Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence
Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?
We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.
Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.
Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.
I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.
Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9
The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.
Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.
I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
Comments (90)
I would be interested to know what the French position is on outwardly visible signs by other religions that are not in the front line of the current global tensions, in particular:
For some symbols, it is unclear to what extent they are religious vs cultural, like the red mark on the forehead for Hindus.
Then there are symbols that are only worn at certain times, like the ash mark on the forehead for RCs on Ash Wednesday.
I can see some good points in the French approach, but it must get especially difficult around the boundary.
The Establishment of Religion clause in the U.S. constitution was a result of centuries of people attempting to stop certain expressions of religious thought.
The thought in the clause is to permit everything but not let any of those expressions become the basis of civil discourse in the formation of law.
It may not be perfect but may be better than the state acting upon opinions regarding religious expression.
I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state.
Or prohibited. That is the more gnarly part of the right.
We might as well go ahead and ban the existence of religious organizations. If we really don't like religious static in society, then let's just ban it altogether. NO RELIGION ALLOWED.
Banning religion won't make it disappear overnight, of course. The Soviets banned religion, and while it's vitality was considerably reduced, once it was no longer banned (1991) it seems to have sprung back with remarkable resilience.
We could ban religions selectively. The soviets tolerated the Russian Orthodox church more than some other religions. I find Catholic and mainline protestantism quite tolerable, but would be glad to see Islam and fundamentalist Christianity banned. Judaism is OK, and the Orthodox are good for local color. I suppose the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and so forth could be put up with. I have my doubts about animism. Certain screwy heretical groups, like Mormons, should probably be suppressed. Though, they have gradually been getting slightly more liberal, lately. However, the gay valedictorian at Brigham Young University (a Mormon school) didn't get much applause at his speech to his graduating class in April.
How about turning churches and mosques into granaries? Or gay bath houses? Or atheist lecture halls? Or squash courts? or... There are some gaudy Catholic churches that would make fabulous bathhouses and bordellos--very campy.
See. Your @Gnostic Grace, you just are not being imaginative enough.
There will and should be challenges to such laws and over time, the law will decide where, if any, boundaries should be set.
If I read the Quebec law correctly, it would be adjusted by the courts and likely changed to be moral all encompassing because as it stands, it discriminates against those who would seek employment within our governing and legal systems.
I think the final law in Quebec will be made to match more closely the one in France and other E.U. nations that have clamped down on public displays.
Canada will not allow, I hope, employment discrimination and will make it an overall discrimination everywhere and not just in government employment.
Regards
DL
I agree to all but your last even as I see and agree with your point. It is you calling it ridiculous that I dislike. I call it smart as the Catholic board, unfortunately to both of our views, is producing better results than the public system. I admit to not knowing why.
My children are no longer of school age and I am, if anything, anti-religious even though I am a Gnostic Christian, but chose to put my children in the Catholic board so as to insure they got the best that Canada could provide. If the secular public schools come up to the Catholic standard of excellence, then I will be able to change my views.
Regards
DL
You live in a free country and are a free man and your wife and children are free to go into the public space dressed as they like.
That is not so in a Muslim household where the man is more of a slave owner than one leading a free family.
I see our first duty as free people as being to insure that all our people share in the freedoms we enjoy.
Slavery in our country is outlawed and it is our duty to insure that all are equaly able to share the freedoms we enjoy.
The religions say that there is no compulsion in their ideology and I see the laws in question as insuring that the religious live up to their claims by us putting the compulsion of law in their slave loving faces.
Regards
DL
I agree, but see the state as having a duty to end the coercive part of religions that say their religions are not coercive.
The state, in that sense, is a godsend to the more sloppy and vile religions. Nice that the state can help the religionist walk their talk while getting them out of the face of the non-believers. Bad enough that the non-believers have to subsidize the tax shortfall that immoral and the vile religions create.
Regards
DL
I have no problem with prohibiting the teaching that women and gays are inferior citizens as compared to men and that a person's greatest ambition and wish in life should be that of being slaved to a god who is more satanic like than god like.
