God bless the secular state

A Bob says:

08:12am | 22/09/10

Absolutely. The principles expounded by these philosophies should be what is considered, and those principles subjected to scrutiny for their relevance. Everyone can have their say, but nobody should have more of a say just because they hold a particular title.

“One of the first signs of decadence is when a philosophy begins to believe in itself rather than the principles upon which it was founded.”

- Nietzsche

acotrel says:

08:16am | 22/09/10

Eric, Do people suffering from religous mania get disability pensions?

acotrel says:

08:31am | 22/09/10

‘The argument for keeping religion out of politics is equally applicable to organised ideologies. ‘
When Maggie Thatcher, at a conservatives meeting, thumped a copy of Von Hayek’s ‘Constitution of Liberty’ on the table, stating ‘this is what we believe’, was she suggesting we have a new Bible?

Remy says:

09:03am | 22/09/10

Eric

In a democracy you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe and live your life however you want as long as you don’t harm others.

Everyone else is entitled to that freedom.

But imposing your will on others - especially the will as written in an old book about sky-fairies and magicians - is undemocratic.

The Greens or Marxists or Conservatives or God-botherers are free to enter their belief in the public domain and have their belief scrutinised and debated upon.

However, no-one is entitled to impose that belief upon others unless it is the majority belief and everyone accepts it to be the case.

Ultimately, we should all be free to choose how we live our private lives. Another person’s choice about sexuality, euthanasia, abortion, marriage etc has little to no impact on you. Thus there is no reason that person should not be free to choose those things as they see fit.

Unfortunately, the religious among us have sought to continually impose their views on the majority and prevent the majority from their freedom of choice.

Steely Dan says:

09:56am | 22/09/10

@ Eric

The difference is that political ideologies are for the here and now.  Religious ideologies don’t necessarily care what happens now, so long as everything’s ok for the afterlife.  Secular states don’t have an opinion on the existence of an afterlife, or what behaviour helps you get there.

Remember that secularism doesn’t mean that a religious person can’t participate in the democratic process or represent others.  Most religious people hold beliefs that are consistent with secular values and their own personal religious beliefs.

the apologist says:

09:58am | 22/09/10

Good one Eric.

@ Remy:

You said:

“In a democracy you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe and live your life however you want as long as you don’t harm others.
Everyone else is entitled to that freedom.
But imposing your will on others - especially the will as written in an old book about sky-fairies and magicians - is undemocratic”.

Your statement is self defeating. Where did you get the ‘nobody is allowed to harm others’ from? (which ideology as Eric puts it); and why do you have the right to impose that standard on others? That’s not terribly democratic.

DG says:

10:13am | 22/09/10

Eric:

One difference, to start with, is that Marx, Greenpeace and so on are real persons or entities that can be seen Even “Because the Pope says” is preferable to “God says”.

Secondly, the fact that Greepeace says “X” is not a basis for an ideology, but an ideology that attracts supporters. Rather the opposite to the traditional model of “God Says”.

Finally, a statement by Marx is not intended to have divine weight, it is just the opinion of one man who may well be right or wrong. If God were treated with no more reverence to Marx or Greenpeace I think that you would find people would have lees of an issue with it.

But ultimately, “Because X said” is not a good reason for anything. It is a lazy attempt at avoiding responsibility for decision that one could make if they had the courage. It takes much more courage to say “I believe that the slaughter of whales is wrong because they are thinking, feeling beings and their suffering is unnecessary” than to say ” because greenpeace says.

Similarly, if a person were willing to stand up and say “I do not believe people should commit adultery. The betrayal of trust in adultery is of a magnitude so great that it should be punishable as no less serious than betrayal of trust that deprives an individual of material possessions such a banker who steals from their clients” rather than “God says NO”.

It is the appeal to Divinity that is at issue more so than the actual views that are held. However, I do strongly disagree with some of their views but respect their right to hold them (such as the common view that Marriage is a religious institution and as such should be regulated by the church concerned, rather than by the state, and should be limited in availability in such ways as the church sees fit having regard to their ideology).

Steely Dan says:

10:22am | 22/09/10

@ the apologist

Basic individual freedoms as inherent rights go back a long way in the history of western democracy.  These are safeguards to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.  Having freedom of speech is useless if it can be voted away.

Being part of a democracy does not mean that everything is up for a vote.  You can’t vote to end another person’s legal marriage.

the apologist says:

10:30am | 22/09/10

@ DG:

You said:
“But ultimately, “Because X said” is not a good reason for anything. It is a lazy attempt at avoiding responsibility for decision that one could make if they had the courage. It takes much more courage to say “I believe that the slaughter of whales is wrong because they are thinking, feeling beings and their suffering is unnecessary” than to say ” because greenpeace says. “

But you’ve still resorted to the ‘because X said’ fallacy that you are deriding. Your moral judgment on the negativity of suffering is still founded in ‘because I said’ - i.e. it’s only your opinion that suffering is wrong or undesirable.

DG says:

10:54am | 22/09/10

the apologist:

I didn’t say one was more moral than the other.

I said there was a difference between a person who says “God said no” and a person who has an opinion of their own. And that it is preferable that a person has the courage of their own opinion rather than the cowardly avoidance of personal responsibility for simply saying “What he/she said”.

Indeed, and restate: A person should make their own mind on what is good an evil. They should not stave off responsibility by adopting the rule of another, nor should they determine their right from wrong based on fear of eternal torment and damnation by a mythical, malevolent being.

Eric raised the point that the origin of the ideology is irrelevant and that ideology should be removed from politics. I countered with points relating to the origin of an ideology and expressed a personal opinion for the courage to make up their own mind on an opinion rather than the blind, ignorant, apathetic subservience of a person who says “someone else has an opinion so I’ll borrow that - and take no responsibility for the consequences”.

My intention was to point out the difference between a group founded own a shared view of morality, agreement with another individual based on similar or varying reasons and the substituting ones own reasoned position with an opinion handed down from on high.

Primarily, I was pointing to the difference between a person holding an opinion and a person substituting an opinion for “Following orders”.

Do you suggest that the “divine” authority of the church (based on belief in a being and demanding compliance with the ideology of that faith) is of a different nature to the shared ideology of an organisation such as GreenPeace?

Certainly, I would consider the violent, destructive practices of one to be no less abhorrent than the equally intimidatory practices of the other. The difference remains that one is founded on a common moral position while the other is based on a belief of god and demands to follow a certain moral position. The later imposes no responsibility on the members for their ideology as their views are not determined by their own reasoning, rather by humble subservience to god.

My point remains - a person who votes in a democratic election based on their own reasoned opinion, is substantially different to a person who votes based on what God says.
I should also add that I have no problem with harvesting whales for food.

the apologist says:

11:02am | 22/09/10

@Steely Dan:
I agree with you – and I’m not arguing against individual rights. I’m merely seeking to point out the hypocrisy of positions that are vocal against appealing to the Bible as God’s revelation – when all they are doing is appealing to some other authoritative moral source themselves (as Eric’s comment highlights).

But the fact that I support individual rights (for different reasons than you and Remy) doesn’t change the fact that Remy’s position as it stands is inherently self-defeating. Remy argued for individual freedom, but it was a qualified freedom. What gives him or any one else the right to qualify these freedoms in the way he did??

You seem to be citing the historical roots of individual freedoms as being what legitimises them; but that’s a weak justification (incidentally, you’ll find that historically, Western civilisation founded these positions in Biblical Christianity – back to square one). Just cause a particular belief goes back a long way, doesn’t make it right. What is it founded on?

Steely Dan says:

11:26am | 22/09/10

@ the apologist

“I agree with you – and I’m not arguing against individual rights.”
You are arguing against some of them.  I know that you believe that all rights are illegitimate unless God-given. 

“I’m merely seeking to point out the hypocrisy…when all they are doing is appealing to some other authoritative moral source themselves…”
You don’t have to have a moral objection to the Bible to disagree that it’s divine revelation. 
“Remy argued for individual freedom, but it was a qualified freedom. What gives him or any one else the right to qualify these freedoms in the way he did??”
Social contract.  We’ve discussed this at length before, so we might have to agree to disagree.

“You seem to be citing the historical roots of individual freedoms as being what legitimises them; but that’s a weak justification”
No, I was not.  I wanted to point out that they’re tried and tested.

“(incidentally, you’ll find that historically, Western civilisation founded these positions in Biblical Christianity – back to square one).”
What positions?  Not individual freedoms or democracy.

