Secularism, Fundamentalism and Intolerance
Atheism is an irrational faith based belief system because unlike agnosticism, atheism asserts that God doesn’t exist, that belief can’t be proved by evidence or rational argument, it’s a leap of faith. It’s the logical equivalent of Dawkins saying that he has never experienced the female orgasm so it doesn’t exist.
As a faith based belief system, atheism is no more or less valid than any other, including my own: Catholicism. But as a political ideology, atheism has proved a good deal more nihilistic and genocidal than religion has during the 20th Century: Fascism, Nazism and Bolshevism were all secular ideologies, and far more wars have been fought over secular motives, than have ever been fought over religious ones. Secularism is tyrannical, repressive and fundamentalist. It’s hardly enlightened, democratic or tolerant to ban religion and religious observance from all spheres of public life, even though the majority of the population ascribe to some form of religious belief. Secularism by defintion is in opposition to free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to worship.
I’m by no means suggesting that there is anything wrong with the separation of Church and State. The American Constitution is a good example of how it is possible to respect religious observance and belief yet still maintain a separation between Church and State. Secualrism and the separation of Church and State are vastly different concepts. A famous religious anarchist is quoted as once saying, “reddite ergo quae Caesaris sunt Caesari et quae Dei sunt Deo” (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s: and to God the things that are God’s).
And as an anarchist myself, I’m opposed to all forms of government, but as long as the governed choose to be governed, I’d choose democracy over tyranny any day of the week. The separation of Church and State is a matter for each State and each people. But secularism is nothing more than regressive bigotry – it’s a throwback to the religious intolerance of the Nazis and it’s as fundamentalist as any American Evangelical sect. There is no room for compromise in secularism – religion is bad - so must be obliterated from all spheres of public life; children must be force fed an areligious eduction based on the lie that it is rational and desirable to believe that God doesn’t exists; and those who adhere to religious beliefs prohibited and punished from observing the tenets of their faith.
Put simply: secularism equals totalitarianism.
steph
amie
rob
“Atheists or secularists are being smeared as either anti-religious to the point of seeking extermination of religion or linked to genocidal regimes of which there is a very weak link.
But the Nazis, Fascists, and Bolsheviks were secular and atheist regimes!!!
“And antisemitism is historically Christian”
Get it right, antisemitism is a secular prejudice. Social Darwinism.
Yo, George what’s Canon law then?
Is the education better though because of the school’s religious nature, or is it because there are fewer louts there uninterested in learning?
Which areas of Western culture (not science or technology) do you view as being of Islamic origin? Are you thinking of love poetry (of Andalusi origin)?
It matters because Christianity has no Shari’ah — in part because Jesus was an “anarchist” (as you put it) while Muhammad was a warlord.
By the way, what did you think of my exchange with SM Stirling? I know previously I’d linked to his quotes when posting on Muslim forums and blogs (here and here), in order to deter the readers from buying his books…
@ george
I read a book called infidels, which I think asserted that, but I’m not sure I agree. The relationship between Islam and Christianity has been mainly one of tolerance and co-existence, with the occassional periods of genocide and rank intolerance – on both sides – but mainly Christian violence against Islam.
We borrowed so heavily from Islam, it’s hard to see what parts of our culture are Christian and what parts are Islamic. I’ve been to the Middle East many times and I think that flows both ways. At times, especially now, the West (or Christendom) defines itself against Islam.
Catholicism is likely to be the predominant religion before Islam but I don’t think it matters which one is. Does it?
@ Tim
I accept what you are saying about living your life as if God didn’t exist that’s a reasonable position for an agnostic too. It’s not for me to tell you whether you are atheist or agnostic, I’m just saying that the argument you put forward is agnostic – it’s a rational position that affirms nothing. I on the other hand don’t believe in spaghetti monsters, accept perhaps my niece, but I don’t have any rational reason for asserting they don’t exist.
@ Christian
I see Jesus as an anarchist rebelling against the state and state organised religion.