Regards
DL
Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. Im no fan of organised religion, Im an anti-theist, but it cannot work that way. People have to be free to choose for themselves, thats the only way other people can be free to choose for themselves.
There are certain aspects of our system that are biased towards religion, like tax exemption or religious folks standing in the way of gay civil unions and of course those should be changed as per the separation of church and state but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster.
I like your thinking and we will likely go for more banning over time, I hope. Every dog has his day but social change takes time and as you point out, we should not throw the baby, even if rather ugly, out with the bath water. We will have to live with the more garbage religions until the secular and atheist churches that are growing have a chance to catch up.
The world is getting more moral and intelligent and the more stupid and immoral religions are presently shrinking and our duty is to keep that attrition going and accelerate it as much as is possible.
Regards
DL
The state interferes with all aspects of our lives, including religions as we speak.
You did not quote or try to refute the reasons I put above in us helping religions walk their talk as well as to do our first duty as free people to our people which is to insure that all the slave wanting religions like Christianity and Islam put the law of the land above their mostly unfair coersion and barbaric laws.
Quoting DingoJones
?? Two words should be all I need say. Hitler and slavery. Being long winded I will say more of course.
Secular law is a side and if you look at our laws as compared to what the religious laws are, it is demonstrable that secular law is far superior to the laws of all the religious laws that I know of.
Name any exception and we can argue over it.
Regards
DL
State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. The state should serve us, not bind us.
I did not quote or refute because I agree, the state should do what it can to ensure religions obey the separation of church and state. Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) and to hold personal beliefs others disagree with. I view it a personal duty to speak out against nefarious or harmful belief systems, not a state one. Thats the only way it can work.
I agree secular law is better, its just that secular law should focus on being secular rather than being against any particular religion. Again, thats the only way it can work.
We are nations of laws so interference by the state is mandatory.
Religious interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things, like Muslim men forcing their slaved women to wear certain garb.
Quoting DingoJones
Which they do as secular law wants freedom from religion as much as you want freedom of religion.
You might wonder why secular laws want to protect freedom from religion by remembering that both inquisitions and jihads are tools that destroy freedom of religion and thought.
Throw in the fact that both Christianity and Islam refuse to grant full equality to women and gays and that should tell you that as nations of laws and equal rights, it is to it to insure that women have the right to not be slaved to the dress code whims of immoral religions and their slave wanting ideologies.
Why are you protecting and promoting religions that preach against the law of the land and who act against that law. Why are you protecting law breakers?
Regards
DL
You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement.
Good post.
I saw that and spoke to where I wanted to re-enforce. I do get carried away though as a am a passionate Frenchman who enjoys his work. I tent to speak to just what I quote as I am prolific and quite busy. Apologies for being overbearing.
Regards
DL
One possibility is that the Catholic system may be able to reject difficult students from its system, whereas the public system does not. In many countries that is a common source of misleading statistics that suggest private education is better. Inevitably a public system will get worse results if it accepts (as it should) students rejected by all the private schools.
Right! The original intent of 'the secular state' is to provide a framework within which you are free to practice any religion or none. However, this doesn't imply that 'none' is better than 'any' - which is how it now seems to be interpreted by secular philosophers.
Quoting Grre
Ah, but they're working on it. Quebec votes to ban public employees from wearing religious regalia.
Pardon my views, but I still feel as if "no" organized religion is better than any. But then again, religion is ideology, and ideology arguably, has existed as long as civilization, so even if Christianity and Islam fade away in the next century, it will no doubt be replaced by either the collective growing faith in science, or some form of political/celebrity worship.
I saw that article, but Ontario and Quebec are very different provinces. Quebec has very differnt provincial laws than the rest of Canada (we call it the Texas) and in Ontario at least, despite repeated emphasis in the last decade for greater inclusivity laws (gender neutral driving licenses, bathrooms, very explict sex ed curriculum) nothing is discussed about the public catholic board, despite the fact that such a system of childhood indoctrination is modeled after the Residential Schools and excluding high school, only Catholic children are allowed to go to them. The amount of funding is disproportionate to public schools, especially those schools neglected in poorer areas.