“What is it founded on?”
Reason and evidence.

the apologist says:

11:33am | 22/09/10

@DG:
Ok, I see your point. I misinterpreted what you said. However, I think that you have something of a ‘straw-man’ view of the ethical views you’re criticising (e.g. where you said “Primarily, I was pointing to the difference between a person holding an opinion and a person substituting an opinion for “Following orders”). However, that argument is another discussion.
It seems, then, that you cite personal moral judgment as the proper method for establishing moral positions then? The problem with this is that it reduces morals to subjective relativity – right and wrong is no longer possible if this is how morals are determined. Right and wrong fluxuates between generations and people; it’s merely one persons opinion verse that of another.
The point is this, that any moral claim needs to be founded in something. The only difference between Greenpeace and the Church (apart from the actual moral positions that they hold!) is that they cite different sources to legitimise their moral appeals.

underdog says:

12:15pm | 22/09/10

@the apologist:

The reason that the notion of human rights has become historically enshrined in western society is because western society is largely democratic, and people vote for what is in the majority interest.

You could argue that if 51% of the population wanted to reintroduce slavery and then enslave the 49% that voted against it is “democratic”, but it will never happen because the nature of human interaction is such that we now have something called “empathy” for other human beings - or at least, most people do.

All politics is to some degree based on ideology, but democracy ensures that ideology is always diluted with pragmatism.
The problem with religious ideology is that it inherently denies all other ideologies and acts as a “law unto itself”, answerable to no-one but “God”.

How else do you explain the absolutely ridiculous stance of the Catholic Church forbidding the use of contraception in Third-World countries that cannot sustain their current populations, let alone the likelihood of doubling or tripling their populations. Exactly who does this benefit and how? Likewise the hypocrisy of preaching inflexible “morality” whilst implementing a systemic cover-up of abuse scandals?

The way I see it (having been raised a Catholic but now lapsed), it is simply about power and in that way is identical to politics. But, unlike a democracy, the ordained leaders of a religion are not democratically elected or answerable to the majority of people.

Chris L says:

01:02pm | 22/09/10

“you’ll find that historically, Western civilisation founded these positions in Biblical Christianity – back to square one.”

I always thought the ideas of democracy and individual freedoms began in ancient Greece, but I guess I could be wrong.

Eric says:

01:13pm | 22/09/10

It doesn’t matter who “said so”. It could be God Or Krishna or Marx or the iguanas in my eyeballs.

The point is that any opinion, regardless of origin, is legitimate in a democracy. Now, whether other people agree is very much open to dispute, and the origin of the opinion is relevant to its acceptance.

But to say that religious beliefs should not be admissible in the arguments over policy is not compatible with a liberal democracy.

rick says:

01:58pm | 22/09/10

@ Underdog:

Actually, there is evidence that abstinence and fidelity programs in African countries (e.g. Uganda) have proven to decrease the incidence of STD’s, something contraceptives only helped to get worse.

It also has an effect on overpopulation as men have only so many kids with one woman, as opposed to that same amount repeatedly with many women.

Remy says:

02:18pm | 22/09/10

the apologist says:09:58am | 22/09/10

You’ll find many laws enacted by a democratically elected government preventing you from harming others.

Moreover, it is a tenet of civilised society based on the evolution of our society.

It is more than just an ideology, but a practical right that we are free of harm done by others.

Or you could argue against it and try your luck and go and harm others. Good luck with that. But I can be a very violent person capable of extreme torture when necessary.

Steely Dan says:

02:31pm | 22/09/10

@ Eric

“But to say that religious beliefs should not be admissible in the arguments over policy is not compatible with a liberal democracy.”
Secularism can’t (and shouldn’t) stop people from participating in the democratic process as representatives just because of their religion.  In fact, the very passage of our Constitution that makes us a secular nation explicitly states that “no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the Commonwealth” - meaning that you’re free to believe whatever you want.  You’re free to elect Bob Christian of the Christian Peoples Party to parliament, even if he runs on a ‘Ten Commandments’ platform.  I’d prefer that you didn’t, but I certainly can’t stop you from doing so.  But there are limits to how Bob Christian can express his religious beliefs in office - like everyone else, he can’t violate Section 116 of the Constitution.

Eric says:

03:45pm | 22/09/10

For once, Steely Dan, I agree. That is pretty much my point.

acotrel says:

08:23am | 22/09/10

Walker, Morals are a subset of, and probably the basis of the philosophy known as ethics.  It really annoys me the way some people can act totally without ethics, because their bad behaviour is not specifically prescribed in the BIble as unacceptable.  A prime example is a political leader with strong religous leanings, who is devious, deceitful, and proposes publicly that his behaviour is OK! I don’t mind anyone being religous, as long as they ‘walk the talk’!

Tedd says:

09:00am | 22/09/10

Walker, 3 or 4 of the commandments are just edicts about the supreme idol, G-d

“I am the Lord your God
“You shall have no other gods before me
“You shall not make for yourself an idol
“Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
“Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”

Steely Dan says:

10:26am | 22/09/10

@ Walker

“the 10 commandments,as a legal and moral framework, they have served us reasonably well,preventing a free fall into total decadence.”
‘Don’t kill people’ and ‘Don’t steal people’s stuff’ are values that are a lot older than Judaism.  I don’t have a problem with some of the commandments, but I don’t thank any religions for them.

Bobster says:

11:07am | 22/09/10

The 10 commandments could quite easily be shortened to about two or three.

- Not coveting things completely undermines our economic system - where would demand come from if nobody wanted anything?
- Keeping holy the sabbath kind of condemns the entire hospitality industry to hell, and not making craven images is not entirely helpful to the arts.
- Respecting your mother and father sounds nice but, then, a lot of mothers and fathers exactly aren’t deserving of respect.
- Adultery - well, that’s an individual decision really, a lot of couples have quite workable “arrangements” so why interfere?
- No gods before God - well that’s never been the case given the number of religions in society. It really starts more trouble than it stops.
- Not taking the Lord’s name in vain - why not and where has this ever gotten us?
So what’s that leave us with? Don’t murder, steal or bear false witness.
That’s fair enough I suppose, but it’s hardling a ringing endorsement of the entire list.

acotrel says:

11:16am | 22/09/10

‘- Adultery - well, that’s an individual decision really, a lot of couples have quite workable “arrangements” so why interfere?’

Just as long as they don’t enjoy it!

Matt says:

11:41am | 22/09/10

Agreed.

Some Catholics should ask themselves a very simple question: What organisation has been most responsible for the sexual and physical abuse of children in Australia throughout her history…pretty easy to answer, huh?

How anyone from the church can claim moral superiority is completely beyond me. Just more old grey dudes who think they know whats best for the rest of us because they read a book of fiction.

Interloper says:

02:25pm | 22/09/10

Matt, that’s an ignorant comment. The reason that pedophiles and psychopaths clothed in religious robes were able to obtain access to children is that the Catholic church is the “organisation most responsible for” the care of neglected and underprivileged “children in Australia throughout her history.
The Bible is not a work of fiction, or a work of history ... it is a collection of history, myths, legends, reflections, poetry, letters etc. The Catholic church’s position on moral issues is based on centuries of philosophical study, starting with the Greeks. You are welcome to disagree with them, but to pretend that they’re just taken from ‘a book of fiction’ suggests that you don’t know enough to provide an accurate criticism.

Steely Dan says:

03:18pm | 22/09/10

@ interloper

“The reason that pedophiles and psychopaths clothed in religious robes were able to obtain access to children is that the Catholic church is the “organisation most responsible for” the care of neglected and underprivileged “children in Australia throughout her history.”
Very true.  But it’s how the church addressed the issue that’s of concern.

“The Bible is not a work of fiction, or a work of history ... it is a collection of history, myths, legends, reflections, poetry, letters etc.”
So some books are fiction, and some are fact.

“The Catholic church’s position on moral issues is based on centuries of philosophical study, starting with the Greeks.”
Chronologically, maybe.  But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the Catholic Bible is the basis for the church’s moral position.

Sean says:

04:19pm | 22/09/10

@ Matt
I’ll guess…teachers…that’s who you meant right?

Interloper says:

04:58pm | 22/09/10

@steely dan

No argument with me that the church’s handling of the issue has ranged from criminally negligent to criminal. Scott Stevens at the Drum had a good take on this the other day.

‘Fiction’ and ‘mythology’ are not quite the same thing.

And the difference on your last point is that the unlike the evangelical protestant churches Catholics do not believe that the Bible is ‘the last word’. It’s an important book, with important lessons, but it’s not a definitive manual.

Roja says:

05:41pm | 22/09/10

@Interloper - the new testament and the Koran were both written several centuries after their respective primary subjects died, so they are at best fictional accounts of events that may have happened.

In a court that is called hearsay, yet Christians declare this as ‘the gospel truth’.

I move that the bible be declared inadmissable as evidence.

Interloper says:

06:09pm | 22/09/10

@ Roja,
Actually, the gospels were written between 30 and 100 years after the death of Jesus, based largely on earlier texts. The Qu’ran, as I understand, was written by Mohammed as it was ‘dictated’ to him by God. Neither, by the way, was written as a history text. And please don’t presuppose what all Christians believe.