@ Christian
Isn’t that what I pay tax for? Either we have a state provided education or we don’t, if we do then I see no reason why only secular schools should be state financed. I would rather not pay any tax.
@ George
No, I don’t think so. I want my a nephews and nieces to go to Catholic college because the education is better. I want them to learn the Trivium.
Aren’t faith schools popular not because of their religious ethos per se, but because parents believe their selective admissions policy will keep out the riff-raff?
(It’s the same reason why racist American parents like private schools – because the fees keep the niggers out. School vouchers in the United States would be as pointless as subsidizing country club memberships, as the schools would just increase the fees if they were introduced.)
I will say this, though. As it pertains to faith, there is no need for a government – a religion – that encourages a hierarchy of clergy over laity. Jesus was a spiritual anarchist and he came to abolish religion and all its myriad rules and regulation that tended to squelch that one law that summed up all of scripture. True spirituality is a type of anarchy. Direct relationship with God, has no need for religion.
But Steph, if faith schools are part of religious communities shouldn’t the communities support the schools and provide the means (scholarships) for those families that cannot afford it? The Catholics seem to have had a handle on this for some time.
At least in suburbia. I look in the parking lots of the Evangelical churches in my affluent state and see an abundance of top of the line late model luxury automobiles. Perhaps these communities should re-visit the Book of Acts before they re-visit their congressmen.
You know, if people of faith, not just Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindu etc. began following the “Golden Rule” which is at the heart of all their religions then anarchy would be possible. Of course this anarchy would also look like voluntary communism. And I’m not too well versed on the subject (when I think of anarchists I think of black bowling balls with sputtering fuses
) but for scripture does not seem to endorse anarchy (just like it doesn’t endorse capitalism but that’s for another thread). Remember Ananias and Sapphira?
@ Christian
My anarchist credentials are impeccable thanks and I have already said I prefer no government. However as we’re not there yet, as an anarchist in the tradition of Errico Malatesta, I’ll use what rights the state does give me and fight for more… before deposing it.
There is a greater demand for faith schools than there are places. In those circumstances it just makes sense for the state to fund faith schools. Otherwise faith schools would be limited to the children of well off parents.
@steph
“It’s a different logical proposition to say in the absence of evidence to the contrary I will not believe in God, which is an agnostic position, to asserting disbelief in God”
fair enough, I think we’re arguing about words. The way you define agnostic includes my position and that of the majority of people I’ve met who describe themselves as atheist.
I find it easier to say I’m an atheist since I choose to behave on the basis of the assumption of a lack of a God rather than by hedging my bets. My expectations of how the world works is based on that assumption, which I accept is an unprovable assumption just as much as evolution is an unprovable assumption.
I would reserve the word agnostic for those who are genuinely unsure, but if you want to describe me as agnostic I won’t be too insulted.
And I don’t claim to be any more rational than a theist, as I said originally my position is based on my attempt at a rational interpretation of lifes experiences as, I believe, are yours.
@ Tim
I’m not lumping all atheists together, I have more respect for Castro than I do the current Pope. It’s a different logical proposition to say in the absence of evidence to the contrary I will not believe in God, which is an agnostic position, to asserting disbelief in God. The same is true with a spaghetti monster. But that’s formal logic. Some people assume that atheism is more rational than theism, when it isn’t. Faith is belief not based on rationalism or empiricism.
I think people will use religious belief or ideological belief to justify heinous actions, especially fundamentalist belief, whether secular or religious. I’m not for one second suggesting that atheism is inherently evil.
@ steph (17)
What would you say to those (mostly Muslims) who claim that the entire “European” identity is built on Islamophobia?
If Christianity is not in serious decline, why does Britain have almost as many mosque-going Muslims as it does church-going Christians? I thought the only (Christian) country in Europe which was seriously devout now is Poland. (I wonder if all those Polish immigrants might lead a Catholic revival
)
@ Tim Little (34):
I don’t think that secularism or atheism has led directly to mass murder, but perhaps secularization left a religion-shaped hole in people’s minds which was filled by ideologies such as Communism or Nazism.