@Gnostic Christian Bishop
I agree, the consensus seems to be that Catholic schools are better run, funded, and disciplined in comparison to public. I went to all public (not being allowed to go to Catholic schools because my family is not Catholic) Despite these discrepenies, it disgusts me that the Catholic curriculum is allowed to waste valuable learning time, learning fictional stories. These students could be learning another language, PHILOSOPHY, more literacy/math support, life skills courses, the trades, but instead wasting time with absolute garbage, which most by the age of 18 stopped believing long ago. I also fail to understand how such a thing can exist with such blatant contradictions ie. Science being taught down the hall from creation theory bullshit.
Catholic schools here do not teach creation theory - they have a carefully structured religious education curriculum that begins with the myths before children develop an understanding of science that enables them to quietly relegate the stories to childhood myth in much the same way as Santa Claus and fairytales (but also allows their parents to push a more literal interpretation if preferred).
I went to all Catholic schools (not being allowed by my parents to go to a public school because my family is Catholic). They do teach another language, philosophy, literacy/maths, life skills courses, the trades, etc - as well as evolution theory in science. The time in RE learning what it says in the bible and how catholic ideology relates to everyday life is not wasted when it also teaches about ethics, relationships, social justice and community-mindedness.
Not all Catholic schools here are run, funded or disciplined the same. Some are elitist, but most prioritise students whose families demonstrate ‘support’ (ie. tolerance) for the catholic ethos, allowing for less conflict in the classroom and respectful participation in all aspects of life at the school (prayer, etc). Enrolling families who will fight these elements of school life is not in anyone’s best interests.
Government funding relates to the alternative of building and funding sufficient public schools and supportive infrastructure to cater for the population, especially in rural and remote areas. It’s in the government’s best interests to support the catholic system, enabling options for rural and regional families which the government cannot financially justify.
The regional catholic school my own children attend has only 55% baptised catholic, with Anglican, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu and Sikh families also enrolled. It is not more expensive or better funded than other schools in the area, and it doesn’t eject ‘troublesome’ kids - yet it has an excellent reputation because of the focus on relationships between teachers, students and families, which produce educational results. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care, and students learn best where they are loved and cared for.
I’m not defending the Catholic Church, which has many serious problems, or its doctrines, which I fundamentally reject. But I do think the catholic school system is unfairly criticised as a whole, based on a number of false assumptions and the fact that its a big target.
Now you can go back the actual topic. Carry on.
Violence against the religious?
Maybe?
Typically, aside from Columbine, violence against the religious is performed by the religious. If those prone to such violence had less opportunity to think about it, then it would seem to follow that they would also have less opportunity to do it. They would definitely have less time spent thinking about it... aside from those already possessed.
Banning all religious representation would definitely reduce the sheer quantity of times one could think/believe that they didn't really have a choice in the matter. Such is fertile ground for cultivating discontent.
Banning all public religious representations would increase the amount of hatred and violence coming from within the religious community.
That has never been done in Canada that I know of.
I and my children were in that system and I have relatives who taught in that system and I think you are completely wrong. I do not know what other countries are doing.
Canada is a cut above most nations. IMO.
Regards
DL
That is the unintelligent position given the lack of equality that religions preach.
To hell with all who think god makes unequal or inferior souls.
Women, if anything, are better than men.
Regards
DL
I hear you but I cannot agree.
If not for those fictitious stories that my children laughed at, they might have become Catholic instead of atheists. Knowledge, even the fictions, should not be denied our children. They must learn to know one from the other.
One scholar I like is Bart Ehrman. He began as a fundamentalist and the more he learned of the bible the more he became an atheist.
Knowledge is power if one knows how to think.
Regards
DL
Violence against everyone. The religious might just deserve it more given that they deny all people equal rights. Gays and women are stupid if they stay where they are not seen as equal.
Quoting creativesoul
That is not the case where religions have banned atheism nor where Muslim countries have banned the apparel the O.P. speaks about.
Is that your opinion/speculation or can you cite something with research and not just opinion?
Regards
DL
LOL.
Religions say kill them. It will teach them how to love.
You give value to that do you?
Religions have institutionalized homophobia and misogyny and a denial of equality to better than half the planet.