Roja says:

11:32am | 23/09/10

The new testament was compiled well over a hundred years after the death of jesus, from a range of disparate sources by a person who was not born at the time these events happened.  In fact with an average life span of around the mid 30’s, it is extremely unlikely that the author ever spoke to anyone that lived during the time.

Humans are also known to hold personal beliefs and prejudices, hence my inability to believe that the new testament is anything other than hearsay and heavily at risk of having parts included for the benefit of men rather than any form of spirituality.

The Qu’ran was not written by Mohammed, it was dictated as Mohammed was illiterate.  It took a few hundred years before the passed on stories were actually written down, once again by people who were not alive and never knew anyone who was alive at the time Mohammed lived.

It is quite likely we are debating something that we have common ground on, as to me it sounds like you take the lessons from the bible to guide your moral compass rather than religious fundamentalists who take those book very literally.  The latter being those that I tend to take issue with.

Interloper says:

01:16pm | 23/09/10

@ Roja,

You’re right, I think we agree!

The New testament contains stuff that’s poorly remembered, or where memories changed in light of subsequent events, and is influenced by the personal prejudices of those writing it. For all that, though, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the writers managed to get most of the basic messages correct. The advice to Christians of all stripes (and to others, for that matter) is to read the thing in its entirety rather than relying on individual lines. You might find that the Christian message is not quite what you think it is.

Chris L says:

09:58am | 22/09/10

It seems to me that with this very quote the pope is abandoning honesty, respect and fair-mindedness.

Tedd says:

11:01am | 22/09/10

Can we change that to ... the void is filled with the *humanity* that religions hijack” - spirituality seems a nebulous notion. 

And, religions false notion that humanity is all sin is a nonsense that needs to be binned.

howy says:

01:45pm | 22/09/10

I wouldn’t cite France as a great example of secularism - France is only around these days because the evangelical southerns from the USA and other men of faith stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6th 1944.

Tedd says:

02:39pm | 22/09/10

howy, those two statements are unrelated; they didn’t storm the beaches because of or for religious purposes, or to defend or deny secularism.

It is a non-sequitur.

Steely Dan says:

02:39pm | 22/09/10

@ howy

I woudn’t promote France as being particularly secular these days either (see burqa ban), but saying that France only survived in 1944 because of “evangelical southerns from the USA and other men of faith” fought at Normandy is being silly.  Don’t tell me you’re just baiting so you can use the ‘no atheists in foxholes’ line?

Austin 3:16 says:

09:25pm | 22/09/10

Scandanavia might be a better example.

howy says:

09:47am | 22/09/10

champ, It would take a lot of faith to believe all that

Chris L says:

10:03am | 22/09/10

Maybe that’s what the internet filter is all about Phil.

acotrel says:

11:11am | 22/09/10

The Church is simply another part of the old authoritarian paradigm.
‘Unfortunately, the religious among us have sought to continually impose their views on the majority and prevent the majority from their freedom of choice.’

Pope John Paul once said ‘with all this new found democratism, we should still recognise the authority of Christ’  That authority was vested in himself!

Bobster says:

12:11pm | 22/09/10

@ howy

Do you have any idea how many gods/messiahs/holy virgins and so forth were editted into the version of Christ we have now?

It doesn’t take faith to come to this conclusion - you just need to keep more than one book in your house and, just occassionally, read the views that dissent from your own.

There is nothing original about the christian tradition, from its moral philosophy to its mythology, the entire bloody thing has been lifted from other cultures and traditions.

There is nothing new under the sun.

TheRealDave says:

05:39pm | 22/09/10

Christianity was ‘founded’ by a bloke who fell off his horse and smashed his head on a rock. A bloke even the other disciples thought was nuts and wanted nothing to do with. Thats why its called ‘Pauline’ Christianity, named after St Paul, or rather Saul or Tarsus who never even met Yeshua.

It was Constantine in the 300’s that helped invent the basic structure to help cement his grip on the declining Roman Empire that gave us what we now know as Christianity rebranding it as we would say today.

Try as she might, the church can’t keep it all under wraps any more. Thats why they devote their resources to the uneducated masses nowadays.

Rory the Red says:

09:48pm | 22/09/10

Hi Phil, where did you get that mish mash from?, you really should do some research from non Christian sources from the same period , after all the enemies of Christians are not going to give Christians a good rap Phil, so check out the Jewish Historian Josephus, who was born just after the death of Jesus in AD 37, who wrote in AD 93 about ” Jesus”,  ” who was brought before Pilate”, and who,“had him condemned to the cross”, and,” the tribe of Christians named after him”.

The Roman historian Tacitus who was born 22 years after the death of Jesus, also wrote about Jesus in his 12 volume Annals in about AD 115 , Tacitus wrote how Nero blamed the Christians, who followed Jesus, for the fire that burnt Rome. Tacitus wrote how Pilate, the procurator of Judea for Emperor Tiberius, had Jesus put to death.

Or what about Plinny the Younger who mentioned Jesus in AD 79 when he was governor of Bithynia, Plinny decided to execute Christians who would not recant their faith and superstitions in Jesus.

Hadrian too, who was Emperor from 117 to 138 was so angered by Christians that he thought a good way to rid the world of Christians was to build temples to Roman Gods on the sites of the crucifixion and the resurrection Tomb, where Christians had been worshipping Jesus for preceding 100 years. Unfortunately for Hadrian his Temples only served to act as solid markers, allowing them to become the revered sites they are today.

Phil, those historical accounts were written by non Christians less than a hundred years after Jesus death and there are many, many more solid examples like the ones cited above that more than prove that Jesus was a historical figure who changed the history of the world.

Yes Phil, the historical truths written by those non christian men 1,900 years ago corroborate what was written by the Authors of the New Testament 1,900 years ago and what they wrote has remained constant ever since.
The truth above can set you free Phil, if you choose to divest yourself of the myths & lies you have picked up from the internet and other atheist anti christian sources.

Bobster says:

09:23am | 23/09/10

@ Rory the Red,

I think you’ll find Phil was arguing the historiography more than you were. All of the sources you’ve quoted are secondary and primary evidence for Jesus is scant to non-existent. There are serious timeline problems with it, and while there may have been an important jewish leader there at the time of Jesus - there were many important jewish leaders at the time of Jesus.

In fact, the argument that Nero persecuted christians is highly questionable as well as there is an equally valid argument to suggest he was doing little more than attempting to supress a jewish rebellion in that region - the fact that some many have been followers of a fledgling new sect is very possibly a coincidence.

Phil’s point, however, is that christian mythology is largely a conglomeration of philosophies, mythologies and cultures that went before - not a big stretch either considering the setting of the Bible and the fact that area was on a major trade route between the east and west. Any teacher or leader who grew up there with reasonable education may well have had access to teachings from cultures from as far away as India and Gaul, so why is it so hard to believe that, assuming there was a man who fits Jesus’ profile, he had taken his teachings from numerous other traditions?

I know that kinda shoots a whole in the “revealed word of Our Lord” business, but then, Tacitus was never the most reliable source anyway.

Steely Dan says:

11:30am | 23/09/10

@ Rory the Red

“so check out the Jewish Historian Josephus, who was born just after the death of Jesus in AD 37”
Correct.  Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus only gathered stories from the region decades after the fact.  This proves that were Christians (no disagreement there), not that were was a Christ.  Hadrian’s actions were deplorable acts of persecution, but in no way a validation of a historical Jesus.  These accounts cannot “corroborate what was written by the Authors of the New Testament” any more than a travel writer can corroborate tales of alien corpses in New Mexico by visiting the Roswell UFO museum.

Phil’s claim that Constantine invented Jesus (that’s what it read like) is clearly false, but his point that Jesus’ existence is not historical fact is accurate.  This doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a rabbi called Jesus in the Middle East 2000 years ago, in fact I’m reasonably sure that there was, but there is no reliable record of his existence, or his alleged supernaturalism.

Rory the Red says:

11:07pm | 23/09/10

Bobster &  Steely Dan,

It seems strange you don’t question the existence of Tacitus, Plinny & Josephus who collected these ‘stories” only a few short decades after the death of Jesus, yet you question the existence of Jesus Christ.

Those men were not idiots, and nor were the enemies of Jesus and the early Christians, if Jesus did not live, die on the cross, or rise from the dead, it would have been very easy for the Chief Rabbis to kill Christianity off before it even got started, because they would easily have exposed the 11 remaining diciples as fools and liers in front of the public and any potential new recruits by saying,

“who is this Jesus these men talk of, no one has ever heard of him, nor have we seen him, have any of you”? , we did not ask Pontius Pilot, go ask him, to try their Jesus or to crucify him, and no one in Jerusalem saw anyone of that name crucified a week ago on that hill over there, and no one apart from these 11 deluded men say they have seen this fictitious Jesus raised from the dead, where was he buried?, where is the tomb?. Where are their witnesses”.

