their parents

Of course, which is why it’s important to crack down on those parents who are filling their kids’ heads with perverse bullshit.

There can be no excuse in the 21st century West for the continued tolerance of “faith schools” etc.

Can they talk to their kids about religion at home?

dv said:

Can they talk to their kids about religion at home?

Depends on what they say.

Ah, religion.

it would be good to see religious parents teaching their children that you have the freedom to believe in religious concepts, but not the freedom to force it other others

I think its unfair to teach children medieval concepts in a modern world that has moved onwards

dv said:

Can they talk to their kids about religion at home?

of course but in historical perceptive

dv said:

Can they talk to their kids about religion at home?

We did. We allowed them to study any religious beliefs they wanted and were expected to make their own minds up.

and how are you going to enforce these “rules” as to what you talk to your kids about in your home? will there be a test, sir?

ruby said:

I see religion as something different to a belief in a supernatural deity.

Religion is all about control…imposition of control on another. A supernatural deity is a convenient excuse to form a religion to control one or many people.
A governmental imposition of aetheism would still be a religion for me.

yeah.

ruby said:

A governmental imposition of aetheism would still be a religion for me.

We already have a government imposition of atheism in science education, thankfully. Do you regard the fact that creationism (or any talk of god) is not allowed in science courses as “religion”?

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

A governmental imposition of aetheism would still be a religion for me.

We already have a government imposition of atheism in science education, thankfully. Do you regard the fact that creationism (or any talk of god) is not allowed in science courses as “religion”?

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

Unfortunately, being religious believers, they feel they have a “right” to violate the rights of anyone else.

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

That makes all of us criminals.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

ruby said:

A governmental imposition of aetheism would still be a religion for me.

We already have a government imposition of atheism in science education, thankfully. Do you regard the fact that creationism (or any talk of god) is not allowed in science courses as “religion”?

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

We already have a government imposition of atheism in science education, thankfully. Do you regard the fact that creationism (or any talk of god) is not allowed in science courses as “religion”?

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

except when they talk about “The God Particle”

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

Kids brought up in that sort of environment will think that they are right and those with a different opinion wrong. They would not think they are interfering with other people’s rights.

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

On the contrary, tolerating intolerance means that you reject liberalism and embrace authoritarianism.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

We already have a government imposition of atheism in science education, thankfully. Do you regard the fact that creationism (or any talk of god) is not allowed in science courses as “religion”?

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

Still doesn’t brand it atheism.

Arts said:

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

except when they talk about “The God Particle”

That’s just metaphorical :)

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

it is a fair point.

Bubblecar said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

Unfortunately, being religious believers, they feel they have a “right” to violate the rights of anyone else.

must feel great to violate the rights of others and get away with it

but I’m getting a bit tired of it

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

That makes all of us criminals.

Does it?

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

On the contrary, tolerating intolerance means that you reject liberalism and embrace authoritarianism.

you embrace liberalism when you are intolerant to intolerance?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

No. That is science education. Has litte or nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

Still doesn’t brand it atheism.

It does. Atheism means rejecting belief in gods. Science is atheistic because nothing resembling gods has been discovered anywhere in the world outside of the human imagination.

science has actually nothing to say on the supernatural. which isn’t the same as rejecting it. so science isn’t atheism.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Bubblecar said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

Unfortunately, being religious believers, they feel they have a “right” to violate the rights of anyone else.

must feel great to violate the rights of others and get away with it

but I’m getting a bit tired of it

With ignorance, you don’t know you have it.

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

its very hard to tolerate other people that are violating other peoples rights.

Arts said:

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

On the contrary, tolerating intolerance means that you reject liberalism and embrace authoritarianism.

you embrace liberalism when you are intolerant to intolerance?

It’s impossible to embrace liberalism without being intolerant to intolerance.

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

On the contrary, tolerating intolerance means that you reject liberalism and embrace authoritarianism.

I don’t comprehend your comprehension of words.

Boris said:

science has actually nothing to say on the supernatural. which isn’t the same as rejecting it. so science isn’t atheism.

I thought science and religion had avo’s out against each other… must stay 100m away at all times

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

what we see with a lot of religious parents is they teach their children some concepts that end up violating other peoples rights, against abortion, against gay marriage, against euthanasia , and then it continues, with their children

can they stop doing this, because interfering with other peoples rights is criminal

That makes all of us criminals.

Does it?

We all interfere.

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

Boris said:

science has actually nothing to say on the supernatural. which isn’t the same as rejecting it. so science isn’t atheism.

Science has this to say: “There is no such thing as the “supernatural”“. Science regards “nature” as “that which exists”. If it’s not natural/physical, it’s not real.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Incorrect. Science is atheist, i.e., it rejects belief in gods. Nowhere in science do you find any endorsement of the objective existence of any god.

Still doesn’t brand it atheism.