You go ahead and speak for it. I will not.
Regards
DL
Gnostic Christianity. That is why they used the inquisitions on us.
They knew that our view of god was better and we had to die as they could not best our morals and ways of thinking.
The same applies to Karaite Jews and Buddhism. We all put man above god where we belong, given that mankind has invented all the gods.
You might be calling those I named religions, and they are mostly considered that, but I put all thinking systems under the title of ideologies, be they philosophies or theologies.
Regards
DL
What about an alternative to religion that isn't another religion?
Secularism as described in the French term laïcité.
Freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. It takes religion out of the public's face and thus eases tensions.
I will assume you are not a Christian.
Tell me, how would you feel if you were on a subway sitting across from a Christian with a little sign on his lapel that said, "Turn or burn" or "Jesus saves"?
How do you think a Muslim would feel?
Regards
DL
Inquisitions? What is this, the 12th century?
Jesus said go out and tell the world, and his close circle of followers determined that they should march headlong into persecution, prison or death to propagate the religion. Stop talking about Christianity as though you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. You can't use out of context references or ignorance of the fundamentals of a specific religion as a premise for a discussion about all world religions.
Why don't you instead refer to instances of men being hauled off to prison because they refused to stop fervently proselytizing? Why don't you instead refer to where Jesus states that he is the only way to achieve salvation and that all other religions and their prophets are from the devil? Why don't you refer to statistics to demonstrate the popularity of the fundamentalism that you're implying exists within all religious minds? How many Christians openly identify as homophobic or misogynistic, or are you referring to the 10 people standing outside an abortion clinic or alongside a gay pride parade with picket signs?
There are women and gays in positions of authority in churches. Why would you omit this information from your post?
The US is the "least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth"? Have you lost your marbles?
What percentage of these religious populations actually hurls beliefs forcefully and habitually at those from other religions, or at anyone?
Where is the conflict, and what is the nature of the conflict? Are hordes of Christians fighting hordes of Buddhists in the streets of every city?
How can you reconcile your proposed violation of fundamental human rights with the law and the constitution?
Also, please reference global violent crime and terrorism statistics so that we can all have a gander at how anarchistic and violently out of control American citizens are by comparison to the rest of the world.
This is supposed to be a philosophy forum.
You defend religions that are obviously and flagrantly homophobic and misogynous by getting a few example to the contrary and which I concede exist, just what a hypocrite does by not mentioning that they are just the few within the many.
As to your other requests, asked in an uncouth way.
Bite me.
Regards
DL
Religion has its ills, I agree. It's exasperating to hear of people hurting and killing each other in the name of God. This is especially true now with Islamic extremism and all the violent reactions it's spawned.
However, think of the other side of the coin. What keeps the peace in the world? What prevents wanton violence or evil if you prefer? Isn't it religion that keeps the leash on the evil that's present in all of us? I'm not claiming other alternatives like philosophy don't make people good. All I'm saying is for most people it's religion that keeps then on the right side of the law.
I didn't defend a religion. You attacked religion with lies, I identified your dishonesty. The vast majority of religious people are not fundamentalists, which means there are billions of examples of people who have a lifestyle only moderately in touch with religion. There is nothing uncouth about calling someone on their ignorance and requesting evidence.
It so happens that all the straws you're now grasping at are lies too. If you're going to initiate controversial topics, at least be honest and genuine, otherwise you're trolling.
If one needs to belong to a homophobic and misogynous religion and discriminate and denigrate women and gays and retard the progress of the rest of the world in their moral thinking, and refuse equality to all people, while continuing their lower levels of inquisitions and jihads, I do not feel it that the few benefits of religions are worth the greater harm that they do.
If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”
Regards
DL
Crime in the US is not significantly related to religiosity. To the extent your argument that public religious expression ought be suppressed rests on the empirically false claim that a significant amount of crime in the US arises from religious disagreement, your argument is invalid.
Suppression of beliefs and of personal expression of those beliefs, religious or otherwise, so long as not infringing upon others, is antithetical to modern democracy and has caused serious rifts in French society. The largely non-religious founders of the US thankfully had the foresight to enshrine the right to practice one's religion in the Constitution because they saw first hand the oppression that arose from rreligious suppression by government.