That guys, is the big hole in your theory, it would have been impossible to create Christianity or the Myth of Jesus out of nothing in Jerusalem in such a short time, the town was just to small.
Imagine when the first gullible christians went to the Tomb, or to the place of crucifixion to worship,  the locals would have quickly debunked the new religion by saying things like, ” We’ve lived here for 50 years, never heard of the guy or saw the things he did”, or , ” I think we would have remembered if some dude was raised from the dead, it didn’t happen man”. 

Remember Tacitus, Josephus and Plinny wrote their accounts less than a hundred years after the events, the fact that the authorities could not debunk and expose those “stories’ as false led them to well and truly start persecuting christians by AD 64.
That shows that something did happen and that thousands of people alive in Jerusalem at the time came to believe it when they saw the dead and / or risen Jesus, or believed it when told about it. 
Yet thousands of people in Jerusalem knew of him and had seen him, many would have thought him a crazy blasphemer, yet virtually overnight tens of thousands of people changed their minds & believed he had been raised from the dead.
It has the ring of truth.

Tedd says:

09:29am | 24/09/10

Rory the Red,  There were many Chrisitian sects at the time, mostly with mystical stories, such as Mythracism, Docetism, Montanism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Zoroastrianism, etc.m - all now labelled as Gnostic.  Paul’s epistles are mystical and Gnostic-like.

There is reasonable commentary bout the development of resurrection and a second coming to pacify those at the time who were upset a real messiah had not been presented.  The stories of a real person developed further. The notion of the Trinity was developed by Tertullianus in the second century.

you engage in a lot of “what-aboutery” when saying “” it would have been very easy for the Chief Rabbis to kill Christianity off before it even got started ... “”

Steely Dan says:

11:38am | 24/09/10

@ Rory the Red

“It seems strange you don’t question the existence of Tacitus, Plinny & Josephus who collected these ‘stories” only a few short decades after the death of Jesus, yet you question the existence of Jesus Christ.”
There’s not really any need to.  If these historians didn’t exist, the implications aren’t huge.  To us, their value as historical figures are the texts that are attributed to them - and we still have the texts, whether they wrote them or not.  But the implications of Jesus not existing would be huge for Christians, because Jesus is important for who he was. 

“if Jesus did not live, die on the cross, or rise from the dead, it would have been very easy for the Chief Rabbis to kill Christianity off before it even got started”
Seems logical enough, I agree.  And as I said, I’m pretty sure a Jesus-like figure (in fact, a few of them) existed 2000 years ago.  But the fact that people believed he existed and claimed to be witnesses isn’t enough to grant him historical status.  Remember this is in an era when people would apparently start worshipping a golden calf if you left them to their own devices for less than two months.

“That guys, is the big hole in your theory, it would have been impossible to create Christianity or the Myth of Jesus out of nothing…’
You don’t have to create him out of ‘nothing’ - you can create him out of an unorthodox Rabbi very easily. 

“the locals would have quickly debunked the new religion by saying things like, ” We’ve lived here for 50 years, never heard of the guy or saw the things he did””
To which the faithful could have replied something along the lines of “fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, for what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”  If you already believe that someone could perform supernatural feats, the ‘we didn’t see anything’ argument isn’t going to be very convincing.

“Remember Tacitus, Josephus and Plinny wrote their accounts less than a hundred years after the events, the fact that the authorities could not debunk and expose those “stories’ as false led them to well and truly start persecuting christians by AD 64.”
When Tacitus was 8, and Pliny was 3.  These were Rome-based historians talking about the motivations of a group that allegedly started a fire in Rome that they more than likely did not witness.  Tacitus had previously written an ethnography of the Jews in his Histories, and makes no mention of Jesus then.  This suggests he came across a record or story before writing the Annals that other historians of the time did not know about or had discounted - finding that source would be interesting.  And that source even managed to get Pilate’s rank wrong. 
Pliny the Younger only mentions that Christians worship Christ, and makes no assertion that a historical Christ existed. 
Josephus’ mention of Jesus is considered by many Christian historians to be an outright forgery.  The passage (written by a Jew) casually mentions that there was a Christ who fulfilled Jewish prophecy by raising from the dead three days after his death.  If Josephus did write it, he didn’t believe it.
And I’m not sure why you interpret persecution as an admission that the Romans couldn’t disprove the existence or divinity of Jesus. 

“yet virtually overnight tens of thousands of people changed their minds & believed he had been raised from the dead.”
As did those who believed that Mohammed physically ascended to heaven.  Does that also have ‘the ring of truth’?

howy says:

11:30am | 22/09/10

Hitler and his boys weren’t Christians. They just used German Christians to achieve their non-Biblical goals. Just like progressives use ‘social justice’ Christians today to get abortion and their death panels approved. Progressives argue, why give an 90 year old guy an expensive life saving operation when the government could instead keep 200 addicts on methadone for the next 50 years.

Bobster says:

12:15pm | 22/09/10

@ howy,

Hitler wasn’t christian and no true Scotsman would dislike haggis - that argument is a complete and utter fallacy. It’s not for you to decide who is and isn’t a true christian - if they identify as such, then they are.

The Pope used to send Hitler birthday cards for crying out loud.

When will the apologists move past this argument? I won’t hold my breath given the number who still think they can mount an intelligent apologetic argument against evolution - but really, displaying an outright ignorance of history doesn’t do your position any favours.

Steely Dan says:

12:20pm | 22/09/10

@ howy
“Hitler and his boys weren’t Christians.”
Sure, they just looked like Christians, and quacked like Christians.  The evidence points toward them being Christians - people who accept Jesus Christ as the saviour of mankind.  You can say that they didn’t follow Jesus properly, or you can say that they weren’t doing what your God would have wanted - that’s fine.  But they were thought they were being good Christians.

“They just used German Christians to achieve their non-Biblical goals.”
By picking passages from the Bible that supported anti-Semitism.  Even if they really were non-Christians trying to achieve non-Christian goals (and I don’t think that’s the case) - doesn’t it highlight one of the inherent problems with religion?  It can be used to justify nearly everything.  This doesn’t mean that Christians are Nazis or anything stupid like that - but it does show us that being a Christian does not make you automatically immune to immorality.

Tedd says:

01:17pm | 22/09/10

howy,  If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or “real” Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? ... since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth2

also, howy, your points reduce to the absurd - death panels; 90yr old Sx vs 200 on methadone??

howy, Bobster, the not true Scotsman fallacy has virtually become the not-a-true-Christian fallacy, heh?

Interloper says:

02:37pm | 22/09/10

@RSM ...
I agree that the wealth of the vatican is an issue. Nonsense to suggest that it’s on the scale you’re suggesting, but distasteful nonetheless. The vast majority of the church’s income is spent on the poor, so the pejorative “countries they claim to care about” is really not justified.
And contraception is a red-herring. The Catholic teaching about contraception assumes marriage (people who aren’t married don’t have sex), so has little to do with HIV-AIDS. I don’t think the birthrate among married Catholics in the developing world is the cause of poverty. Lack of education and infrastructure have rather more to do with that. And the only reason the church’s stance on contraception is an issue is that it’s the one out there trying to do something about education and infrastructure.

Steely Dan says:

04:02pm | 22/09/10

@ Interloper

“The Catholic teaching about contraception assumes marriage (people who aren’t married don’t have sex), so has little to do with HIV-AIDS.”
The Catholic position on contraception is a little more complex as ‘don’t use it when you’re married’.  Abstinence might stop you from impregnating/getting pregnant, but only abstinence-only education doesn’t stop people from having sex.  If the Catholic position was ‘don’t have sex til you’re married, but if you do, use protection’, it wouldn’t be so bad.  Instead, we have Ratzinger telling people that condoms have made the AIDS crisis worse.  And you seem to be implying that you need to have sex (and consensual sex at that) to get HIV-AIDS.  That’s simply not true.

“I don’t think the birthrate among married Catholics in the developing world is the cause of poverty.”
I don’t think anyone’s suggested that it is.  But it certainly isn’t helping.

“And the only reason the church’s stance on contraception is an issue is that it’s the one out there trying to do something about education and infrastructure.”
So the non-religious charities I give to do nothing?

Tedd says:

04:17pm | 22/09/10

vague statements, Interloper. infrastructure??

Education is a key to appropriate approaches to sex, conception, pregnancy, and how to mange them.  To say the catholic teaching about contraception presumes marriage is a big red-herring tangent to the Popes pronouncements in recent years, as is your claim it is only an issue because the church is the only one out there trying to do something.  They and you could try harder.  Strawmen don’t work.

