What is secularism and why is it important?

[Exi5tentialist]

No I don't agree it's moot. It's more complicated than you present it. That usually requires more words.

Anyway, thanks for the short discussion on this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No problem.

[HomerJay]

Everyone has the right to worship and to express their religion. This was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I see no evidence that such freedom only makes sense when one religion suppresses another.

People shouldn't have the right to express their religion.

Article 18 of the UDHR, Article 9 of the ECHR and the First Amendment of the US Constitution are all bullshit, a travesty of justice and democracy.

Quite simply they protect the free exercise of religion.

Where this is unjust and undemocratic is where we have a situation where 2 people, A and B both wish to perform an act X

A says he motivation for doing X is religious.
B says he is doing X for the lulz.

In many cases the State allows A to continue in order not to violate his freedom to practice or express his religion.
Whilst B is prevented and imprisoned.

This dissonance has begun to be recognised in Europe, for example the wording of the UK's Equality Act and decisions from the Euro Court that have recognised some bullshit called 'Life Stances' and not just god fantasies.

This is a slow process and recognition may be limited to Life Stances so as to preserve the supposed gravitas of so called religious stances (Scientology, anyone?).

We don't need a seperate freedom of religious expression as it is discriminatory, where it may need a specific mention is for example, with muslim states who designed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which is based on racist notions of Sharia.

Mind you if the majority of the population vote for racism your simplistic back of a fag packet definition of democracy would probably welcome it.

If a sufficient proportion of the people demand faith schools then the state should respond to that demand. The only debate is then what is meant by sufficient.

No-one thinks democracy is Majority Rule unless they are 12 years old. If a large minority seeks to gain advantage by use of numbers Democracy requires that they be stopped, not enabled.

[Tero]

I don't care about A and B and X, as long as do it at home.

[Exi5tentialist]

Everyone has the right to worship and to express their religion. This was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I see no evidence that such freedom only makes sense when one religion suppresses another.

People shouldn't have the right to express their religion.

Article 18 of the UDHR, Article 9 of the ECHR and the First Amendment of the US Constitution are all bullshit, a travesty of justice and democracy.

Quite simply they protect the free exercise of religion.

Where this is unjust and undemocratic is where we have a situation where 2 people, A and B both wish to perform an act X

A says he motivation for doing X is religious.
B says he is doing X for the lulz.

In many cases the State allows A to continue in order not to violate his freedom to practice or express his religion.
Whilst B is prevented and imprisoned.

This dissonance has begun to be recognised in Europe, for example the wording of the UK's Equality Act and decisions from the Euro Court that have recognised some bullshit called 'Life Stances' and not just god fantasies.

This is a slow process and recognition may be limited to Life Stances so as to preserve the supposed gravitas of so called religious stances (Scientology, anyone?).

We don't need a seperate freedom of religious expression as it is discriminatory, where it may need a specific mention is for example, with muslim states who designed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which is based on racist notions of Sharia.

Mind you if the majority of the population vote for racism your simplistic back of a fag packet definition of democracy would probably welcome it.

If a sufficient proportion of the people demand faith schools then the state should respond to that demand. The only debate is then what is meant by sufficient.

No-one thinks democracy is Majority Rule unless they are 12 years old. If a large minority seeks to gain advantage by use of numbers Democracy requires that they be stopped, not enabled.

I agree there is no simple back of a fag-packet definition of democracy. I was trying to illustrate an idealisation of democracy as simply as possible to enable Gawdzilla to grasp a point of principle, but in that case any complication was going to provide too easy an exit, in the event an exit was found however simply I put it.

All I can say about human rights is I support the UDHR in its entirity, maybe with minor wording changes but not fundamental changes of meaning as some are proposing. Enough people died in the lead-up to its adoption to make it a worthy document, and enough people have died since. I'd be interested if you could illustrate more succinctly where you think the preference given to religion has come in. I don't support the Cairo declaration.

Democracy is about a lot of things: separation of powers; voting; protection of minorities; human rights; frequency of voting; relative powers of local and national government; lots of things. But the principle remains unanswered by your side. If a state is a democracy, and the state has democratically decided to support a religion, then atheists, if they're democrats, should recognise the right of the state to implement the policy. All I seem to be getting in response to this simple point of principle is avoidance of the question - ie religion shouldn't exist, or I've proposed a simplistic version of democracy, or my question is moot. The point is, you understand the question, but I'm the only person who's actually had the guts to answer it. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but there it is, I've addressed the point of principle. I'm just wondering what your answer to the question was.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't support the entirety of anything.