You may also be interested in an exchange I had with sci-fi author and rabid Islamophobe SM Stirling on Charlie Stross’s weblog. Until then, I’d never thought that my belief in the sanctity of human life was an intrinsically “theistic” one. Any thoughts?
Steph, what do you think of the extreme intolerance displayed by the pre-Enlightment Catholic and Orthodox churches? Wasn’t this largely to blame for much of the spread of Islam, via the logic of “Better a live dhimmi than a dead heretic”?
@ Diamond
The separation of Church and State exist in America it doesn’t exist in the UK, yet both countries have secular governments, neither of them ascribe to the same secular ideology of a countries like France or Turkey (where secularists are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government because of religious tendencies).
In Europe, faith schools have been given state funding, there is nothing complicated here. If there is a demand for a school and it achieves good academic results – why not fund it? I’m not suggesting that faith schools should be built where there is no demand. There has to be a genuine demand for a faith school, so in some communities there wouldn’t be Jewish or Muslims schools. I’m not talking about the state providing an even play field for the sake of it, I’m talking about responding to genuine demand.
@steph
I guess it is a matter of definitions. I would argue that I don’t propose anything, I simply lack a belief in Jehova, Allah, Wodin, Zues, Krishna, Santa Claus etc. I don’t ask anyone else to share that lack of belief, I simply ask those that do believe to either demonstrate that my lack of faith is mistaken or to respect my lack of faith and not lump me in with Hitler and Stalin.
I guess to me the word faith implies a desire or hope that something be true (similar to the writer of the NT book of Hebrews says in the beginning of chapter 12) rather than a simple absence. To an extent I actually hope that I’m wrong and that there is a God.
I don’t object to to the word faith, I just think that if you extend it to cover everyone but the most uncertain true agnostic it loses some its power. Traditionally it has been associated with religous thought and belief and I think that’s a useful association.
To describe atheism as faith is to extend the word to its limits. Would you describe your lack of belief in Santa (or the spaghetti monster) as a faith?
Associating the lack of belief in God with mass murders is as insulting as linking current Catholics to the crusaders. The truth or otherwise of our positions is independent of the actions of others, and if vile actions are the natural and inevitable conclusion of a particular system of belief then that connection needs to be demonstrated rather than implying guilt by association.
@ Underground network
Can you construct an argument that isn’t a fundamentalist rant or is that all you are capable of?
Fascism, Nazism and Bolshevism are all secular ideologies. That is beyond contest. So is the fact that Nazis were anti Catholic but it is true and already conceded that Nazis were nevertheless supported by some Catholics, although as already noted they were supported by some Jews too. Some people, like the current Pope, preferred collaboration to resistance. My Sicilian relatives (Catholics) preferred bloody and violent resistance. But as all historians are agreed that Nazism was secular – you’re flogging a dead horse.
It’s also blindly obvious that more wars through the course of human history have been fought for secular reasons than ever have for religious ones.
I frankly couldn’t care less whether you’re an atheist or not, my post is a critique of secularism, not atheism. The fact is that secularism as an ideology is totalitarian, it oppresses religious freedom, and like it or not it’s anti democratic, if the majority don’t buy into it – as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
your last point is true except when it comes to Islam…which is seemingly exempt from all the things Christians are challenged on…and groups like the ACLU take precisely opposite positions on the same issue in favor of protecting all thigns muslim when Islam is involved
First of all… interesting discussion here… esp. good arguments Christian Beyer and Steph
@Rob
(secularism is)
– “the exclusion of religion and the suppression of freedoms of conscience and worship in public life”
not really sure how secularism does this… please define
@Steph
im not really sure how you’re proposing to have government fund faith based schools… more specifically… what about minority faiths?
are you proposing that every little town that has a public school should also have a government funded christian, jewish, muslim and hindu school so that the kids that go to the “secular school” have an option to go to one of the faith schools instead?
what if there is a single muslim kid in this town… is the government going to fund a school with an entire set of teachers to let this kid have an option to go to this school?
im assuming that since you mentioned “democracy is tyranny of the majority”, you are not going to say that only if there are enough students opting for a certain faith based school, can the government fund such a school.