Interloper says:

05:06pm | 22/09/10

Actually, there’s a strong argument that the Catholic position *is* ‘don’t have sex til you’re married, but if you do, use protection’. It’s just that they are so strong on the first part, they prefer not to mention the second. Ratzinger’s point (which I don’t agree with, BTW) was that condoms lead to a sexually permissive culture which leads to the spread of HIV. It’s not an absurd position to take.
I don’t understand your point on sexual transmission. Yes, there are other ways AIDS spreads, but aren’t condoms only relevant to sexual transmission?
And forgive the hyperbole. My point is that for a nun’s views on contraception to have an impact, that nun needs to be out in that community. I’m not dismissing the work of other charities, I was responding to the suggestion that the Catholic church only pretends to care about the poor.

Roja says:

05:56pm | 22/09/10

Estimated income of the Catholic Church, per year.

$3 Trillion.

Australia’s contribution… $16 billion p.a.

Value of owning your own country, which is not recognised by the UN as such, but provides a haven safe from extradition on the grounds of flagrant and continuing child rape crimes… priceless.

I’m not against 99% of Catholics, I’m even married to one.  I’m against organised crime that trades in childrens innocence.  There are records that they have been covering up these cases since their inception, which to me makes the Pope the head of the longest running and quite frankly sickest crime syndicate ever known to mankind.  There is no excuse you can ever feed me that exonerates them, not until they pay for their crimes in a court of law and not by an act of contrition.

Steely Dan says:

10:06am | 23/09/10

@ Interloper

“Actually, there’s a strong argument that the Catholic position *is* ‘don’t have sex til you’re married, but if you do, use protection’.”
What is that ‘strong argument’?

“It’s just that they are so strong on the first part, they prefer not to mention the second.”
Given that the second part could save lives, it’s a pretty shocking oversight.  At the very least, the Pope could help get the word out that condoms are not the source of the AIDS virus - a rumour which has been supported by some local Catholic leaders in Africa.

“Ratzinger’s point (which I don’t agree with, BTW) was that condoms lead to a sexually permissive culture which leads to the spread of HIV. It’s not an absurd position to take.”
Given that this position is not supported by evidence, I’m happy to call it ‘wrong’, at the very least.

“I don’t understand your point on sexual transmission. Yes, there are other ways AIDS spreads, but aren’t condoms only relevant to sexual transmission?”
The point is that if a Catholic couple - both with no previous sexual partners - get married, and one has HIV/AIDS, the Catholic church forbids the use of condoms to protect the other partner.  HIV/AIDS is not some earthly penalty for sinful sexual behaviour, it’s an indiscriminate killer.

Chris L says:

10:30am | 22/09/10

Secularism, Britains were warned, no longer values or tolerates their traditional values such as honesty, respect and fair-mindedness.

So, why did he say that if not trying to rouse his followers against the secular state?

AdamC says:

11:00am | 22/09/10

Chris L, Pope Benedict was criticising the amoral, modern institutions of the state, which is hardly an earth-shattering or radical sentiment. Hardly storm the barricades stuff. More like a totally confected storm in a teacup.

Matt says:

11:55am | 22/09/10

“It is much better for us all to get along and respect each others’ beliefs and institutions. “

And there you go. The vast majority of atheists could not give a damn if some people want to believe in sky fairies - it’s their right. Whereas religious folk seem to have a real problem with individual rights and like to force their beliefs onto others.

AdamC says:

12:50pm | 22/09/10

“The vast majority of atheists could not give a damn if some people want to believe in sky fairies - it’s their right.”

Matt, the tone of the article and the comments here would tend to contradict you.

I am not sure where the pope (or any other ‘religious folk’) expressed an aversion to individual rights, as you argue. It seems to me that you are just mouthing off based on prejudice.

Jaime says:

01:04pm | 22/09/10

“The Diocletians out there need to be careful. It was only a few decades ago that the evangelical Christians of the US were fragmented and politically inactive. Along came the ACLU with its extreme agenda of effective persecutions and proscriptions, and now the born-again set are a major political force.”

What are you trying to say here? That non-Christians should watch out because if they talk too much about seculurism, the growing Christian power will squash them? That sure sounds like tolerance and everyone getting along.

To boil the article down to its core: Those in public office should not impose their religious views on the public. The end.

What’s so bad about that?

AdamC says:

01:37pm | 22/09/10

Jaime, I think it is quite clear what I am saying. I have never met any Christian who argues against the secular state. What I do hear (all the time) are atheists trying to create justifications for curbs on religious institutions. This paranoia about Christians being involved in public life is one example.

Chris L says:

05:54pm | 22/09/10

You are putting forth some well thought out points Adam, but there is one point I completely refute. “atheists trying to create justifications for curbs on religious institutions”.
If what you are describing is our desire to see an end to the tax exemptions for religious institutions I think it is a perfectly fair goal. You may argue that religions do a lot of charity work, but that would fall under the same catagory as secular charities such as the Gates Foundation and Doctors Without Borders and should be treated the same way. There is no reason the non-charity portion of a religion’s intake should not be taxed like anyone else. After all “Give the emperor his due”.
The only other curb on religious institutions that I know of is preventing laws that restrict the public’s freedoms based on religious doctrine, and I think that is one of the points the author is making. If something should be law then it will not be difficult to show why using evidence and reason rather than just saying it is the will of some god. After all, if a Jehova’s Witness ever became PM I would like to think they wouldn’t be able to outlaw blood transfusions just because their religion disagrees with it.

Chris Gardiner says:

08:01pm | 22/09/10

AdamC, can’t let the ‘no evidence’ jibe go unanswered. If you want to note the Pope’s claim on secularism not tolerating British values, see the last couple of paragraphs in his speech to the Queen at Holyrood House 16 September (go to http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk). If you want to read him (as Ratzinger) on the hollow Europe, with no spirituality and declining ethnically, and on Catholicism and the Enlightenment, see his book “Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam” with Marcello Pera (Basic Books 2006) especially pages 66 and 115.

Andrew says:

10:07am | 22/09/10

I’m not entirely sure it should be read that way, actually.

The term ‘right’ gets bandied around an awful lot, often in ways that denigrates its meaning and the gravity the term should hold. For instance: “I have a right to be offended”, “I have a right to do what I want”, or perhaps “Australia is a free country and I have a right to free speech” (it does, but not to the extent that most people think exists).

Were that view the new God, I would agree with you, but I don’t believe Rights, as a legal concept, would necessarily encompass such narrow, self serving ideas. When discussing matters of state and political function, the term Right should be seen as meaning fundamentals of human existence and liberty, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to life, liberty and security of personhood, the right not to be subject to torture, and the right to be legally recognised as a person, etc.

In the liberal (small L) sense, all laws within a liberal-democratic state should abide by these individual rights. This is not to say there cannot be a higher purpose, a greater good, a community value or whatever else you wish to label it, but it does mean that the most basic, rampant utilitarian views will not disenfranchise and deny the individuals who make up the state of the basic fundamentals seen as necessary for human existence.

fish says:

02:20pm | 22/09/10

Just see how many “rights” you have if Marshal Law is ever declared.  We have rights only when it suits the power structures.

Mrs Skippytron says:

10:07am | 22/09/10

They’re free to practice their religion, even in public if they feel like it.  Just don’t make the state pay for it or make attendance compulsory.  How hard is that?  It seems you’re assuming ‘secular’ means that religious belief and practice is made illegal?  That is not what the word means, it just means the state makes no backing of any particular religion.  Same with abortion - legality doesn’t imply compulsory.  The dictionary is your friend.

Tedd says:

10:55am | 22/09/10

Celebrate faith straightforwardly in public and secularists may celebrate too.  Shove it down our kids throats, or use it to manipulate, and risk significant rebuke

Steely Dan says:

10:59am | 22/09/10

@ howy

“The problem for secularists is what do you do with the Christians that still want to celebrate their faith in public?”
You let them do it.  Where’s the ‘problem’?

“Do you put the Christians in prison like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did?”
Like those non-secularists did?  No, obviously.

“Or should the secular government just fine them and give the money to more wholesome secualr ideas like the mardi gras or abortions.”
No, we’d use it to burn straw men.  What do you think secularism is, howy?  I’d love to hear your definition.

howy says:

11:15am | 22/09/10

Well, Mrs Skippytron, Christians are already being fined, losing their job or being locked up in England for preaching the Bible.  And France, the home of liberty, just banned the Burqa. Catholic adoption agencies are being forced to accept gay parents. There are thousands of examples where a secular government, far from not backing any particular religion, has actually forced them to change their behaviour. And when an institution forces someone or a group of people to change their behaviour, we call this tyranny.

Tedd says:

11:31am | 22/09/10

howy, preaching (in public or a work) is unacceptable behaviour, as is proselytising.  Stopping them is stopping tyranny.

