Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 21, 2017, 08:42:34 PM
-
None of them appear to be written by Stalin!!!
http://fivebooks.com/interview/andrew-copson-humanism/
-
Nice interview, and good to see him tackle (as A. C. Grayling has done) some of the issues I have with humanism, especially the tendency toward anthropocentrism.
-
Yes, that is good to see but I find that there is as often an attempt to define it in a way that is designed to deal with any objections to the extent that it becomes meaningless.
-
Very interesting link, NS. Thank you. I have listened all the way through.
-
None of them appear to be written by Stalin!!!
http://fivebooks.com/interview/andrew-copson-humanism/
One is hardly going to put their nastier aspects in the shop window.
-
1) What "nastier aspects" ...
2) ... of whom?
-
One is hardly going to put their nastier aspects in the shop window.
He's a humanist isn't he?
Do you have examples of genocide, crimes against humanity, various other atrocities being committed in the name of humanism.
Sure there are plenty of examples committed in the name of marxism, communism, fascism, many religious ideologies etc, etc.
But humanism!?!
Come on Vlad, some examples please.
-
He's a humanist isn't he?
Do you have examples of genocide, crimes against humanity, various other atrocities being committed in the name of humanism.
Sure there are plenty of examples committed in the name of marxism, communism, fascism, many religious ideologies etc, etc.
But humanism!?!
Come on Vlad, some examples please.
This post is non sequitur to a statement that the desire to remove religion from the public forum, as expressed by some forum humanists and atheists and in the BHA and NSS, was a sentiment shared by Stalin.
On the other hand much as I'd like to declare Secular Humanism as the vague waffler's equivalent of trainspotting and Teddy Bears.....i'm afraid some of the views casually held by humanists about religion aren't anywhere near as benign as anything connected with the aforementioned pastimes.
One can be creepily and frighteningly sinister without ''atrocity'' and some of you guys are IMHO.
-
This post is non sequitur to a statement that the desire to remove religion from the public forum, as expressed by some forum humanists and atheists and in the BHA and NSS
You keep repeating this but never actually come up with any names and accompanying evidence of anyone who thinks that religion "should be removed from the public forum". It's high time you did so or just shut up.
-
This post is non sequitur to a statement that the desire to remove religion from the public forum, as expressed by some forum humanists and atheists and in the BHA and NSS, was a sentiment shared by Stalin.
On the other hand much as I'd like to declare Secular Humanism as the vague waffler's equivalent of trainspotting and Teddy Bears.....i'm afraid some of the views casually held by humanists about religion aren't anywhere near as benign as anything connected with the aforementioned pastimes.
One can be creepily and frighteningly sinister without ''atrocity'' and some of you guys are IMHO.
stop lying
-
stop lying
My opinion is that you started this thread as a bit of a piss take of me and now you don't find the consequences that agreeable.
-
My opinion is that you started this thread as a bit of a piss take of me and now you don't find the consequences that agreeable.
Stop lying
-
Stop lying
I don't recall claiming or suggesting British secularism is responsible for any atrocity but because of hair trigger sensitivity towards criticism of Sacred Secular Humanism I am being asked for examples of atrocity.
We are on a forum which regularly removes posts by date.
-
I don't recall claiming or suggesting British secularism is responsible for any atrocity but because of hair trigger sensitivity towards criticism of Sacred Secular Humanism I am being asked for examples of atrocity.
No, you're being asked to substantiate your assertions about those who you allege want religion removed from the public forum.
-
I don't recall claiming or suggesting British secularism is responsible for any atrocity but because of hair trigger sensitivity towards criticism of Sacred Secular Humanism I am being asked for examples of atrocity.
We are on a forum which regularly removes posts by date.
What has any of that to do with your lying?
-
No, you're being asked to substantiate your assertions about those who you allege want religion removed from the public forum.
Reply no 12 covers anything further I may say.
In the meantime I will throw out the following tests to persons on this forum.
How do you interpret the statement Freedom of religion, freedom FROM religion?
Do you think religion should be involved in politics?
Do you think religion should be involved in public service?
Do you think religion should be a totally private thing?
-
This post is non sequitur to a statement that the desire to remove religion from the public forum
Not sure I'd phrase it in that way but obviously humanists want separation of religion and the state - that's what it says on the tin.
, as expressed by some forum humanists and atheists and in the BHA and NSS, was a sentiment shared by Stalin.
Firstly this is mission creep - Stalin wanted to ban religion, that is entirely different to wanting to separate state and religion. Humanists don't want to ban religion, they think that religion is a private matter and that the state should be completely neutral with regard to religion.