[quote=Bart Ehrman]I’m not sure what to call myself. I suppose I lean toward “agnostic” rather than “atheist” simply because as a scholar and professional thinker I am, at the end of the day, more interested in “knowledge” than “faith.” Moreover, the term does seem to me to convey a greater sense of humility in the face of an incredibly awesome universe, about which I know so little. I happen to think that humility is a good thing in these circumstances. At the same time, I can understand why others may want to emphasize what they do not believe rather than what they do not know, and so call themselves atheist. (Why they are so incensed that I don’t follow suit, however, continues to be a mystery to me.) 1 [/quote]
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm afraid there's no good alternative to religion given our present condition. I'm particularly concerned about the lack of thinking skills of the general populace (including myself of course) and taking away religious beliefs would add up to undermining the harmony in society even if such harmony is infected with tribalism, communalism, etc.
We're not talking about cases whether one religion bans another's representation. We're not talking about cases where atheism is banned. We're considering whether or not a ban on all religious representation would increase violence.
Clearly violence against religions come almost entirely from other religions.
You need research to reasonably conclude that a ban on all religious representation would increase violence within religious communities? What planet do you live on?
No one else gives a fuck.
I know for a fact that expulsions do occur. The reasons would likely vary.
I do not think it is a systematic culling of any kind though.
I do have a link somewhere that did report a school selecting students, basically by social class, that happens a lot in the private school system and I am not surprised if some Catholic schools do it.
That was not in Canada though if I recall correctly. It was in England.
In overall terms of education, I do not care if our kids go to private, public or Catholic schools, as long as they get the best education we can afford them.
Regards
DL
You kid. Right? That or you are deluded.
Then, as now, there is basically a religious test for your lying politicians.
I don't care how the religious sheeple believe.
Secularism just says to get your beliefs out of the public square where they do not belong as they create hate and violence.
Or hadn't you noticed?
Regards
DL
I like Bart as he is an honest researcher.
He does not understand Gnostic Christianity much though but has Christianity and the bible pegged correctly as myth.
Regards
DL
I am a feisty kind of guy who hates B. S. and the supernatural. Get used to me or best to ignore me.
Whiner. Just kidding, this time.
Regards
DL
I agree that the school system as well as our religious system want to create sheeple instead of intelligent thinkers. Sheeple are easier to fleece while thinkers are harder to manage because we demand better than what we have.
Secularism does not effect beliefs. It effects removing expressions of beliefs in the public square, where it does not belong as it creates hate and violence. Religions are antithesis to the harmony you seek.
Regards
DL
Who where you reading. Not me as I never said that the above.
I say that ridding ourselves of religious symbolism in the public space reduces hate and violence.
Regards
DL
For someone who claims to hate BS you certainly spew a lot of it though. You still haven't responded to my queries into you having no idea what you're talking about concerning religion and doubling down on false quotes and lies about those who disagree with you.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Listen to yourself. Preach. Lie. Mock. Lie. Preach some more. Perhaps you should present even a shred of philosophy or substantiation that isn't about either yourself or your religion.
Whether it is systematic is irrelevant. If the Catholic system, or any private school, expels disruptive students, who then end up in the public system, then of course the task for the public system is more difficult. Any 'comparison' of efficiency that fails to take that into account is meaningless.
Yet private schools continue to trot out bogus statistics showing their 'efficiency', based on such misleading measures.
Ah, well in Canada, you have to be "Catholic" to go to Catholic public school (until high school). I personally never experienced the curriculum first hand, though I do know that they teach other classes as well like the trades/second language ect. but my argument is, there should be more of that not less, to make room for all the ~religion~.
Also, Catholicism is a reminiscence of both Canada and Australia's colonial history-that being the forced spread of and indoctrinating of faith and dogma, not only unwillingly to the subjugated and exterminated Indigenous populations, but continuing on, today. Makes me rather ill at the thought to be completely fair.
