How to respond...?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

[Trolldor]

There is nothing inheretly rational about secularism?

Nothing?

Secularism is more than just a seperation of Church and state, it is the complete refutation of dogmatic ideology within any of the confines of a legislative, executive or judicial body.
Sarkozy's ban was not a secular move at all. It was a law directly related to religion.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I think there is a political discussion to be had, which is related to a question about religion in the public sphere.

Imagine that Bob is a National-Socialist. His wife, Zarinda, is not allowed to leave the house by Bob unless she wears a swastika somewhere on her person. In France - and most Western countries - that means she can't move freely in society and function in society. Should we cease to outlaw the swastika so Zarinda can move freely in society? Obviously not. There are grounds for outlawing the Swastika or there are not, but whatever they are, they must be decided on their own merit, not the degree to which Bob - or any oppressive husband or social control - puts Zarinda hostage. For that matter, even if Zarinda believes she can not leave her house without the swastika, that is her problem. If she wishes to function in society and be a member of society, she will have to fulfil certain obligations towards that society.

Our society is an open, emancipated society with a specific history. You may disagree that the banning of the Swastika is not part of an open emancipated society - that may be an interesting discussion to have (not here, obviously) and you may even disagree that the banning of symbols of female oppression (which headdresses in Islam are) is part of our society. However, what is clear is that Bon or Zarinda taking the legislator hostage should not be part of the equation.

If we ban smoking altogether, you may very well refuse to leave your house, but that is your choice. The only reason religion is special is because the rules that flow from religion are given 'special credence' over other, secular, rules. What if I from philosophical persuasion wish to get rid of all my clothes and walk around naked? Is my persuasion less serious because it is not religious and therefore not worthy of amendment of legislation, or is it simply a question of numbers? In the latter case, Muslims have the numbers against them (as does Bob and as does the compulsory nudist) so they're out of luck.

[hiyymer]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

Every 'ism' is a "should", and every "should" is irrational.

[Coito ergo sum]

my likes and dislikes don't make things real.

But they are about all that is real. Everything else is induction.

Likes and dislikes aren't things.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

Every 'ism' is a "should", and every "should" is irrational.

And every sweeping generalization is a fail.

[hiyymer]

my likes and dislikes don't make things real.

But they are about all that is real. Everything else is induction.

Likes and dislikes aren't things.

I guess I meant the emotional bodily state of pleasure or pain. "I like" is just a story about it created by the brain. Our sensed bodily states are probably some of the most "real" things we experience; not thinking about it, but the actual being present to it. It is our connection with what actually animates us.

[hiyymer]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

Every 'ism' is a "should", and every "should" is irrational.

And every sweeping generalization is a fail.

Well I guess there was no point in responding to you then.

[hiyymer]

There's nothing inherently rational about secularism.

Except for the rejection of irrationality, of course.

Every 'ism' is a "should", and every "should" is irrational.

And every sweeping generalization is a fail.

How about...
Every ism that is a "should" is irrational. Securalism is a "should".

Do you like that better? If you think there is a rational basis for asserting that no one "should" practice religion, then what is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

my likes and dislikes don't make things real.

But they are about all that is real. Everything else is induction.

Likes and dislikes aren't things.

I guess I meant the emotional bodily state of pleasure or pain. "I like" is just a story about it created by the brain. Our sensed bodily states are probably some of the most "real" things we experience;

It still remains true that our likes and dislikes don't make things real. And, likes and dislikes aren't things.

not thinking about it, but the actual being present to it.

Gobbledy gook. "being present to it." What the heck do you mean by that?

It is our connection with what actually animates us.

What actually animates us?

[hiyymer]

my likes and dislikes don't make things real.

But they are about all that is real. Everything else is induction.

Likes and dislikes aren't things.

I guess I meant the emotional bodily state of pleasure or pain. "I like" is just a story about it created by the brain. Our sensed bodily states are probably some of the most "real" things we experience;

It still remains true that our likes and dislikes don't make things real. And, likes and dislikes aren't things.

not thinking about it, but the actual being present to it.

Gobbledy gook. "being present to it." What the heck do you mean by that?

It is our connection with what actually animates us.

What actually animates us?