Secondly it is guilt by association to the n-th degree to pick a single point on which Stalin and humanists agree (except of course you don't - see above) and then somehow equate the two. Hitler liked Wagner - does that mean that all Wagner fans are somehow genocidal fascists?
So once again - please provide me examples of genocide or other atrocities committed in the name of humanism. There may be examples (I'm genuinely interested) but I'm struggling to think of any and I suspect you are too by using the lame example of trying to equate Stalin with humanism when Stalin wasn't a humanist.
-
Reply no 12 covers anything further I may say.
Reply # 12 says precisely nothing about:
... the desire to remove religion from the public forum, as expressed by some forum humanists and atheists and in the BHA and NSS, [and] was a sentiment shared by Stalin.
-
Not sure I'd phrase it in that way but obviously humanists want separation of religion and the state
Somebody should invent a name for that.
-
Somebody should invent a name for that.
I'd suggest 'Vladdism'!
-
I don't recall claiming or suggesting British secularism is responsible for any atrocity but because of hair trigger sensitivity towards criticism of Sacred Secular Humanism I am being asked for examples of atrocity.
We are on a forum which regularly removes posts by date.
As ever you seem to be muddling up humanism and secularism - you do understand that they are entirely different things don't you Vlad - sure there are plenty of people who consider themselves secularist and humanist, but there is a long tradition of religious people who are in no way humanist but strongly believe in secularism.
-
I don't recall claiming or suggesting British secularism is responsible for any atrocity ...
We are discussing humanism not secularism.
So once again please enlighten us of the atrocities committed in the name of humanism.
-
Hitler liked Wanger
I have never suggested the Humanism I have been talking about has committed atrocity. Therefore I have no more duty to provide examples than anyone else on this forum.
On the other hand you made this statement and I quote:
''Hitler liked Wanger''
Now that is news to me.
-
We are discussing humanism not secularism.
OK.....I have never accused them of atrocities either.
-
How do you interpret the statement Freedom of religion, freedom FROM religion?
Very simply - that those who wish to follow a religious belief should not be prevented from doing so, and equally that those who do not wish to follow a religious belief should not find religion impinges on their lives due unless they chose it to.
Not sure why that is such a challenging concept. And freedom from religion applies to those who are religious to, specifically freedom from religions other than that which they follow. So you are a christian - freedom of religion means you are able to follow that religion - freedom from religion means you should not have other religions impinge upon your life (unless you chose to) - so you shouldn't be required to change how you fulfil your Fridays because it is a muslim holy day, as an example.
-
OK.....I have never accused them of atrocities either.
The why are you linking them to Stalin ... or is your comparison with Stalin simply because he had a fantastic moustache, rather than because he committed ideologically-driven atrocities.
-
''Hitler liked Wanger''
Now that is news to me.
Then you might want to read a little more widely
-
Very simply - that those who wish to follow a religious belief should not be prevented from doing so, and equally that those who do not wish to follow a religious belief should not find religion impinges on their lives due unless they chose it to.
I find myself changing the word ''religion'' to ''Secular Humanism'' here and then seeing how it reads.
-
I find myself changing the word ''religion'' to ''Secular Humanism'' here and then seeing how it reads.
Again failing to understand the difference between secularism and humanism.
If humanism I agree, and indeed so does secularism - a truly secular society would also include freedom to be humanist and freedom from humanism too.
-
The why are you linking them to Stalin ... or is your comparison with Stalin simply because he had a fantastic moustache, rather than because he committed ideologically-driven atrocities.
Nope we know Stalin had particular and well formed plans regarding religion and these were acquitted.
As I said in my opinion a sense of the horror at Stalin's attitude expressed by an atheist commentator on Christianity that religion should be carried out in private only is not casually held by some humanists who actually follow the Stalinist line on religion. To believe that religion and the religious should have no political involvement is such a thing. I can understand why you might want it's Stalinist overtones sanitised.
-
Again failing to understand the difference between secularism and humanism.
If humanism I agree, and indeed so does secularism - I secular society would also include freedom to be humanist and freedom from humanism too.
That's fair I suppose but how would you plan on realising that?
I rather fancy a world where there would be a Humanist centre in town with a chirpy Humanist Celebrant dispensing bonhomie to everyone on his or her patch. Still I suppose while the movement is in the clutches of R Dawkins we will have to put up with SH'rs going by the book (TGD) fervently ''not being nice'' to accommodating atheists, religion, and Templeton laureates.
