Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[OldSolduer]

Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality. 

Not tolerant at all.

Good point.

 

[vonGarvin]

I saw that message up on several facebook walls a few months back, and I made the same post as I just did here.  I was labeled small minded, a bigot and I don't know what else.  They made my point because they thought I was insulting gay people.

I just don't think it's tolerance when you say it's ok, but you don't want to see evidence of it's existence, that's all.

 

[ballz]

It sounds very intolerant to me.  It's not that he doesn't want religion imposed on him.  He wants it banished from his sight.  Imagine if someone were to say that they wanted something they didn't like banished from public view.  Something that is the cause du jour, such as homosexuality.  "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind..."

Generally, I would think anybody trying to teach someone else's kids something isn't going to be well-received, whether that be religion, politics, sexuality, etc.

I'm treading into dangerous water here, I was considering sending it via PM as I don't think PMs would spiral out of control. I think we've moved away from the other spiral though, anyway here goes :-\

Saying that statement about homosexuals, however, would be rather unjustified. Homosexuals generally don't knock on people's doors to push homosexuality on to others, they don't try and have the schools teach kids curriculum according to beliefs, they haven't tried to have erase one of the Founding Fathers from history, and they don't try and impose laws that would restrict other people's freedoms. If they did, people probably WOULD say things like that about homosexuals a lot more.

So if you said that about homosexuals, you'd be kinda taking an unfair shot out of nowhere at them.

Religion does all of the above, so it's really not that unfair to just want to be left alone. Hitchens isn't advocating it be "taken out of sight." He's not saying don't have a Jesus Christ float at the Santa Clause parade, don't have big churches and congregations and celebrations, etc. He's saying don't do things that affect him and his family.

That said, does Hitchens believe that a world with no religion would be a better world? I am quite sure he does. He's far from alone. But that's not what he was advocating in that comment, anyway.

EDIT: By the way, I used Hitchens as an example because he is without a doubt the most intolerant and offensive of the three that were mentioned. There's no doubt he pushes the envelope. Dawkins is a much better face for atheism, and Bill Maher is just the man.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality. 

Not tolerant at all.

Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, we both know that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.

"Homosexuality" is a hotly (can I use that term?), hotly contested sub-set of the term "religion." One term predisposes conjecture on the other.

Argue fair. 

 

[cupper]

Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, we both know that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.

Same can be said for Homosexuality and Penis.

And buy replacing penis with homosexuality, aren't you leaving out a significant portion of the LGBT community? :dunno:

 

[Journeyman]

Same can be said for Homosexuality and Penis.

And buy replacing penis with homosexuality, aren't you leaving out a significant portion of the LGBT community? :dunno:

I'm sorry, I was talking with TV.  I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.

By trying to transpose penis and homosexuality, linguistically, you're .......nevermind...stick to pre-conceived notions  :

 

[cupper]

I'm sorry, I was talking with TV.  I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.

By trying to transpose penis and homosexuality, linguistically, you're .......nevermind...stick to pre-conceived notions  :

:rofl:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So goes the never ending Canadian saga of trying to be perfectly PC and everyone trying so hard to outdo the other of it. All in the great, unattainable effort to prove you are just that smidgen more tolerant than the person you're speaking to. So wrapped up in your own self righteousness that the other persons feelings and beliefs are to be looked down on and discounted as so much doss from the great unwashed, ignorant and pitiful masses.

Bullshit. I don't give two flying potatoes what you believe or what your soul needs to sleep at night. I won't judge you. You don't judge me.

 

[xena]

My my, I go away for a while, and the discussion spirals into a disturbingly Freudian comparison of the sizes of our philosophies.  Nonetheless, here's a response to ballz post a while back.  I come back when I've done reading the rest...

...my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.

It shouldn't come as a shock, really.  Atheism and Theism are, by definition, intolerant of each other.  Their ideas are incompatible and cannot be combined into a philosophical hybrid.  That being said, there's no reason for people to act rudely towards each other regardless of the others belief or lack thereof.  But, if one hasn't thought deeply enough to realize that religion and atheism are incompatible beliefs, I hold little hope for one's future.

...no atheist was motivated by atheism to do bad deeds...

Oooo...  pretty sure there are things like facts that disagree with you on that one.  Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you?  Personally know a lot of folks who had family members killed for no other reason than believing in a deity, do you?  Just out of curiosity, what do you think all these martyrs were killed for?
My point is that atheists often claim that these horrors were perpetrated because of other reasons, but actual history shows differently.
Again, and apparently it hasn't been emphasized enough, it is HUMAN NATURE to harm and be cruel to each other.  It does not spawn from religion, but from our human nature, common to atheists and theists alike.  It just seems to me that Christianity acknowledges that a bit more readily.