More importantly… Why do kids need to be taught a certain faith at school. If the parents are religiously inclined, they can very well teach religious practices at home.
Secularism just means that the government is not going to promote any particular religion… by no means does it take away a person’s freedom to believe and practice a certain religion.
@ Tim
It’s a point of formal logic. Atheism like theism affirms a proposition and the onus of proof is on he who affirms. So when a person says God exists the burden of proof is on them to prove the proposition. Equally, when a person, says God doesn’t exist it is incumbent upon them to prove that proposition. I’ve yet to see a rational atheist argument that supports the proposition of the non-existence of God. You might argue that there isn’t a rational argument that supports the non-existence of a spaghetti monster but that doens’t change the fact that atheism is faith based belief system, like any other.
BTW, I have no criticism of atheism as a belief system, it is as valid and logical as any other.
I agree completely with Tim. I would think most atheists would concur too.
“Atheism is an irrational faith based belief system because unlike agnosticism, atheism asserts that God doesn’t exist, that belief can’t be proved by evidence or rational argument, it’s a leap of faith.”
I know most of your post is about political secularism rather than atheism per se but I felt it was important to respond to some of the implications in the opening couple of paragraphs of your post. I’m sorry if I’m off topic or appear to be ranting.
I describe myself as an atheist because my experience of life has led me to the conclusion that there is no God or gods. I accept that I could be wrong, just as most Christians and Muslims I know accept that they could be too. To describe any of us as agnostic extends the term so wide that it covers everyone except the most rabid fanatics. I don’t believe in the lack of God, I lack a belief in God. I don’t disbelieve because I don’t want there to be a God – in fact I would rather live a universe that was controlled by a loving God, it just doesn’t seem to be true to me that that is the case.
Secondly the philosophy of science doesn’t ask that a theory be provable, but rather that it is disprovable. Very little outside mathematics is formally provable. My conclusion in the absence of God could be disproved by an undisputed miraculous act of God. What would it take to disprove the existence of God?
Thirdly to suggest that the conclusions I have come to about how the world works should be changed because they happen to be shared by some evil people is upsetting. How I’ve come to perceive how the universe works isn’t a matter of choice but of life experience. If I were to pretend that I believed in a God because I didn’t like the social implications of atheism it would be a gross lie and one I’m not willing to make.
Yes I saw the typo of mine, it does detract from my point a little! My point was that the definition off secularism is being completely mistaken in this discussion. No one is trying to kill religion, and I think anyone who thinks this is the intention of secularists are deliberately distorting definitions to demonise those who simply want the decisions of governments and institution to be free from superstition.
Atheism and secularism are not the same things, but even then, neither, by definition, intend on destroying religion.
The relationship between Nazis and Catholicism is well documented, as is the catholic churches history of harbouring nazi war criminals. Although it is believed Hitler ceased to be a Catholic, many of his speeches (see Table Talk) evoke Christian ideology. And antisemitism is historically Christian. The assertion that the Nazi’s were an atheist movement is absurd. I’m not too sure why creationists keep trawling up the Nazi’s or Stalin in these discussions. Atheism had nothing to do with their decisions, anyone with any knowledge of history should be aware of this. However religious factors are much more clear. You cannot say anyone commits a crime in the act of no god, but you can say someone commits a crime in the name of god. The attempt to paint atheism as just another crackpot religion is disingenuous for this reason.
The dishonesty and vilifying here is disturbing. Atheists or secularists are being smeared as either anti-religious to the point of seeking extermination of religion or linked to genocidal regimes of which there is a very weak link. It would be as unfair as all Christians being lumped in with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the pope. Rob, to be sure, could probably be lumped quite safely with such figures!