What do you mean by real? I didn't say they make things real. I said they are real. We aren't animated by our thoughts. Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

There is a book called "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. It demonstrates pretty conclusively that our choices and decisions are not arrived at as rational conscious cost/benefit analysis. When it comes to our motivations and ability to make life decisions the limbic system is pretty much running the show. We have not escaped the biological reality of being a part of the tree of life.

There is a difference between a feeling and thoughts about the feeling. Sensing the sensation of being angry, and the concept, I am angry, are two different things. Our feelings are available to consciousness in both forms.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I think there is a political discussion to be had, which is related to a question about religion in the public sphere.

Imagine that Bob is a National-Socialist. His wife, Zarinda, is not allowed to leave the house by Bob unless she wears a swastika somewhere on her person. In France - and most Western countries - that means she can't move freely in society and function in society. Should we cease to outlaw the swastika so Zarinda can move freely in society? Obviously not. There are grounds for outlawing the Swastika or there are not, but whatever they are, they must be decided on their own merit, not the degree to which Bob - or any oppressive husband or social control - puts Zarinda hostage. For that matter, even if Zarinda believes she can not leave her house without the swastika, that is her problem. If she wishes to function in society and be a member of society, she will have to fulfil certain obligations towards that society.

Our society is an open, emancipated society with a specific history. You may disagree that the banning of the Swastika is not part of an open emancipated society - that may be an interesting discussion to have (not here, obviously) and you may even disagree that the banning of symbols of female oppression (which headdresses in Islam are) is part of our society. However, what is clear is that Bon or Zarinda taking the legislator hostage should not be part of the equation.

If we ban smoking altogether, you may very well refuse to leave your house, but that is your choice. The only reason religion is special is because the rules that flow from religion are given 'special credence' over other, secular, rules. What if I from philosophical persuasion wish to get rid of all my clothes and walk around naked? Is my persuasion less serious because it is not religious and therefore not worthy of amendment of legislation, or is it simply a question of numbers? In the latter case, Muslims have the numbers against them (as does Bob and as does the compulsory nudist) so they're out of luck.

I'm curious, though, as to why the French chose to outlaw the Bhurka considering that many women want to wear it. In a 'liberal' society we allow people to believe what they want, wear what they want, say what they want etc. They say they did it in the name of liberty but it could be argued that the ban is intrinsically illiberal as it oppresses the women who choose to wear it of their own volition. Saying that it is the will of the majority and therefore it's okay is a cop out; liberty applies to all groups and individuals and it falls to the courts to defend the liberty of minorities against the oppressive will of the majority. Unless you are causing others harm, you shouldn't be discriminated against.

In the case of the swastika, there are rational reasons to outlaw it. It was the symbol of a racist, sectarian, genocidal war machine and it continues to be a symbol for those who still hold the ideals that the Nazis did.

I should clarify, I don't approve of husbands forcing the Bhurka upon their wives but a sweeping ban that oppresses a group of any size for irrational reasons is inherently illiberal.

[Coito ergo sum]

What do you mean by real?

"being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary"

I didn't say they make things real. I said they are real.

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

We aren't animated by our thoughts.

? Animated? You mean "made alive?" If so, then of course we're not animated by our thoughts.

Do you mean, moved or stirred to action? Given motion to? If so, again, I'd agree with you to a point, although our thoughts CAN animate us, we aren't necessarily animated by our thoughts.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

There is a book called "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. It demonstrates pretty conclusively that our choices and decisions are not arrived at as rational conscious cost/benefit analysis. When it comes to our motivations and ability to make life decisions the limbic system is pretty much running the show. We have not escaped the biological reality of being a part of the tree of life.

There is a difference between a feeling and thoughts about the feeling. Sensing the sensation of being angry, and the concept, I am angry, are two different things. Our feelings are available to consciousness in both forms.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about.

[hiyymer]

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

It had to start with an emotional state associated with the representation liked or disliked.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

none thoughts. It's an ugly article but if you just read the case histories and the conclusion you get the idea.

[Coito ergo sum]

They are real value judgments - thoughts in someone's head.

It had to start with an emotional state associated with the representation liked or disliked.

I don't get what you're even arguing.

Without a limbic loop you have none. http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c ... l/16/4/509

Have none what?

none thoughts. It's an ugly article but if you just read the case histories and the conclusion you get the idea.

O.k. - not sure what the relevance is, but o.k.