Bobster says:

11:39am | 22/09/10

@ howy, so honour killings, burnings at the stake and so forth should be tolerated because they’ve got a religious foundation and to deny them would be tyranny?

Religions can do whatever they want, but, like the rest of us, if a democratic society says it’s not on, it’s not on.

That’s called the rule of the majority and it’s not tyranny if the things you are being forced to do, or not to do, are impacting negatively or unfairly on the rest of the population, or, in the case of gay marriage/adoption etc, discriminating unlawfully against any section of the population.

Pray to who you want, but preying on people is not to be tolerated, regardless of whichever sky fairy tells you it’s ok.

Steely Dan says:

11:42am | 22/09/10

@ howy

“There are thousands of examples where a secular government, far from not backing any particular religion, has actually forced them to change their behaviour.”
If they’re doing these things, then they’re not truly secular nations.  Attacking secularism for these actions is like deriding democracy for the actions of Kim Jong Il (after all, North Korea say they’re a democracy).

howy says:

12:27pm | 22/09/10

Tedd, preaching isn’t forcing someone to change, It’s offering an opinion. But banning employees from wearing the Catholic cross is forcing someone to change their behaviour.
BTW, I assume most of you are familiar with the first cause argument. So, how do atheists live with the idea that all human knowledge and logic points to there being a creator? Do you just ignore the first cause argument and battle on regardless. And why do you find it so hard to put your faith into something, even the strongest Christian knows that there will never be any evidence that their God exists.

Andrew says:

12:39pm | 22/09/10

howy, you just don’t get it, do you.  People are free to do whatever they like, talk to any invisible man they like, in their own private lives.  When they insist on bringing stupidity into public, where other people have to look at it, then it is a problem.  So if you want to sit at home and read white-supremecy books and worship Hitler, you’re quite free to do so.  Stand out in the street and start waving it in people’s faces, and it’s a problem.  Do you see the correlation there?  The same way that a government employee would be forbidden to wear a political slogan on their shirt while at work.  If my ‘religion’ states that I should carry a tactical nuclear device with me at all times, are you going to let me go in public with it?  Didn’t think so.  How about we try the other side of the coin though - try walking in to a mosque with a bottle of whisky while wearing a bikini.

Steely Dan says:

01:19pm | 22/09/10

@ howy

“Tedd, preaching isn’t forcing someone to change, It’s offering an opinion.”
I’m with you on this one.  Public preaching is fine (within limits - you can’t pull up a soapbox in the middle of a highway).
“So, how do atheists live with the idea that all human knowledge and logic points to there being a creator?”
A creator who is exempt from needing a creator because you said so?  If there is an uncaused cause - why assume it’s your god?  Why assume it’s a god at all?

“And why do you find it so hard to put your faith into something”
Because I’m reasonable.  Why don’t you just have faith that Vishnu exists?

“...even the strongest Christian knows that there will never be any evidence that their God exists.”
I thought that might be the case.  No evidence = no belief.

Tedd says:

01:23pm | 22/09/10

howy, the first cause “argument” is not a valid deductive argument, nor is it a cogent inductive argument.

“” there will never be any evidence that their God exists ” because the texts are fiction, howy.

howy says:

04:52pm | 22/09/10

Well, I don’t see what you have to lose if you believe in a religion - faith is like value-adding to the human experience. You can enjoy science, evolution, and still have a spiritual side.

Why do you say you need to have evidence for everything? How can you function if you’re constantly gathering evidence for everything that happens?

John says:

09:48pm | 22/09/10

@Mrs Skippytron says: “They’re free to practice their religion, even in public if they feel like it.  Just don’t make the state pay for it or make attendance compulsory”. Then as a practising Christian I should not have to pay that part of my taxation that is used for abortion. Oops! I forgot; it doesn’t work that way in a democratic society.

Steely Dan says:

10:20am | 23/09/10

@ howy

“Well, I don’t see what you have to lose if you believe in a religion - faith is like value-adding to the human experience.”
So ignorance is bliss, but believing stuff because you want to is just plain fun?  And you’ve fallen for Pascal’s Wager, I see.  Nobody can ‘choose’ to believe in something - I could go through the motions of being a believer, but if there’s actually an omnipotent god, they’d know I was faking it.  If you disagree, here’s a quick thought experiment - become a Hindu for an hour.  Tell us how it works out.

“You can enjoy science, evolution, and still have a spiritual side.”
But you can’t enjoy logic and reason, and you have to let faith win if it contradicts with science.

“Why do you say you need to have evidence for everything?”
Not everything.  Some things aren’t worth investigating.  Is your real name Howy?  I don’t care, so I won’t bother looking for any evidence.  For the important things - including the question of a god - I want evidence.  Why?  Because I care whether my beliefs are true or not.

“How can you function if you’re constantly gathering evidence for everything that happens?”
Reason is crucial to functioning!

Mrs Skippytron says:

10:35am | 23/09/10

John - taxes don’t pay for abortions, the poeple who get them do.

Zaf says:

10:57am | 22/09/10

Can Lhrrr, from the planet Omicrom Persei VIII be far behind?

monkeytypist says:

03:55pm | 22/09/10

@Zaf: I don’t know, but my gut says.  . . maybe.

Steely Dan says:

10:56am | 22/09/10

@ Lee from WA

How is secularism going to marginalise Christians?

And I disagree that Luther’s reformation was the beginning of Liberal democracy, though it obviously played a role.

howy says:

02:48pm | 22/09/10

Steely D, Just cause the lame stream media don’t report on Christian marginalisation, doesn’t mean it ain’t happening. Kick it up to google and see what’s what.

Steely Dan says:

04:07pm | 22/09/10

@ howy

“Just cause the lame stream media don’t report on Christian marginalisation, doesn’t mean it ain’t happening.”
I know it’s happening in some places.  What I want to know is how secularism is to blame.

MK says:

04:39pm | 22/09/10

I think the point Lee is trying to touch on,
The speration of church and state was originally about freedom OF religion, with the yanks, Ben Franklin, there were a bunch of smaller Chrisitan groups particularly the danbury baptists that had faced opression by state endorsed denominations in europe. The French spereation (by law) came after the americans.
Seperation of church and stae was then picked up by the anit-religion folks, who want to push it to freedom FROM religion.

Steely Dan says:

11:06am | 23/09/10

@ MK

“I think the point Lee is trying to touch on, The speration of church and state was originally about freedom OF religion”
No, it was both freedom OF and FROM - necessarily.  Read the text, how could state imposition of religion on the non-religious be consistent with prohibiting the “establishment of religion”, or the rights of free speech or assembly as set out in the rest of the sentence of the First Amendment?

Several of the seven key ‘founding fathers’ of America were non-religious.  John Adams was a deist; Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, but had no church allegiance and famously tore the supernatural parts of the Bible out; and James Madison was extremely critical of organised religion, and was presumably a deist (he claimed not be an atheist).

Only one of the ‘fathers’, John Jay, seemed to contradict the first amendment - and he didn’t say anything about the non-religious, he just wanted Catholics to be banned from holding office.

Bobster says:

11:19am | 22/09/10

@ Steely Dan - excellent point. For those interested in history it would be helpful to look at the exact reasons America’s founding fathers adopted the idea. It was, in no small part, because a particular sect of the Baptist Church was worried about persecution from other christians.
Secularism was introduced their to protect christians from other christians - at no stage did it suggest the concept was designed purely to protect the irreligious, rather to guarantee religious freedom.
Pity atheism is such an abhorrent notion to modern believers that they have now warped their own safety mechanism.

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 22/09/10

@ Bobster

“For those interested in history it would be helpful to look at the exact reasons America’s founding fathers adopted the idea.’
Excellent point yourself, good sir (or madam).  The American founding fathers (lots of Christians, but with a surprisingly high proportion of deists and agnostic/atheists) put together such a spiffy Establishment Clause we copied it almost verbatim. 

It’s odd that the US - the first explicitly secular state, to my knowledge - now has a reputation for being more religious (and less secular) than a lot of comparable nations (mainly European) with no explicit separation of church and state or even an official state church.  One hypothesis for why this happens is loosely based on economics theory: states that give a religion ‘official church’ status promote religious monopoly, and the artificially supported system collapses.  In the US, with a ‘free marketplace’ of religion, they get to ‘compete’ for souls, which helps retain believers in various different churches.

gwickau says:

11:41am | 22/09/10

Jon, I agree.  If a young person is taught critical thinking he or she will never become a ‘beleiver’ in anything.  The capability of ‘beleiving’ something / anything to be true is dangerous and stupid.
There is surely no difference between a Pope who teaches that there is a God &, that an man misnamed Jesus was a son of God born of a Holy Virgin—to person who ‘beleives’ that Allah was the ‘true’ son of God & that blowing oneself to to smithereens makes one a martyr who is to rewarded by an eternal supply of virgins—to a teenager who ‘beleives’ he won’t die from a car accident—to those who ‘beleived’ Bob Hawke with his “no child will live in poverty by 1990” !!