-
As I said in my opinion a sense of the horror at Stalin's attitude expressed by an atheist commentator on Christianity that religion should be carried out in private only is not casually held by some humanists who actually follow the Stalinist line on religion.
Which humanists follow Stalin's line on religion?
Wouldn't following Stalin's line on religion in itself disqualify anyone from being a humanist?
To believe that religion and the religious should have no political involvement is such a thing.
And yet you can't provide/produce names and statements of anyone who holds such a belief.
-
Nope we know Stalin had particular and well formed plans regarding religion and these were acquitted.
Which were neither secular (which doesn't look to ban religion, merely separate religion and the state) nor humanist. So I've no idea why Stalin's marxist authoritarian ideological approach to religion is relevant here.
-
Which humanists follow Stalin's line on religion?
Wouldn't following Stalin's line on religion in itself disqualify anyone from being a humanist?
And yet you can't provide/produce names and statements of anyone who holds such a belief.
Not so much can't as won't.
-
We've only your word for that - if you can substantiate your claims, why would anyone choose not to?
It still looks like can't.
-
. So I've no idea why Stalin's marxist authoritarian ideological approach to religion is relevant here.
Your response to the question/s ''How do you go about establishing Freedom of religion/secular humanism, freedom from religion/secular humanism would confirm that.
-
Your response to the question/s ''How do you go about establishing Freedom of religion/secular humanism, freedom from religion/secular humanism would confirm that.
No it wouldn't.
Stalin wanted to ban religion - secularists don't want to ban religion. Stalin has more in common with totalitarian theocratic regimes (which also look to ban religions with the severest sanction on those found still to be practicing) such as Saudi than he does with secularism.
-
Stalin has more in common with totalitarian theocratic regimes
As far as I know no theocratic regime has wanted to suppress itself.
-
As far as I know no theocratic regime has wanted to suppress itself.
No - they want to suppress rival forms of power.
-
No - they want to suppress rival forms of power.
Yes but the Prof has kind of gone nuclear. There was the Hitler and Wanger(sic) business but we have now gone from religion to Totalitarian Theocracies.
Yes..... Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin, and can't see anything wrong in it, but I have not gone from that to allege that British Secular Humanism is a totalitarian regime. I think I have limited my descriptions to some vague waffling, creepy and sinister.
Don't let it stop any one '' biggin'it up'' though.
-
Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin, and can't see anything wrong in it
Yet you can't [sic] name any.
-
Yes but the Prof has kind of gone nuclear. There was the Hitler and Wanger(sic) business ...
Oh dear - I see now - having a laugh on the basis of a typo - how very grown up!!
Anyhow I have changed it to Wagner (my obvious intention) in the original post, to make your continuing sniggering look rather stupid.
-
Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin ...
Mussolini got the trains to run on time - some presumably some socialists casually hold views which were part of the stock of the fascist Mussolini.
So what.
Secularists (note not humanists) want separation of religion and the state - whether or not you agree this to be a good thing (I do of course) you'd have to be pretty dim not to recognise the distinction between supporting freedom of religion in a equal manner, which can only be achieved via secularism, and banning religion.
To confuse the two is rather akin to comparing people who support racial equality and therefore want the state to be neutral with regard to race with people supporting apartheid.
-
Mussolini got the trains to run on time - some presumably some socialists casually hold views which were part of the stock of the fascist Mussolini.
So what.
Secularists (note not humanists) want separation of religion and the state - whether or not you agree this to be a good thing (I do of course) you'd have to be pretty dim not to recognise the distinction between supporting freedom of religion in a equal manner, which can only be achieved via secularism, and banning religion.
To confuse the two is rather akin to comparing people who support racial equality and therefore want the state to be neutral with regard to race with people supporting apartheid.
I think the point is that making the trains run on time is what they call ''a neutral thing'' and wanting religion out of politics and the public forum ''a morally questionable thing''.
You now seem to be saying that there is no such thing as secular humanism...don't you read Wikipedia?
I have set the benchmark for secularism which has religious clergy and humanist celebrant joyfully and publically ministering.....You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
-
Oh dear - I see now - having a laugh on the basis of a typo - how very grown up!!
Come on Prof.... One would have to have a heart of stone not to be tickled by a typo like that...........
-
I think the point is that making the trains run on time is what they call ''a neutral thing'' and wanting religion out of politics and the public forum ''a morally questionable thing''.
Wrong - wanting the state to be neutral toward religion, neither favouring nor discriminating against people whether or not they are religious or of any particular religion wouldn't seem to me to be in any way 'morally questionable'. Quite the reverse.