Maher isn't even atheist, he's a rationalist.

Are you sure we're talking about the same guy?  I'm talking about Bill Mahr, the guy who made the "Religulous" movie where he made all the exact same errors in logic as the people he was criticizing.  His little monologue at the end where he encourages people to become activists to ban and outlaw religion puts him, pretty solidly to my mind, in the anti-theist camp.

Dawkins and Hitchens wanting to "abolish" religion is actually that they just want to abolish things like laws being tied to religion...

If you're talking about places like Saudi Arabia, I'm right with you on that one.  However, I'm not aware of any laws in Canada that are uniquely tied to religions, unless you're errantly assuming that things like charitable tax-exempt statuses and such are religiously motivated.  They're not.  They date from before the Government got into the social safety net business.  At the time, if you were broke, had no income, needed food, shelter, etc., the place you went to for help was a Church, Synagogue or Temple of some sort.  The social safety net was grass-roots and generally run by the various religious groups.  Sometime later, some politicians got it in their head that they could do all this so much better, so they created welfare, EI and universal health care, etc.  And all the welfare fraud examples that we can think of show exactly how good the politicians have been at it.
But also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that Church's tax-exempt status is more than it is.  It just means the Churches, and other religious organizations, don't have to pay corporate income tax, and a portion of what people, of their own free will, donate is tax deductible.  Oddly, donations to political parties are 100% tax deductible, whereas donation to homeless shelters and food banks are not.  It must be nice to be a politician, where you can write all the rules to be in your favour...
Other than that, I'm pretty sure neither of us would be in favour of repealing anything along the lines of "Thou shalt not murder", so I'm never too sure what laws the atheists are against...

...they just don't want people's beliefs affecting what they do in their daily life.

One's beliefs affects one's actions on a daily basis, regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.  This would be akin to attempting to stamp out breathing.

They want the separation of church and state

And, in Canada at least, they have it.

...they don't want kids being taught in school at an early age to believe something that has no evidence to support it.

Like, that there is no God?  lol!  But seriously, it's important to note that science does not have any data that necessitates the existence of a deity, and, at the same time, it equally has exactly no data that rules it out.  The existence of God is beyond the scope of science, and frankly, science does not speak to that subject without grievious manipulation.  The idea that atheism is more scientific is a fallacy.  This little detail, of course, does not make theism any more scientific either.  Science is 100% neutral on the existence of God, and attempting to make it seem any other way is deceitful.

They also believe that religion holds back humanity from finding answers, and they're right, the Catholic church only just recently admitted that it was wrong for putting Galileo in jail for discovering the world is round and that it orbits the sun.

Ummm...  not quite.  Galileo was never jailed for heliocentrism, and he most certainly did not discover the world is spherical.  That is a modern myth.  The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere as early as the 6th Century BC.  Galileo was put under house arrest for publicly insulting the Pope.  That is the actual historic fact.  Galileo was not the first person to suggest heliocentrism - that honour goes to a fellow by the name of Copernicus, who, by the way, remained a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life.  In fact, a good number of Renaissance scientists were all sorts of clergy, too.  Galileo certainly improved Copernicus' ideas, but he did not discover heliocentrism.
Galileo lived in what was then part of the Papal estates, which were lock, stock and barrel ruled by the Vatican and the Pope.  At the time, the Pope was a temporal ruler, as well as a spiritual leader (and technically still is, as the Vatican City is the last vestige of these territories, and constitute an independant country within the city of Rome).  Galileo was funded by the Popes private funds (yeah, a lot of the Popes at the time came from aristocratic families with boatloads of inherited wealth, etc.  I'm not saying that's a good thing - it's just the way it was back then) both in his scientific endeavours and his day to day living.
Galileo then published a booklet where he characterized the opinions of the Pope as belonging to a character by the name of "Simplisicus".  Yup, it's Latin, but you don't need a Latin-English dictionary to figure out what it means.  He publicly called the Pope a Simpleton.  Now, considering this was a day and age when Kings and Queens routinely had people executed for less, the Vatican's imposition of house arrest was relatively pretty lenient.  So, was it really smart of Galileo to publicly insult the guy who not only was funding his science, but paying his rent for him and buying him his groceries?  I'd say not so much.  Galileo's crime was not having the sense that antagonizing the guy with the purse-strings, not to mention the power of life and death over him, was not a really good idea.  Now, does that make religion anti-science by definition?  Hardly.  And repeated assertions that it does are disingenious.
Now, does any of this give me a right to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat?  Not by a long shot!  But, nor does anyone else have the right to shove their beliefs down my throat, and that includes atheist beliefs (or lack of beliefs if one were to insist on phrasing it that way).  Attempting to make my religion something that I cannot publicly practice, or openly discuss in a respectful fashion, is not freedom of religion.  It is anti-religion which is an entirely different thing, and cannot be honestly touted under the banner of "freedom".