Of course I speak as a non-beleiver. I beleive nothing. I accept as true those things for which there is repeatable evidence.  To all ‘beleivers’ I say maybe you are right, maybe you ar wrong. I wait for evidence.

howy says:

12:03pm | 22/09/10

Yeah, telling kids their life is meaningless will make them grow up to be great humanitarians. Remember, Hilter, Stalin and Mao thought they enlightened.

Michael says:

12:57pm | 22/09/10

@ howy: I call that a straw man attempt.  None of the above posters suggested that kids should be taught life is meaningless.  And if anything philosophy and ethics seem to suggest it is an important goal in your life to seek out or create meaning for your own existence.  Some of the great humanitarians, in fact, were agnostics or atheists.

monkeytypist says:

01:03pm | 22/09/10

Considering that two of your three were raised and educated as Christians by Christians, howy, with one of them (Stalin) spending years studying at a seminary to become a priest, you may want to rethink your jibe.

Jon says:

01:25pm | 22/09/10

howy, we just don’t believe in man made gods (religions), without empirical proof. Apart from that we can believe in universal human rights. Another name for Atheism can be Humanism, anything is believable as long as it is provable.

“Its enough to know that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it,” Douglas Adams

howy says:

01:50pm | 22/09/10

monkeytypist, so Stalin carried out his atrocities when he became an atheist. He couldn’t of stayed a Christian and done the gullag thing.

Tedd says:

02:22pm | 22/09/10

howy, Stalin remained religious most of his life, and piously so.  He invoked a sign from heaven to re-open churches and theology schools in WW2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religious_beliefs_and_policies

howy says:

02:41pm | 22/09/10

Tedd, how can you say Stalin remained religious when his goal was to eliminate religion by sending his peeps to Siberian concentration camps. No, it was Stalin’s belief in the universal communist state that allowed him to rationalise his actions.

Steely Dan says:

02:53pm | 22/09/10

@ howy

“Tedd, how can you say Stalin remained religious when his goal was to eliminate religion”
It wasn’t always his goal, howy.  At various times during his regime he outlawed religious worship and declared a state church.  His actions were consistent with being a megalomaniac.

Tedd says:

03:22pm | 22/09/10

howy, in a non-secular state, often one belief system suppresses another, and often it is one religion suppressing another, as seen at times in Stalin’s Russia, and more recently in the Baltic states.

Even Cambodia under Pol Pot claimed to guaranteed religious freedom, under Article 20 of the 1976 Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea, but it also declared that “all reactionary religions that are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and the Kampuchean People are strictly forbidden.”  Christian and Muslim communities were more persecuted than others, as they were labelled as part of a pro-Western cosmopolitan sphere, hindering Cambodian culture and society, despite or *because* Pol Pot had been educated for 7-8 yrs in a Catholic School(1).

Prince Norodom Sihanouk (long term Cambodian leader in various roles) said Pot “thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler.”

(1) resentment of evangelism?

monkeytypist says:

03:50pm | 22/09/10

@howy two points: firstly, you were saying that raising and educating children as Christians produces better quality people.  I think that your own examples disprove that point - Hitler and Stalin, whatever their subsequent actions and beliefs, were indisputably raised and educated as Christians.  Their religious indoctrination certainly didn’t stop their later actions.

Secondly, don’t committ the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and say that if Stalin had just remained a committed Orthodox priest, he never would have been a bad person or committed evil actions.  Dedicated, believing, baptised Christians are highly capable of evil acts.  There are too many actions to list, but to take just one example, Hitler’s anti-semitism could not have flourished without the intellectual respectability that theologians like Martin Luther and John Chrysotom imbued it with.  Christians - sincere, believing Christians -are capable of committing evil acts.  Non-believers don’t have any monopoly on immorality.

Michael says:

12:49pm | 22/09/10

As a Catholic, I sometimes think the Papal Infallibility thing isn’t exercised more often because it’s as much an embarrassment to the Church as the Rite of Exorcism.  Both are medieval concepts which nobody in the Church has gotten round to seriously challenging in the light of modern science; it’s part of the Church’s spiritual baggage, but because it’s deemed part of the Church’s architecture you can’t remove it from the structure without having to do some serious retrofitting so the whole building doesn’t collapse around it.

Ironically it’s probably the rite of exorcism which is more modern than the infallibility issue: the guidelines for exorcism, written back in the 1400s or so, warns that most people believing they’re possessed are more in need of a doctor than a priest.

Still, you’ve got a valid point.  Papal infallibiltiy only applies to a very, very limited set of circumstances, and only on specific matters of faith where the Pope makes that declaration.  It isn’t as though the guy thinks everything he says is ordained Teh Truth by God.

Having said that, the very idea of an human being able to make an unquestionably infallible statement which will hold true for the ages and as against God, flying in the face of common sense and several Biblical passages for bonus points, is probably silly enough on its own that one doesn’t have to assert the Pope believes everything he says is infallible.  Even on its very limited application within the Church Papal infallibility verges on the ridiculous as a concept.

Andrew says:

01:53pm | 22/09/10

Sorry dw, but I call bullshit on this.  When the pope speaks, he KNOWS that there are a billion people out there, mostly uneducated and poor, who will take EVERY SINGLE WORD he says as the absolute, infallible, god-given truth.  Why?  Because they’ve been programmed from birth to believe it.  So when the pope says condoms are evil, they believe it.  When he says gays can’t marry, they protest accordingly.  When he asks for money, they give it.  He has an incredible amount of power, and when he uses it badly (which is about the only way it IS used) he should be held to account.

Religion is an insult to intelligence, pure and simple.  It’s the opposite of reason and thought, and a blight on humanity.

Phil Ebbott says:

02:25pm | 22/09/10

Seen the movie “Dogma”? A very amusing discourse on the catechisms and the concept of “papal Infallibility”.

monkeytypist says:

03:59pm | 22/09/10

@dw: If the problems with the Catholic Church were limited to those surrounding the legal status of papal infallibility, I never would have left it.  The institution has more pressing problems, starting with the fact that its teachings are radically out of touch with modern society and that it is totally incapable of furnishing evidence for the idea that God existed.

As a former Catholic, I spent too much time participating in selective, legalistic defences of the finer points of theology without realising the elephant in the room - the lack of evidence for God’s existence- made my arguments moot.  I’m determined not to let others pass on the same practice.

dw says:

04:27pm | 22/09/10

@ michael. I agree with you on comment on infallibilty. I think it doesn’t come up also because it isn’t really needed.

@ Phil. I’ll check it out. I’m already smiling at the thought of it.

@ Andrew. Like I said - relax.

Andrew says:

01:59pm | 22/09/10

One word, Badger - contraception.  You tell me how anybody could assert that condoms are a “bad thing” without using religion.  And yet, miraculously, there are hundreds of millions of people out here (by an AMAZING coindidence all catholic!) who believe that condoms are the tool of the devil.  Because a guy with a funny hat tells them so.

Interloper says:

02:49pm | 22/09/10

@Andrew:
‘Condoms are bad for a marriage because they place a barrier between the man and wife’ (yes, massive simplification). I don’t personally agree with the teaching, but it’s not a strictly religious one. And, as a Catholic, it’s my obligation to understand the teaching and then to follow my conscience - which, in this case, tells me something else. No matter what the guy in the funny hat says.

Andrew says:

03:37pm | 22/09/10

Interloper, that’s a rubbish argument and you know it.  These people aren’t arguing for “don’t use condoms if you don’t feel like it”, they’re not arguing against mandatory use of condoms, they’re arguing that they should not be used AT ALL.  EVER.  For any reason.  And you haven’t addressed the most startling coincidence of all time - how pretty much every single person who believes this is catholic.  Anybody claiming to argue that condoms are bad (when they are clearly one of the best inventions in public health in history) from a non-religious standpoint is either (a) delusional, or (b) lacking a brain.  What next?  Water is bad because it dilutes a person’s spirit?  Surgery is bad because it interferes with a person’s natural body?  Oh wait, some religious folk already argue that point - and let their children die because of it.

Interloper says:

05:41pm | 22/09/10

@Andrew, I was just telling you how someone *can* assert condoms are a bad thing without using religion. I was trying to meet the challenge you laid down.
I personally disagree with the teaching on contraception. But I know it’s not nearly as draconian as the caricature presented by some.
An important point to note: the teaching on contraception only applies to marriage. Let me say that again. There is nothing in Catholic teaching which says anything at all about contraception outside of marriage.
Use of condoms in pre-marital and extra-marital sex, from a Catholic point of view, counts as harm minimisation. The Catholic arguments against distribution of condoms (which, as I said, I disagree with) are the same as the arguments run against safe injecting rooms - that the harm minimsiation strategy promotes the act itself. It’s a defensible position.