“Apart from definition being spelt wrong, why is that a valid definition of secularism? How can a system that merely asks that government and institutions by free of religion or religious beliefs be any of those things? Why should the remainder of us have to have such things forced down our throats?”
Be is spelled with a y?
How can a system which proscribes, excludes, and discriminates against all forms or religion and religious belief – save atheism – not be in opposition to free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to worship?!!!
I’m okay with the separation of church and state but not the exclusion of religion and the suppression of freedoms of conscience and worship in public life. Why should the rest od us have secular absolutism rammed down our brackets?
@ Jay
“far more wars have been fought over secular motives, than have ever been fought over religious ones”
Most conflicts in human history, from First Punic War to Kosovo, have been fought for secular reasons. Granted, the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t, but the statement is a self-evident truth.
Underground
Robert Paxton and Stanley G. Payne both identify secularism as an integral characteristic of fascism. Nazism was a secular ideology, ands as secularism is founded on atheism, it’s a bit fucking absurd to argue that Nazism wasn’t a corollary of political atheism.
“Firstly, Hitler grew up a Catholic, and maintained much of his religious ideology.”
Can you name any recognised historian on the Third Reich who says Hitler was a practising Catholic or maintained much of his Catholic religious ideology?!!!! Goebbels used Catholic imagery but that’s not the same thing.
Martin Bormann, the deputy Fuhrer, told Heinrich Himmler in 1941 that the “influence of the Church must be entirely eliminated.” From February 1933, when Hermann Goering banned all Catholic newspapers in Cologne the Nazis persecuted Catholics. Hundreds of Catholics priests were jailed and fined in 1935-36 during the infamous ‘Currency’ and ‘Immorality’ trials. The lawyer Dr. Joseph Mueller prepared an extensive dossier of Nazi anti Catholic persecution culminating in Anschluss of 1938.
Incidentally, more Catholics than gays were sent to concentration camps and there were more German Jews serving in the German armed forces under Hitler than were ever sent to the concentration camps. I don’t see anyone arguing that the Nazis were pro Jewish. If we’re looking at Nazi ideology the contributions of Nietzsche and Wagner (both atheists) are way up there, don’t you think.
Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin were all devout atheists, and in all likelihood so was Hitler.
“far more wars have been fought over secular motives, than have ever been fought over religious ones”
That’s an erroneous and biased claim. I’d like anyone to try and back that up (one or two examples is not representative of the whole). Keep in mind that when it comes to war, religion is often used as the facade for secular motives of expanded wealth, influence, and power, as it is has historically been successful in rallying the masses to a cause.
During the infamous wars of religion in Europe, Blaise Pascal argued that “men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Steph, did you know that in America what you call ‘faith schools’ were at first only Catholic parochial schools? The reason being that in the public schools Protestant prayers and theology were part of the curriculum and Catholics, objecting to this indoctrination, started schools for their own children.
As an anarchist (are you really?) you should understand that if government starts to support something – schools, businesses, charities – that government will soon want to have an influence on how they are run. It’s already happened, over and over again, for quite some time now.
So aside from the secularist argument for secularism, can’t you see how people of faith are better off without the help of government?
Okay, so many wild assumptions, where to start?
Firstly, Hitler grew up a Catholic, and maintained much of his religious ideology. That cannot be disputed. So the assertion that Nazism was a result of atheism is absurd and ignorant. Also, antisemitism has a long tradition in Christianity, particularly Catholicism, it is remarkable that you would neglect to acknowledge that, and the influence this history of European antisemitism had in the actions of the Nazis. Mussolini’s relationship with the Vatican is worth a mention to. Secondly the actions of Stalin and the like were certainly not consequences of secularism or atheism, but of a religious belief in communist utopia.
Secondly, what dictionary do you use?
“Secularism by defintion is in opposition to free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to worship.”