 

[cupper]

Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you?

Not sure that this would be the best example to use for your argument.

Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist (although there was limited allowance of the orthodox faith to be practiced through state sanctioned churches) this was just a justification for the policy or religious persecution. The real driver was that the Communist Party could not allow the masses to follow beliefs which were beyond their control, and thus a possible avenue of subversive dialog from outside forces.

 

[ballz]

I've PM'd Ivan to save you all spiralling out of control thing...

Anyway, I enjoy debates about belief systems and all, but they do grow tiring. I hope, if nothing else, people look at the study I posted it and take it seriously. If that were any other group being relegated to the level of a rapist, I would be taking it just as seriously.

 

[jollyjacktar]

  Beautiful.

 

[observor 69]

Bullshit. I don't give two flying potatoes what you believe or what your soul needs to sleep at night. I won't judge you. You don't judge me.

Best quote yet.  OMG I am agreeing with recceguy. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My poor attempt at humour - rationalist.

Trust me (pun intended): There are NO rations on MY "A" list.

BTW, my 2c on the study: It shows that the various religions continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks: It's not acceptable anymore to indoctrinate them into hating and not trusting other religions, so they switch target to the one they can all agree on (and get back to "majority" status).

 

[cupper]

Couldn't decide if this fit here or the stupidest thing today topic.

Watched this on the local newscast tonight. Don't think it is an attack on atheism so much as an attack on bad art, but you decide.

(watch the newscast clip to get a better perspective, as the written article lacks somewhat)

Skeleton Santa Controversy at Loudoun County Courthouse

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Skeleton-Santa-Controversy-at-Loudoun-County-Courthouse-135070748.html

A skeleton dressed in a Santa suit and nailed to a cross was set up on the Loudoun County courthouse lawn in Leesburg on Monday.

The macabre Kris Kringle was one of the nine approved displays for this Christmas season, but it was not standing for long.  Someone tore the skeleton down, sparking a debate about free speech.

 

[xena]

Not sure that this would be the best example to use for your argument.

Why do you think that would be?  Is it inferior to, say, a text-book style piece of propaganda that has been regurgitated in such a way that it isn't entirely obvious that independant thought has not been used to produce it?

Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist (although there was limited allowance of the orthodox faith to be practiced through state sanctioned churches)...

Which were KGB controlled, didn't allow anyone under the age of 18 to attend, and would generally cause you to get arrested for "anti-Soviet activities" if you attended every week, unless you were one of the KGB informers (although, I'll concede that these rules varied somewhat through the years, and were inconsistently applied).  The Soviet Union was more than merely officially atheist - atheism was enforced with jackboots, and people were killed by the hundreds of thousands for refusing to deny their faith.  It had nothing to do with their politics, but completely with their faith.  That was more than just "taking religion out of schools" - this was brutal, state-sanctioned murder for no other reason that the government could not legislate faith out of people, and was perpetrated almost incessantly during their regime.  Also, these "state-sanctioned" Churches were not Orthodox Churches, but mere imitations. Please see:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Church and note that the Wikipedia authors are rather slanted and generous towards to the Soviet Government in their comments.

...this was just a justification for the policy or religious persecution. The real driver was that the Communist Party could not allow the masses to follow beliefs which were beyond their control, and thus a possible avenue of subversive dialog from outside forces.

Which would mean the Communists should not have allowed participation in any international sporting events, scientific endeavours, humanitarian aid, medical research, and the list goes on...  Because anyone who had any contact with non-Communists would become a "possible avenue of subersive dialog" (sic).  If they really thought the Russian Orthodox Church was a legitimate avenue for outside influences, it would mean they new nothing of Russian culture and how the Russian Church operates, much like many of the very opinionated posters here who seem to insist that they know Orthodox theology better than I do.

I'm pretty sure fairly influential figures, like, oh, I dunno, Karl Marx, for example, held religion in a slightly dimmer view than what you've very optimistically attempted to portray.