Would you consider it to be 'morally questionable' for a state to act in a manner than neither favours nor discriminates against people on the basis of their race, or their gender? Probably not, so why do you do so on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.
Banning religion on the other hand is certainly 'morally questionable' but secularism isn't about banning religion - indeed the notions of secularism and banning religion are in fact oxymoronic.
-
You now seem to be saying that there is no such thing as secular humanism...don't you read Wikipedia?
No I'm not - what I am saying is that secularism and humanism are separate things - it is of course possible (and quite common) to be both. But the two aren't indivisible where you seem constantly to suggest they are.
So again to use an analogy - there are plenty of Christian Socialists (indeed, you can find a whole page about them on your beloved Wikipedia), but the two elements aren't indivisible - so there are plenty of Christians who aren't socialist, and plenty of socialists who aren't Christian.
-
Come on Prof.... One would have to have a heart of stone not to be tickled by a typo like that...........
Only if you have the sense of humour of a sniggering 12 year old grammar school boy ;)
-
Wrong - wanting the state to be neutral toward religion, neither favouring nor discriminating against people whether or not they are religious or of any particular religion wouldn't seem to me to be in any way 'morally questionable'.
Non sequitur to the issue of people wanting religion out of politics.
-
Non sequitur to the issue of people wanting religion out of politics.
Who does?
-
Non sequitur to the issue of people wanting religion out of politics.
A totally biased misrepresentation of secularism - secularism is about formal structures, in no way does secularism prevent religious people being involved in politics, nor using their religious beliefs to inform their political opinions. What is does object to is a state religion, religions (and religious people) being given special privileges due to their religion. It objects to people being placed in positions of political power specifically due to their office within a religious organisation (e.g. our current situation with Bishops in the HofLs), it objects to state funding of religions.
Does secularism prevent a religious person attaining high political office and power - of course not.
-
A totally biased misrepresentation of secularism - secularism is about formal structures, in no way does secularism prevent religious people being involved in politics, nor using their religious beliefs to inform their political opinions. What is does object to is a state religion, religions (and religious people) being given special privileges due to their religion. It objects to people being placed in positions of political power specifically due to their office within a religious organisation (e.g. our current situation with Bishops in the HofLs), it objects to state funding of religions.
Does secularism prevent a religious person attaining high political office and power - of course not.
Prof you seem to me to be in denial of the question of keeping religion out of politics. However the atheist philosopher and lawyer Mary Warnock has written on it.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/dishonest-to-god-9781441145420/
-
Prof you seem to me to be in denial of the question of keeping religion out of politics. However the atheist philosopher and lawyer Mary Warnock has written on it.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/dishonest-to-god-9781441145420/
Have you read her book? Or do you presume to know her views without having actually read them.
-
Prof you seem to me to be in denial of the question of keeping religion out of politics.
The only question here is, why can't you name anybody of this opinion and the evidence of them stating it?
-
Have you read her book? Or do you presume to know her views without having actually read them.
Radio silence from Vlad.
So I ask again - Vlad have you read Mary Warnock's book?
-
Prof you seem to me to be in denial of the question of keeping religion out of politics. However the atheist philosopher and lawyer Mary Warnock has written on it.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/dishonest-to-god-9781441145420/
What does she say (a precis would be useful)?
-
For info, here's an interview with Warnock at the time of the publication of the book.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2378/no-nonsense-laurie-taylor-interviews-mary-warnock
-
For info, here's an interview with Warnock at the time of the publication of the book.
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2378/no-nonsense-laurie-taylor-interviews-mary-warnock
Yup - I haven't read the book but did read that interview a few days ago. Perhaps the key quote being:
'In her new book, Dishonest to God: On Keeping Religion out of Politics, she’s trained her no-nonsense approach on all those religious bodies and groups that seek to claim some special right to adjudicate upon the moral issues of the time. But although this takes up the bulk of the volume she also appends a chapter in which she argues for the significance and importance of religion and religious thinking in everyday life.'
Seems perfectly reasonable to me - implication being that her concern is over religious groups and organisation being given special status in political debate, particularly on ethical issues as if these organisations are, by default, somehow the arbiters of morality. Yet she is clear that the importance of religious belief to an individual (who might themselves be involved in politics) is highly significance and should be protected.
-
Have you read her book? Or do you presume to know her views without having actually read them.
He'll have plenty of time to read it once he follows through on his stated aim of leaving this forum! (Jndefinitely of course!!)