Apart from definition being spelt wrong, why is that a valid definition of secularism? How can a system that merely asks that government and institutions by free of religion or religious beliefs be any of those things? Why should the remainder of us have to have such things forced down our throats? Under secularism, you can all practice and are free to practice your different religions, as long as you don’t impinge on our rights not to. Under a theocratic system (which is the alternative) we have no such right. You’re clearly misinformed.
It is in all of our best interest that we live in a secular system, where decisions are made on the basis of rational discussion based on evidence and imperial fact, as opposed to unprovable 2000 year old religious dogma. Otherwise, welcome to the dark ages. George Bush believes God tells him what to do. How has that worked out for everyone? Besides, who is more totalitarian than God?
@ Christian
It’s not a non-sequitur because secularism is an ideology, a belief system, the state can support secularism and the French and Turkish states do. A Christian state, like the UK, can have a secular government, and secular states don’t have to be anti religion in the sense that secularism is.
If a sizable number of children weren’t attending states schools, so they could go to faiths schools, isn’t it iniquitous not to fund those schools but fund non faith schools?
@ George
I would call that a Secular state vrs Secularism.
There are so many examples, like the need for a confession in law, marriage, monogamy. I’ll have to have a real think about that.
I appreciate your argument, Steph, used to see it that way myself. I have come to a different determining lately, even as my faith has grown stronger. Besides, I think this issue is already resolved with the first amendment and then fourteenth amendments.
Your last remark, a paraphrasing of one of mine, is a non sequitur. Government cannot support secularism (the first definition) any more so than it could support anarchy. It essentially recuses itself from religion.
Christian
I’m don’t think Europe is post Christian, the majority of Europeans are self-identified Christians. The growth of Islam is no threat to European civilisation or culture, like atheism it ought to be embraced as part of our diverse multicultural and pluralist society.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which is why I’d prefer anarchy but if the state is to provide education why should it be a secular education? Why not offer choice?
Put another way, why should I as a Catholic pay taxes to fund secular schools?
What I’m supporting, and already happens in Europe, is that the state allocate funds to schools on a criteria of the education they provide and the demand for the school, which is reasonable. The state education system should provide a choice of faith schools or secular schools.
If secularism has any value, any validity, it will not need government support to prosper.
@ steph 13:
Secularism means that the state does not favour one religion versus another (or versus non-believers). Laïcisme means that the state seeks to confine religion to the private sphere.
By the way, how may examples of “deep Christianity” can you think of? (That means, do most Western atheists and agnostics display values or principles that are actually Christian in origin, without even realizing it?)
Steph, I wasn’t talking about the Eastern Bloc or any of the communist states. Generally speaking, Western Europe (I should’ve said Western) has become a post Christian society, perhaps soon to become dominated by the Muslim culture. England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. over the years have been know to support individual religions. They have never had this constitutional separation.
Which parents? I think what you are suggesting is a tyranny of the majority. Why should I, as a Jew, be happy with any government support of Christianity? Why should I, as an atheist, be happy with governmental support of any religion?
Anyway, if the faith has any value, any validity, it will not need government support to prosper.
@ Ros
Couldn’t agree more – the answer to get rid the state of a government – problem solved
Yeah, the Vatican wasn’t going to sit back and allow a book burning fest or a genocide to happen in Europe without being involved. And now we’ve got a reactionary Nazi occupying the throne of St Peter. If Rowan ever wants to swap teams, I’d happily trade.
@ George
How would you define secularism? And what distincton would you make between secularism and laïcisme?
@ Christian
“That government support of religion inevitably denigrates and jeopardizes it”.
I think that’s largely true and it’s true of secularism too – that’s the difference between France and America.
@ antireptilian
There’s not much I can say to that – I agree with every word.
@ Christian
I don’t entirely agree, it depends on the society, State funding for faith schools is just prudent if that reflects the wishes of parents, but in general: I don’t have a problem with that, and I think the approach in the American Constitution is pretty good.