It does. Atheism means rejecting belief in gods. Science is atheistic because nothing resembling gods has been discovered anywhere in the world outside of the human imagination.

I don’t see your point. It has nothing to do with atheism as such.

it is just that “supernatural” means above nature and as science tries to explain nature the supernatural is outside its brief.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

you can’t really be tolerant until you can tolerate intolerance…

On the contrary, tolerating intolerance means that you reject liberalism and embrace authoritarianism.

I don’t comprehend your comprehension of words.

I love semantic satiation

Boris said:

it is just that “supernatural” means above nature and as science tries to explain nature the supernatural is outside its brief.

Science doesn’t recognise the existence of anything “above nature”. It’s not real.

Boris said:

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

As he said, authoritarianism.

Boris said:

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

you can’t.. it’s our last right as parents to say what we like in the home..

Bubblecar said:

Boris said:

it is just that “supernatural” means above nature and as science tries to explain nature the supernatural is outside its brief.

Science doesn’t recognise the existence of anything “above nature”. It’s not real.

It simply isn’t part of science.

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

As he said, authoritarianism.

In what sense is it authoritarian for the state to recognise that children are human beings who have human rights, like everyone else?

i agree arts, you can’t. so all this talk about controlling what parents teach their kids is just pissing in the wind.

roughbarked said:

It simply isn’t part of science.

Science studies the whole wide world. Everything is part of science, if it’s real enough to warrant the attention :)

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

As he said, authoritarianism.

In what sense is it authoritarian for the state to recognise that children are human beings who have human rights, like everyone else?

Recognition may be one thing but enforcement is another.

Boris said:

i agree arts, you can’t. so all this talk about controlling what parents teach their kids is just pissing in the wind.

Well, it does sound North Korean say.

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

It simply isn’t part of science.

Science studies the whole wide world. Everything is part of science, if it’s real enough to warrant the attention :)

as Boris said, some things are outside the sphere of science.

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

i agree arts, you can’t. so all this talk about controlling what parents teach their kids is just pissing in the wind.

Well, it does sound North Korean say.

So the North Koreans are very respectful of their childrens’ human rights now? Since when?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

It simply isn’t part of science.

Science studies the whole wide world. Everything is part of science, if it’s real enough to warrant the attention :)

as Boris said, some things are outside the sphere of science.

No, not if they’re real.

Boris said:

i agree arts, you can’t. so all this talk about controlling what parents teach their kids is just pissing in the wind.

the answer, my friend is pis.. oh.

I like the way a thread about religion urns into a conversation about what science is… nice work gang

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

i agree arts, you can’t. so all this talk about controlling what parents teach their kids is just pissing in the wind.

Well, it does sound North Korean say.

So the North Koreans are very respectful of their childrens’ human rights now? Since when?

Respect does not contain enforcement.

Arts said:

I like the way a thread about religion urns into a conversation about what science is… nice work gang

:)

lots of things are found in urns.

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

religion be a beast
does it lends to social constructionism
so do many things
captivatin’ realities generated by minds
nature’t confiscate
what though ask, of realities other than
‘cause every effort
threaten ‘em too long is none discernin’
need’t sleep a rest
place ‘way from work of minds, religion
home ya own nest
that familiar, a mental state what live in
yeah, I am a lizard

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

Yeah, like trolling outside the non-scripture classroom and forcing my son to take a bible.

Yet another incident of religious people interfering with my life and people wonder why I want nothing to do with their insane beliefs.

kii said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

Yeah, like trolling outside the non-scripture classroom and forcing my son to take a bible.

Yet another incident of religious people interfering with my life and people wonder why I want nothing to do with their insane beliefs.

They put Gideon’s bibles in every motel room but that doesnt mean anyone has to read them.

those people who like the bible had a savvy lot of marketing gurus… it used to be the only book you weren’t allowed to be refused in prison. and there’s one in every hotel room.

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

what is bad parenting? it is not a term you can define in absolutes…

Bubblecar said:

roughbarked said:

Boris said:

i’d still like to know how you’re going to enforce these rules as to what parents can talk to their kids about in their own homes.

As he said, authoritarianism.

In what sense is it authoritarian for the state to recognise that children are human beings who have human rights, like everyone else?

If they have rights like everyone else, that would mean they have the right to learn about religion like anyone else. You are seeking to place a special restriction on people under 16 years old, preventing others from proselytizing to them and only them.

There may be merits to this idea but there is no way to cast this as an additional freedom.

roughbarked said:

kii said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

Yeah, like trolling outside the non-scripture classroom and forcing my son to take a bible.

Yet another incident of religious people interfering with my life and people wonder why I want nothing to do with their insane beliefs.

They put Gideon’s bibles in every motel room but that doesnt mean anyone has to read them.