Also, ethics without the religious aspect, ie. secular ethic theories are much more lasting and effective then leaning on a crutch of 'faith' and following a list of set dogma, that is not only hypocritical and contradictory due to the Catholic church's long and bloody/violent/terrible/racist/sexist/homophobic history, but pathetic. If we teach people that they should do the right thing so that 'God' loves them (positive punishment) or so that 'God' doesn't send them to Hell (negative punishment) then really, they are doing the right thing for some kind of selfish reason, kinda defeats the whole 'do the right thing' mantra when you scare-tactic people into it under duress. But now we're getting into ethics, which is a subject I don't claim to have any reign over.
I agree-religion has its place to be learned, in history (studying the gross misuses of power and ideology) and in mythology/stories-but it must be taught as fiction. It's true that most people who do go to Catholic school come out very anti-god ect. which is good, but these people were still forced to prey and make signage to a fictional story that they do not know or believe in, i just do not see how that inspires authenticity-but then again religion is meant to teach complicity, obedience, and uncritical thinking.
I too, am in general very concerned for the thinking skills of the general population. Especially my generation. Religion may be less to blame though (no one my age, who I know, is religious) as celebrity culture ect.
Easily-surely there are more 'political correct' movements occurring that allow for LGBTQ+ people in churches, great! But why were they ever banned in the first place? How can anyone claim that religion is 'peaceful' when the two great religions of the world are predicated on hate, marginalization, discrimination, a millennial of wars, and provide the narratives in support of ecological instrumentalism, colonialization, and death?
Also, religion becomes deeply embedded in culture in places where public/religion are not firmly divided, as per the OP's original point. Exampe; the Middle East-I would have to wear a Burqa or other form of head wear, not because I 'believe freely' (as some Libtards would say) in some bullshit sexist purity myth meant to control my bodily autonomy and invalidate my existence as an individual and free being, but because that is a cultural expectation...otherwise in many places I could be killed.
A thousand years from now I guarantee that someone will look back and be incredibly shocked at how the US managed to maintain the image and reputation of one of the most wealthiest, prosperous, and innovative places in human history, yet at the same time keep such a majority of their population in poverty, oppression, or otherwise deteriorating circumstances. By no means in the US Saudia Arabia, but in many, perhaps even more dangerous ways-there are real issues in American society.
As per (I believe) the OPs original point, any kind of religious signage is a form of propaganda and thus serves the purpose of propaganda, to propagate. There are no exact statistics though. My guess, a lot.
You're straw-manning, also, Buddhism is a decentralized spiritual activity, not a centralized organized religion. Buddhists wouldn't be organized to fight anyone FYI.
Also you'd have to be willfully ignorant or blind to not see the 'conflict' evident in Christianity vs. Islam, Christianity vs. women's rights, ect.
Why is religion a human right?
Since you point out so explicitly that this is a philosophy forum, please be aware of your use of 'anarchistic' since, Anarchism is also a school of political and philosophical thought with a long and exemplary history. The concept of anarchistic as synonymous with out of control is one that lay-people succumb to. This is a philosophy forum.
I didn't claim that all religions or any specific religion was inherently peaceful. I'm not particularly fond of religion. Most religion has inevitably led to conflict. Most religion has been justification for war and has contained principles that we in modern Western life find appalling. But most religions were not created in modern times, they were created in times when all the things you've mentioned above were aspects of everyday life for all humans. The only thing I'm defending or promoting in any way is a person's right to practice any religion that doesn't come into direct conflict with freedom and liberty.
A thousand years from now, people will look back and see a bunch of nonsense, but I don't think anyone will be shocked.
America isn't perfect, and I haven't claimed it to be, but it's the best system currently available.
As far as propagation, no one's conducting an "inquisition" in America.
Yes, there have been wars fought by Buddhists, but that wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of the OP's claims. Where is the "straw man" argument? I asked a few questions. For the OP to have mentioned "inquisition", he seems to be implying that a religious state is terrorizing the masses and torturing or killing anyone who opposes state religious doctrine.
To which conflict are you referring when you say "Christianity vs. Islam", and in what context, and where, and how is it being incited and by whom? And where is this Christian "war on women"?