[Exi5tentialist]

I don't support the entirety of anything.

Nor do I, but that's a moot point because I did add the proviso that I would make some minor wording changes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't support the entirety of anything.

Nor do I, but that's a moot point because I did add the proviso that I would make some minor wording changes.

You support the entirety of the parts you like. Okay then.

[HomerJay]

Where this is unjust and undemocratic is where we have a situation where 2 people, A and B both wish to perform an act X

A says he motivation for doing X is religious.
B says he is doing X for the lulz.

In many cases the State allows A to continue in order not to violate his freedom to practice or express his religion.
Whilst B is prevented and imprisoned.

I'd be interested if you could illustrate more succinctly where you think the preference given to religion has come in.

Sorry, this was the most dumb-downed, simplistic, fool-proof way I could think of to illustrate the point.

You more it more succinct than that? Really?

[Exi5tentialist]

Where this is unjust and undemocratic is where we have a situation where 2 people, A and B both wish to perform an act X

A says he motivation for doing X is religious.
B says he is doing X for the lulz.

In many cases the State allows A to continue in order not to violate his freedom to practice or express his religion.
Whilst B is prevented and imprisoned.

I'd be interested if you could illustrate more succinctly where you think the preference given to religion has come in.

Sorry, this was the most dumb-downed, simplistic, fool-proof way I could think of to illustrate the point.

You more it more succinct than that? Really?

Could you provide a couple of examples to illustrate your point?

(By the way, well done for the attempt at slipping in the personal attacks! Let me see now... "dumb, simple, fool" ... certainly subtle enough not to warrant moderation, but perhaps a little too transparent to maintain reciprocal respect!)

[Exi5tentialist]

I don't care about A and B and X, as long as do it at home.

That's the whole point... rights mean they can do it in public.

[HomerJay]

But the principle remains unanswered by your side. If a state is a democracy, and the state has democratically decided to support a religion, then atheists, if they're democrats, should recognise the right of the state to implement the policy.

I did answer the point,

If a large minority seeks to gain advantage by use of numbers Democracy requires that they be stopped, not enabled.

Atheists, if they're democrats, should recognise that a State that has an Established religion is not a State with a democratic form, so there is no requirement on them to support it. If they are democrats they should resist such a State.

[HomerJay]

I'm the only person who's actually had the guts to answer it.

(By the way, well done for the attempt at slipping in the personal attacks! Let me see now... "dumb, simple, fool" ... certainly subtle enough not to warrant moderation, but perhaps a little too transparent to maintain reciprocal respect!)

Guts!? Personal attacks?

You sound awfully precious.

[Exi5tentialist]

You support the entirety of the parts you like. Okay then.

Oh dear, we are getting snipey aren't we? I have read the whole of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights several times over the last 30 years. Of all the declarations and documents I have ever read, I probably find less to argue about in the UDHR than any other. Of course, I would not want to support any statement or document unconditionally in all circumstances, and there are almost certainly changes I would propose, not least to bring the document up to date from 1948, but I do think the entire range of principles outlined in the UDHR are worthy of support in principle and in practice.

I'm sorry if what I say in my shorter sentences does not express the full subtleties of my meaning, but either you get short sentences which are a summary of what I think, or long sentences which are more precise. You can criticise me for both if you like, in fact, you probably will.

[Exi5tentialist]

Guts!? Personal attacks?

You sound awfully precious.

Oh dear, we are getting snipey aren't we? I was making the point that a democratic state has the right to implement a democratic decision to support a religion. I don't like it, but my belief in democracy outweighs my commitment to atheism. I think that's a fairly bold statement, and I give myself a pat on the back for saying it. Sorry you think that's precious, but all I'm getting from the other side of the argument is complete avoidance of the democracy-versus-atheism issue, which makes me think that others haven't considered it, don't know what to say about it or haven't the courage to address it directly. That's not meant to be a personal attack in the way that calling someone a simple dumb fool is a personal attack, but I realise it's potentially controversial nonetheless. Call me precious if you like, I believe in freedom of expression, even if others here don't.