They don’t even get stolen.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I like to see federal and state laws that regulate religion

that religious groups or individuals can be free to practice their religion to a group or individual that has their consent

to make it a crime when any religious group or individual attempts to push their religious views onto another individual or group without their consent

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

Within certain bounds, you are allowef to be a bad parent.

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

what is bad parenting? it is not a term you can define in absolutes…

O,k it was too generalised

if parents are pushing concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights, should that be a crime

it falls under harassment

Speaking of schools I see they homosexual/ transgender lobby have now got schools teaching their life styles.
The pupils have to act out being homosexual or transgender and then discuss being different etc.
I think it’s nothing more than state sanctioned grooming.

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

childen’s consent is given to heir parents until they are adults. So a religious parent can still ‘push their views’

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

Within certain bounds, you are allowef to be a bad parent.

Parents generally start out as new parents and usually learn along the way.

i think there is a FB meme about wanting all freedoms of ones own choice whilst restricting everyone elses freedom.

roughbarked said:

Parents generally start out as new parents

That is so true

Boris said:

i think there is a FB meme about wanting all freedoms of ones own choice whilst restricting everyone elses freedom.

Once they take away our guns it’s the thin edge of the sword, it’s like a big wedge hanging over us now.

Though our children were given the free choice to choose any religion, they actually chose none but they don’t go around preaching atheism.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Parents generally start out as new parents

That is so true

Hehe

Peak Warming Man said:

Boris said:

i think there is a FB meme about wanting all freedoms of ones own choice whilst restricting everyone elses freedom.

Once they take away our guns it’s the thin edge of the sword, it’s like a big wedge hanging over us now.

They took away our guns a very long time ago.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I see your point

however what happens when parents push concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights?

is that bad parenting?

what is bad parenting? it is not a term you can define in absolutes…

O,k it was too generalised

if parents are pushing concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights, should that be a crime

it falls under harassment

if a person carries out an action that violates someones rights, it is a punishable offense…. talking about it isn’t

is that parents right violated by saying you can’t talk about religion?

it’s like a big wedge hanging over us now.

hate those fuckers, all beak, talons and beady eyes!

It is like the wedgie of Damocles

>There may be merits to this idea but there is no way to cast this as an additional freedom.

It’s just a recognition that children are particularly vulnerable to religious groomers, and that they’re not really able to compare a religious worldview with any other worldview until they’ve had a basic secular education, which is their right.

Whereas: “I’m entitled to fill my kids’ heads with perverse bullshit” is not a right.

Bubblecar said:

>There may be merits to this idea but there is no way to cast this as an additional freedom.

It’s just a recognition that children are particularly vulnerable to religious groomers, and that they’re not really able to compare a religious worldview with any other worldview until they’ve had a basic secular education, which is their right.

Whereas: “I’m entitled to fill my kids’ heads with perverse bullshit” is not a right.

You would be a big hit in some parts of the USA.

Arts said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Arts said:

what is bad parenting? it is not a term you can define in absolutes…

O,k it was too generalised

if parents are pushing concepts onto children that violate other peoples rights, should that be a crime

it falls under harassment

if a person carries out an action that violates someones rights, it is a punishable offense…. talking about it isn’t

is that parents right violated by saying you can’t talk about religion?

how did most women feel about the mob outside the abortion clinic, a lot of them felt harassed

talking can become harassment if its continually repeated over and over

>>is that parents right violated by saying you can’t talk about religion?

parents can talk about religion I have no problem with that, its just the odd few religious concepts that can end up violating others peoples rights (abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage etc)

if parents teach those concepts to their kids and then their kids harasses other kids at school what then?

ie – your mums a lesbian, blah blah

it becomes bullying and harassment

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

>There may be merits to this idea but there is no way to cast this as an additional freedom.

It’s just a recognition that children are particularly vulnerable to religious groomers, and that they’re not really able to compare a religious worldview with any other worldview until they’ve had a basic secular education, which is their right.

Whereas: “I’m entitled to fill my kids’ heads with perverse bullshit” is not a right.

You would be a big hit in some parts of the USA.

Just to take the religious aspect away. They would probably throw you off a tall building whether you were gay or not.

Bubblecar said:

Whereas: “I’m entitled to fill my kids’ heads with perverse bullshit” is not a right.

actually, it is

that’s the thing about being a parent… screw the world, I can make my own people

Here is the parable of the girl with far away eyes set to music and presented for your enjoyment by the British country and western gospel singers The Rolling Stones.
Let’s hear it for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyK1bZZ7E-s

dPermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

Advocating the imposition of your own views on other people, and calling it freedom, is just as much bullshit as imposition of any other views.