Religion is a right because people are allowed to have thoughts and feelings. To remove the right to practice religion is to disallow thoughts and feelings. It is to disallow the spoken and written word. Tell me who gets to decide for all people what they should think and feel and where that road ends.
Politics falls within the realm of philosophy, as does religion. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be addressed philosophically. I'm saying that the OP isn't addressing them philosophically.
I didn't claim anarchism was any specific thing, but certain forms of it can be simplified to total individual autonomy. My point was not how I view anarchism but how the OP views Western society.
Since there was no philosophical position by the OP, I can't possibly be "straw manning" anything. I'm seeking clarification on some of things mentioned and presenting that other things mentioned are absurd. I'm pointing out that proselytization and blatant dishonesty shouldn't be equated with philosophy.
You seem to be making assumptions about me, misconstruing my comments and arguing points that I never claimed or agreed or disagreed with in the first place.
The one that no one has signed up to and is mostly ignored even by the free world?
I don't think that it was ever intended to negate the freedom from religion for non-theists, but they sure tried to end the freedom of thought and criticism of the more vile religious ideologies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UTdKxCz2FIQ
Regards
DL
So many accusations, without refuting anything or showing the lie.
You win this debate buddy. Yours is a great philosophy, for the delusional.
Regards
DL
Why? They can expel as well and if the person from the private or catholic system does not tow their line, the public system will expel him or her as well.
Regards
DL
I see a full blown delusion.
The U.S. system is proving to be garbage as compared to many of the free countries.
Now if the U.S. walked it's talk you might have a point but it does not and is quite low on the best country to live in stats. Inconvenient stats in your case that you do not seem to know about.
Regards
DL
Inquisitions and jihads are tools to either kill the opposition or use force of discrimination and denigration to convert.
Only a blind fool would not see the discrimination and denigration of women and gays perpetrated by the mainstream religions as not being inquisition and jihad tactics.
Regards
DL
I'm well aware of the "happiest places to live" stats--the top positions belong to a few ethnically and religiously homogeneous nations.
We haven't begun a debate yet because in order to do so people have to define terms and conditions to avoid running around in semantic circles and getting caught up dispelling lies. You've lied about a few things and I called you on them, but you refuse to admit them and instead accuse me of "defending religion" while I'm doing no such thing.
You have presented no argument. There isn't yet anything to refute. All you've done is mock those who don't agree with your preaching and you've done it without any foundation.
I haven't presented a philosophy of any kind yet, I've merely tried to correct your errors. I'm still trying to get through the layers of dishonesty, prejudice, preaching and discrimination you're constructing around your viewpoint.
Please feel free to quote where I agreed with any religious doctrine. You've continually repeated this stuff about inquisition and jihad as though I've defended religion in some way and you have to inform me of its evil machinations.
You've been so defensive and so concerned about preaching the wonders of your religion that you're not even listening to what people are saying to you.
Yes, and you might have noticed that the less religious a nation is, the more peaceful, happy and less violent it is.
Quoting whollyrolling
You want to have a philosophical debate and put the cart before the horse.
What you suggest, has been reversed by philosophers who know that such a task happens after the debate and not before. If we cannot start by using plain language with the usual dictionary definitions, the debate will stall in the definition of words and the real discussion will never happen.
Who in hell told you the stupidity that you are trying to implement here?
Not how we can now discuss without analysing and defining the word stupidity, which we likely not define any better than the dictionaries.
The rest of your post is just childish whining. Get better or get lost.
Regards
DL
You're nothing but a troll behind an imaginary pulpit.
Bite me.
Regards
DL
What is your evidence for that claim? Have you researched it?
I have never heard of a public school system that can expel students. They can be suspended but that is only temporary.
If you have any hard evidence that the Canadian public school system can permanently expel students, I would be interested to see it.
The reason you can't come to agreement is because each of you is arguing about a "different" religion.
Your argument can be summarized as thus:
Person A: I have this concept of religion and it goes like this: etc. etc.
Person B: I have this other concept of religion, and based on this concept I say you're wrong.
Person A: No, my concept of religion is more true than yours.
Person B: You believe that only because you suck.
Etc. etc.