I strongly disagree with this, America’s separation of Church and state was based on religious tolerance – not so in France, Turkey, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc. My criticism isn’t of the American approach to religion and the secular. I’m no more a fan of religious totalitarianism.
Something I’ve noticed in history, is that when a state takes an official line on faith (that includes atheism, because it is basically a religion) then people of other faiths tend to get persecuted.
And another thing, didn’t the Nazis have a lot of support from Catholic groups and Rome?!
(Runs away fast)
Some people use the French term laïcisme to refer specifically to the “bad” secularism.
Ahem, that last line should have been “That government support of religion inevitably denigrates and jeopardizes it”. Sorry.
There is secularism and then there is secularism.
The fist one, the one that says that there should be no support of a religion, either directly or indirectly, by government other than in the capacity to ensure that no one is denied their right to worship freely, is the good one. Unfortunately this may mean no creche’s at the fire house, no ten commandments carved onto federal walls, the removal of the word God from our money and our monuments and no prayer in public schools. Even James Madison was opposed to military chaplaincy, and he was a devout Christian.
The second one, the one that says that people of faith should not be allowed to consult their religion when it comes to the decision making process, or that a person’s faith should keep them from holding certain public offices – that’s the bad one.
But in both instances the sword may cut both ways. Christians may not have the same perspective on these two forms of secularism as Jews might. Someday, if Islam becomes the dominant religion in the US, we may come to view things a bit differently.
It’s funny, that in the country that has the most clear cut separation of church from state, the USA, religion has blossomed. In Europe, where there has always been a history of state sanctioned and supported religion, Christianity is almost a thing of the past. This is something that people like Jefferson, Madison and even Adams came to predict. That religious support of religion inevitably denigrates and jeopardizes it.
I’m no fan of Creationism but Darwinism is also just a theory, who decides which theories are acceptable and which aren’t? In my view, it should be the parents, but I’m not sure that teaching either is harmful. What children learn in the arts and humanities is hardly impartial or accurate.
But I think it’s more harmful not to have an understanding of religion in a predominately religious society and where religion plays such an important role in our culture, politics and history. Secularists want to obliterate religion from society – that’s not going to happen – it’s sheer bloody lunacy.
I had optional lessons at school: I took history and Religious studies and dropped geography; I took biology and dropped physics and chemistry; I took drama and home economics and dropped art, metal work and wood work. When I was 16, I took Italian and Spanish and dropped French and German. It wouldn’t be difficult to teach some children religion and not others.
Also why couldn’t parents have the opportunity to send their children to State maintained faith schools, as well as non-faith schools?
I can smell a bit of Julian Huxley and the Humanist Manifesto’s influence in the current attacks on religion. Not being religious myself, I think that we can still learn something from the teachings of the ancient world, and people have a right to practice their faith.
To be sure, religion has been responsible for some extreme activities throughout the ages, but it still has value. Secularism is the new religion, intolerant and aggressive as any youth.
Humanism seeks to replace conventional theory of God the creator, with man, who through evolution will set the table, so to speak. This, as usual will lead to oppression as man is not a very good measure of righteousness.
Beware; Julian Huxley was also the Director General of UNESCO, so expect the education system to be the tip of the spear attacking religious thought in the minds of our most vulnerable, the children.
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200805/20080519_UNESCO_1_Philosophy.htm
Well, I don’t think teaching creationism is harmless but I didn’t mean in private schools, I mean teaching religion in public schools, how could they teach religion to some children and not others?
I believe in parental choice in education and religion and also think there is as good an argument for providing State funding to faith schools as there is to non-faith schools. Obviously the State will have some say in what’s taught in State maintained schools but I see no justification for the State to be involved in what is taught in non-state funded schools. That decision should be the parents.
I can see why you would object to children being taught religion against the wishes of their parents but what’s your objection to schools teaching religion to the children of religious parents? What’s the harm?
I believe in the separation of church and state but I wouldn’t want to deprive people of their religious beliefs but I don’t think schools should be teaching creationism or religion.
rotflmbo