Which comes back to the point I made that you commented on:  people who have survived the militantly atheist regime in Soviet Russia know very clearly that they simply had a hate-on for religion, and the spin doctoring that was put on it (which was along the lines of what you stated above) was the rough equivalent of the Nazi's saying that they killed six million Jews "for their own good", and that now someone trying to convince others that they really were a bunch of nice guys and had nothing but the best of intentions all along.  It's propaganda, and it's rubbish.  The real life experiences of these survivors count for more, to my mind at least, than any sort of political theory.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to believe in God, or not.  If you don't have any reasons to believe in God, the tooth-fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, good for you!  But, just because someone can't get their head around all the details surrounding, for example, particle physics, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Similarly, someone's lack of reasons to believe in God, or anything else, for that matter, has exactly no bearing on whether someone else might have good reason to believe.  Especially in a subject that has been repeatedly established that science has no bearing on.  Until someone invents a divinity-litmus, or God-o-meter that actually works, science has no evidence one way or the other.  And, considering the probably most common working definition of God, He exists (sure, I'll say it so no one has to get their knickers in a twist:  "if He exists") at least in part, outside of time and space.  Since science is all about measuring, observing and testing things that are part of time and space, it is beyond science's defined ability to determine the existence of God or not.

So, the fact is, atheists are just as un-scientific about their beliefs (or lack thereof) as theists are.  It seems to be an unpopular fact nowadays, but one that people will just have to learn to live with if they have any intellectual integrity.  And just as much as you might not like to have someone else's beliefs forced down your throat, I (and a few others) are tired of having unbelief (and the inexplicably arrogant and false assumption of scientific and historic superiority that seems to go with it these days!) shoved down mine.

So, everyone is free to be an atheist if they like.  They can play with semantics and re-brand themselves "rationalists" if they like.  It's a free country, so they can even be anti-theists if they like.  But, no one should be surprised, or, even more ridiculously, cry "persecution", when they get challenged on their misrepresentation (ie. lying) about things like science supporting their views, or skewing history to make it more favourable to their opinions.

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I'd be surprised if people would have trust issues with me, if I played as free and loose with the facts as the New Atheist movement does.  Just a thought...

 

[ballz]

And who here is arguing that they should be?


Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?

Just wondering if you are still asking these questions and if you have read Ivan's post about how atheists have earned what that study suggests. :

 

[xena]

Just wondering if you are still asking these questions and if you have read Ivan's post about how atheists have earned what that study suggests. :

And what exact post of mine are you referring to?  You may want to take a breath and have a long thought about:

1.  putting words in people's mouths; and

2.  that hyperbole can be a rhetorical device, not intended to be taken literally.

And we've already established that not all atheists (or rationalists) take liberties with history and science.  But, assertions that Galileo discovered the Earth to be spherical, that he was jailed for promoting heliocentrism and that atheists have never harmed anyone to promote their agendas prove that, at least some, do.  Should they be mistrusted for that?  Probably not, as it's likely they've just been sold a bill of goods by someone else who has been just as decieved.  Odds are, there's someone who originally twisted the truth who would be culpable, but I think it would be impossible to determine at this point, and not worth the effort.

Much more could be done by encouraging people to learn facts about history and the world around them, rather than the mere opinions of guys who think their philisophical opinions are automatically more valid because they have an advanced degree in a completely unrelated field.

 

[ballz]

You've stated on numerous occasions from your first post to your last post about how it should be no surprise that atheists are viewed the way they are by religious people, and then tried to justify it in numerous, equally stupid ways, such as how they don't have morals, and how Stalin was an atheist, and how they're liars, blah blah blah.


And for the record, I don't need to "re-brand" myself as a rationalist. I'm not an atheist and never was. You might want to check into what "rationalism" is, before you go suggesting people of trying to "re-brand" themselves as if there was ever something wrong with their brand in the first place. I happen to think that the Big Bang Theory and the Invisible Man in the Sky Theory are equally unlikely, and anybody that portrays them as fact or won't admit that they *could* be wrong equally stupid. Some of us aren't so arrogant that we think we have all the answers.

EDIT: Before anybody makes the joke, yes, I am admitting that I don't know everything.

 

[cupper]

You do realize that you just argued the same point I was making.

The persecution had nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with maintaining control over the population by whatever means necessary. By attacking any and all religious institutions not officially sanctioned by the government, they destroyed any hope that that religion would provide and instill, and they replaced it with fear and blind unquestionable obedience.

One aspect of atheism which the "mainstream" atheist prophets expound is the recognition of free will as motivating factor. Something which totalitarian regimes are diametrically opposed, and will stamp out.

To actually say that the Soviet Union was officially atheist was to give more credit than it deserved. It wasn't a belief that there is no God, and that religion served no purpose in life, but that there should be no belief except that of total faith and trust in the Party, in effect raising the Party to the status of a religion.