Chris L says:

06:17pm | 22/09/10

Badger,if the conservatives are raising empirical arguments then you have no problem and should easily be able to agree with this article. I take it you fully agree with the view that “god said so” is not a justification for legislation.

Badger says:

07:57pm | 22/09/10

> “hundreds of millions of people out here (by an AMAZING coincidence all catholic!) who believe that condoms are the tool of the devil”

Plus Germaine Greer. Well-known religious fundamentalist…

Austin 3:16 says:

09:27pm | 22/09/10

Hey Badger in my experience is that religious types use a heck of a lot of straw men to disguise the fact that their argument basically boils down to “God said so”

Jade says:

02:23pm | 22/09/10

You can only assert that abortion harms children if you believe that a child is created at the moment of conception. Overwhelmingly, the majority of proponents of this idea base it solely on their religious beliefs. Similarly, the objection that gay adoption harms children comes out of a religious belief in the “sanctity of marriage” as being between a man and a woman and the only acceptable form of procreation.

Arguments against euthanasia invariably boil down to “life is precious - only God can take it away.” And arguments regarding genetic modification are overwhelmingly against the perception that as scientists are perceived as atheists (in the main) they don’t have the ethics to stop them from meddling inappropriately without proper reference to whether they should, as good Christians would do. Or the other argument, that God created us all as he sees fit and we shouldn’t mess with that.

So as you can see, at their core, the objections against all those things boil down to - Because GOD says so. Which simply isn’t good enough.

Interloper says:

03:05pm | 22/09/10

@ Jade
That’s nonsense. The idea that a child is created at conception (and there’s no ‘moment’) is based on a basic understanding of biology. The ‘value’ of the child at that point may have a religious dimension, but not the fact of it.
Most of the opposition to gay adoption is based on the belief that it is best for a child to have role models and advisors of both genders. Again, this is not about religion.
Arguments about euthanasia and the precious value of life are not about God.
And arguments about genetic modification are much more often about a respect for nature, and avoidance of risk, than about God.
You may choose to see every view held by a religious person as being imposed on them from men in funny clothes ... but there’s a danger that if you dismiss their views without understanding them properly then you’ll be the one ultimately misinformed.

Tedd says:

03:31pm | 22/09/10

Interloper, a blastocoele is created at conception, a potential life that has to go thru’ amazing development thru’ the machinery of DNA and RNA transcription and translation, and thru’ various stages of embryo and foetus before becoming a viable child.  I have mourned the death of more than one foetus as a potential child, but not a child (and hopefully never will).

Interloper says:

05:26pm | 22/09/10

@Tedd,

I don’t disagree that there’s an emotional distinction there. I’ve lost children at 10 weeks gestation; my in-laws lost one at 18 weeks; cousins had a still birth and close friends lost a child to SIDS at 2 years. All tragic, with emotional impact increasing on an exponential scale.
I don’t want to get into an argument about ‘when life begins’, or whether 20 cell organisms constitute human life or some other form of life (or potential life). My own view is that the science is clear, but I accept that others have a different philosophical view. My point is that the argument has nothing to do with belief or otherwise in God.

Chris Gardiner says:

08:18pm | 22/09/10

Badger, I don’t deny that those you call ‘believers’ also use empirical arguments on matters such as euthanasia, and when they do, the merits of their case rests on the evidence and logic, and is subject to the decision of citizens assessing that evidence. But as an example for my claim about falling back on divine authority in arguments, I refer to the Papal Encyclical by John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae. In the end, for all the argument by that Pope about a culture of death (read as ‘modern secular society’) and a culture of life (read as ‘society obeying church’), the final argument he rests on is what he claims is God’s sole authority in determining a person’s death.

Jade says:

02:58pm | 22/09/10

I am a little confused at exactly how atheists and those who do not subscribe to an organised belief system (deists come to mind) are forcing their beliefs onto others by simply stating that we expect proof that laws and rules will actually benefit us, rather than simply accepting it because some guy in a funny outfit told us so, or because it is written in an old book.

Why should homosexuals be forced to suffer continued oppression in our society, because some believe that their holy text says they should? In what way is it showing respect for them, in what way is it harmful to allow them the same rights that those who seek to deny them rights enjoy as a matter of course? Why shouldn’t teenagers be taught about safe sex practices? Is that not beneficial to them, to teach them to avoid the pitfalls of teenage parenthood and the STIs that are now rampant among youth as a result of abstinence only programmes and sex education programmes hamstrung by religious leaders influencing policy?

Tedd says:

02:59pm | 22/09/10

Most do respect others, and all should, cybacaT.  It’s a 2-way thing, tho’.  A lot of religious people use the term secularism and a negative, when it is mostly about a level playing field for all, including equal space for all faiths, and their denominations, no matter how small.  the other issues are unnecessary attacks on those who lack faith, as seen in Australia at Easter this year, and by the Pope in the UK last week, falsely linking atrocities to it, rather than political regimes.

Steely Dan says:

03:08pm | 22/09/10

@ cybacaT

“Fortunately (or by design), the beliefs of Christianity are nicely in line with common sense and what benefits people and society.”
You just hit the nail on the head - ‘common sense and what benefits people and society’.  Why don’t we remove the dogma and promote that instead?  Most Christians live up to this standard already, but clearly they don’t require religion to do it.  And it removes the risk of the minority nut-jobs from justifying their bigotry on the passages of the Bible that the ‘common sense’ Christians ignore.

“...the religious fervor with which atheists force their beliefs on others is almost unparalleled these days.”
Example?  If by ‘force their beliefs on others’ you mean ‘write things on comments pages that religious people might not like’, I agree.

Rob says:

06:27pm | 22/09/10

Sorry cybacaT, I cannot for the life of me remember when an athiest has come knocking on my door on a Sat/Sun morning regaling me with the wonders that is not believing in god.  I do however have many memories of Christians of many denominations doing this.  Some going so far as stick their foot in the door and telling me that I’ll burn in hell for eternity if I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour.

Badger says:

08:03pm | 22/09/10

So, Jade, out of curiosity:

(1) What are your beliefs on the issue of racial equality?

(2) On what basis do you hold your beliefs on this issue??

(3) In particular, what is the scientific evidence supporting your beliefs on this issue?

austin 3:16 says:

05:45pm | 25/09/10

Hey Badger,

If you’ll acept an interloper’s answer.

1. We are all equal,

2. It makes sense

3. Evolutionay theory, genetics etc.

jade says:

01:35pm | 23/09/10

Actually as a woman, I find most pornography extremely misogynistic in nature. I however, do not believe that this should necessarily lead to a restriction on the depiction of legal acts between consenting adults, or on the rights of consenting adults to view such depictions.

You of course, are entitled to the view that censorship, rather than educating young men is the appropriate course of action. However, my view is that restricting pornography will not do anything to change attitudes in a society that demonises female sexuality in the way that ours currently does. Under our current societal beliefs, which are heavily influenced by the perspectives of religion, a woman who makes the decision to have casual sex, or who is confident in her own sexuality is a slut, and therefore deserving of being treated as merely a masturbation aid by any man who takes a fancy. Women are subject to a serious Madonna/Whore complex in our society, which draws its inspiration directly from religion’s complete lack of acknowledgment of female sexuality and independence and insistence that women are only in existence for the needs of men, sexual and otherwise.

Badger says:

06:17pm | 28/09/10

Well, good on you if you “prefer education over restrictions”, Jade, but that is not the prerogative of the secularists. In other areas - for example, racial vilification - some religious and some secular people support legal bans, other religious and other secular people support education as the solution. In other words, you’ve agreed pornography is a problem, even in secular terms. Wanting legal restrictions is not unique to religious believers.

As for “the perspectives of religion” teaching that a sexually active woman is “deserving of being treated as merely a masturbation aid by any man who takes a fancy”, I would ideally like to see some, you know, citations of actual existing religious leaders who endorse men using women in this way. C’omn, Jade, a quote from George Pell or Sheikh Hilaly saying “If a woman strip before thee, thou may’st fantasise freely over her in thy mind, and/or use her with thine body. Go for it with God’s blessing”? Even from Benny Hinn or Roussas D Rushdoony? Fred Nile or Fred Phelps? Some minor league Koran-burning pastor from Tuskegee whom no-one’s ever heard of? Anyone? Hello?

I realise that your belief in The Big Bad Theocrats being somehow to blame for The Commodification Of Sex provides an important source of comfort and solace for you and your fellow believers… but you can’t go asserting your own articles of faith in public policy debates when you have no evidence to back them up.

Tedd says:

06:43am | 25/09/10

All molecules are equal, but some have more attraction than others (with apologies to George and his pigs)