The principles of religious freedom are:

1. Any individual is free to follow any religion that conforms to Principle 2, including no religion.
2. The principles and practices of all recognised religions must conform to the laws of the land, and these laws must conform to Principle 1.
3. No individual may be discriminated against on the grounds or their religion, or lack of religion, except where a belief is directly related to the performance of a job. It is for instance permissible to require that a Christian vicar is a Christian, or that a lecturer in atheist studies is an atheist.
4. There is no Principle 4.

I see, so your conception of human rights concludes that:

5. Children have no human rights.

And children have considerably more rights than animals.

a 4 week old child has no more rights than a mosquito

wookiemeister said:

dPermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I see, so your conception of human rights concludes that:

5. Children have no human rights.

And children have considerably more rights than animals.

a 4 week old child has no more rights than a mosquito

You can spend a considerable period of time in jail if you mistreat one, yet you can castrate a bullock without anesthetic and it is quite lawful.

>Science is atheistic because nothing resembling gods has been discovered anywhere in the world outside of the human imagination.

The above statement contains notions that maybe appeal to some individuals commonsense, and the joy of sharing enthusiastic commonsense is that it often doesn’t get tested properly, to be that sort of commonsense.

Given science is in-great-part about building acccurate representations that have predictive power, then the realities out there that are other that what minds do is important to the endeavour. When a representation is constructed the describing (effort) and _that described_(the actual thing) need be differentiated. There is some territory where the two aren’t completely separate, or easily separable, which requires more work, and perhaps involves multiple representational possibilities. The broad point though is that most of the universe does what it does by way of realities other than what minds do. Something similar or related applies too of the apparently conscious life of a conscious human being – that any one of us is in-great-part what we don’t know.

So, God might be….

a) realities other than what minds do
b) that of self that is not known

Likely a substantial significance need be attributed b) to appreciate a)

i said,

To me freedom of religion also and most importantly includes freedom from religion.
Someone who is religious chooses to leave and thats its clean slate, no guilt from their family, no financial, emotional blackmail, no violence etc.
If you are part of a religion that doesn’t accept these things then you are a disgrace to the human race.
Religious freedom also doesn’t include practices that take away another person human rights for equality.

Its not hard

It can be a powerful thing Right Thinking. That avoiding internal mental conflict, or dissonance maybe some’d call it. So it’s very much related to internal mental states, the sense of ease one inhabits, the home in the head.

Culture, and ideology more generally (the state too) tend to offer some ease, remedies, some’s Easy Think, answers, commonly held perspectives. Pillow and ceiling for day-to-day experience. Loosely, for the satisfaction of human nature. Keeps the wheels greased.

Right Think doesn’t require religion involving a supernatural God.

There’ve been many right-thinking communists, fascists, choose whatever authoritarian examples’ servants.

But neither is it resticted to authoritarianism. Patriotism can lend to right thinking. All sorts lend to right thinking. School environments reward right thinking.

The obvious alternative to right thinking is of course wrong thinking.

So, there’s a lot of territory in that, in the absence of knowing how minds work there are fixes to do with how minds ought work, though those in the ought business don’t openly differentiate the two.

Personally i’d generalize religion with ideology, with qualifications.

There’s more of the ought thing evident driving down any suburban street, or on TV, or available in shops, or in schools, or in every-day-language than I get from any typically-understood-to-be-religion, or religious influence.

Tim Minchin asks George Pell to ‘come home’ in expletive-filled new song

Come Home (Cardinal Pell) – Tim Minchin

Does the Catholic Church think its above the law?

Vatican advises bishops it’s ‘not necessarily’ their duty to always report abuse to authorities

In the medieval past, clergy of the church in the Inquisitions wanted to be the law, enforcement, jailer, court, prosecutor, judge, executioner, all in one bag, however it changed with the local politics, their behaviour was more abusive back then, and in a similar way today, some priests still think that they are above the law.

And Cardinal Pell went over there to do some accounting?

they already have lots of accountants

anyone can be an accountant with some training

Maybe he found some figures made to look like that by other accounts?

I found some money!

CrazyNeutrino said:

Does the Catholic Church think its above the law?

Vatican advises bishops it’s ‘not necessarily’ their duty to always report abuse to authorities

In the medieval past, clergy of the church in the Inquisitions wanted to be the law, enforcement, jailer, court, prosecutor, judge, executioner, all in one bag, however it changed with the local politics, their behaviour was more abusive back then, and in a similar way today, some priests still think that they are above the law.

The Catholic church makes me sick.

kii said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Does the Catholic Church think its above the law?

Vatican advises bishops it’s ‘not necessarily’ their duty to always report abuse to authorities

In the medieval past, clergy of the church in the Inquisitions wanted to be the law, enforcement, jailer, court, prosecutor, judge, executioner, all in one bag, however it changed with the local politics, their behaviour was more abusive back then, and in a similar way today, some priests still think that they are above the law.

The Catholic church makes me sick.

It’s all the gold they eat. Makes them feeble minded…….