In other words, the two of you are just talking past each other. Each of you is arguing about a different "religion" [i.e. each of your mental representations of religions are different, so in effect you're not even arguing about the 'same' religion], which is why the two of you will NEVER come to agreement.
Oh ho ho ho ho.
It's ignored by the free world because of realpolitik. That's why the U.S. and OECD members play along with KSA, etc.
As for ending "vile" religions, that's obvious as some rights supersede others. This also counters the belief that a ban should be imposed on ALL public religious representations.
Person A is implying that all religion apart from person A's chosen religion--is a bull in the China shop of society.
Person B is quoting Person A's belligerent and intolerant, at times incoherent, commentary and suggesting where Person A is incorrect about both writings and practices within the religion(s) to which Person A is referring.
Person B is directly addressing the contents and the nature of the OP.
Person A is responding with immaturity and contempt to anything that points out the obvious errors within Person A's commentary--from Persons B, C, D, etc.
Person B is not "mentally representing" any religion or making any attempt to address religion but rather referring to writings within the same religion to which Person A is referring that contradict what Person A is saying.
There's no argument about religion, there is an argument about dishonesty and misrepresentation.
My argument is that Person A is dishonest, uninformed and willfully biased and creating or responding to numerous threads with the sole intention of propagating his/her own religion while attempting to manufacture faults in others where no manufacturing is required.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/suspexp.html
Regards
DL
Why do you value the one-upmanship that public displays of religiosity show?
Why do you like public insults to the secular who just want to be left in peace and without the insults against them that the religious do or make?
Regards
DL
The public education system continues its attempts to provide an education. Does that happen in the Catholic system, or any private system.
Secondly, look at the reasons for expulsion, and compare them with the reasons Catholic schools can use for expulsion.
I have no need to as I have shown that all schools can expel.
Regards
DL
For your convenience, here is the item you need to counter:
Quoting andrewk
Because not all "public displays of religiosity" involve "one-upmanship" or are "public insults to the secular."
??
If not one-upmanship, then why?
Regards
DL
They are part of self-expression.
True.
A self-expression, that insults people needlessly with their hypocritical one-upmanship.
If I self-express and call you an a hole just for thinking as you do, would you like it and would that ease tension in our community?
Do you like inquisitions and jihads and thought control?
Regards
DL
Correct. Against the intolerant hypocrites and their intolerant one-upmanship and violence in the community.
Quoting Bodhisattva
I agree that the religious are ignorant of decent morals and that is why their supernatural imaginary gods are such vile slave wanting pricks.
Quoting Bodhisattva
Indeed. Inferior as their ideal ideology includes the adoration of a genocidal son murdering god who they can somehow see as good.
That is likely why many hate them and there beliefs, which include the notion that women and gays are inferior to heterosexual men. So much for equality for women and gays.
Quoting Bodhisattva
I will let you bond with them and their inquisitions and jihads.
Quoting Bodhisattva
True, but not for joy when it is a terrorist blowing other up along with himself. His loved ones praise such immoral insanity.
Quoting Bodhisattva
Indeed, but when your holy book tells you to curse, denigrate and kill all non-believers, that is hardly showing tolerance.
Quoting Bodhisattva
The belief, sure, but a country must decide if it is secular or religious and push that as much as it can, especially with the more vile and immoral religions.
Quoting Bodhisattva
Absolutely, and not just hate others because they eat pigs or shell fish or believe in equality for all.
Quoting Bodhisattva
Not if what you think should be tolerated is intolerance of others, even in your own religion, should they be women or gays.
Regards
DL
You're committing hasty generalizations.
I am recognizing history, and you did not refute anything.
Regards
DL
History? Where? There is nothing in your posts to me that shows that.
If you do not recognize that our mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous, and have been that for eons, then -----
Regards
DL
You're not even following your topic thread. The question refers to a ban on all public religious representations, but you give no evidence showing that all representations encourage hatred and violence.
I would have to have access to all human consciousness' to do so.
If you have not recognized, with all the religious wars, even between sects of the same religion, that religions and their beliefs and icons create a lot of strife, you have a problem.
Regards
DL