Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

They're not real.

Why is that a problem?

Sure. Religion is delusion. It makes people think all sorts of stupid and wrong things. But those stupid and wrong things, including any bigotry therein, are still thought alone and violate no rights.

I guess I just don't consider thinking stupid and wrong things is a real problem. Certainly not one for which intervention in religious practice is necessary.

I'm not big on the whole notion of thoughtcrime, in case you hadn't noticed, and I would have thought--for all your bitchfits about "political correctness" (Boo!)--you wouldn't be either. I suppose it's a standard to which you hold others but not yourself, which...I mean that doesn't surprise me. At all.

Seriously? You can't make the connection?

The individual is responsible for the violation of rights, but the religion may be a factor in the decision by planting the seed, or something much bigger.

You can see how attitudes can translate into harm here:

Religious‐based negative attitudes towards LGBTQ people among healthcare, social care and social work students and professionals: A review of the international literature

There is a dearth of research on how negative religious attitudes towards LGBTQ people inform professional practice. This paper reports on a scoping review of 70 selected studies from 25 different countries. It explores key issues and knowledge gaps regarding ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There is a dearth of evidence about how religious‐informed attitudes towards LGBTQ people translate into practice. Carabez et al. (2015), reporting on a US study of nursing students, evaluated an LGBTQ teaching intervention, observing that more than 10% of the 112 participants ‘had religious values that might interfere with quality care’ (p.51). However, how they might interfere was not explained. Similarly, Aynur et al. (2020, p.1918) reported that many religious nurses in Turkey were ‘uncomfortable’ providing care to LGBTQ people, but how this affected practice was not discussed. Johnston and Shearer (2017, p.92), in the United States, noted that two medical residents (3% of the total sample) reported ‘that they would feel uncomfortable treating a transgender patient for personal, moral, or religious reasons’. Again, how this might affect practice was not explored.

Note that there is little evidence for it in this review, but it's not hard to see its manifestations in countries that are heavily religious.

Remove the brainwashing and you would probably see a reduction in violation of rights.

That's probably the primary factor in reformation which occurs naturally within adherence to various faiths; as individuals' lived experience changes, they tend to tailor their faith to fit that experience. And sure, fundies may look down on this, but they get to. Religions tend to leave fundies behind and I'd expect them to be bitter about it. Hard cheese.

So why would intervention be necessary?

So we don't take a backward step, and make sure we only progress from a rights protection point of view.

I get that you're still of the belief that what people merely believe drives them to perpetrate harms against others and you're trying to convince me that's the case, but you should know that I still think that's just aggressively stupid.

Not in every case.

I'd wager it plays a background role rather than being the sole driving influence more often than not, but I wouldn't know how to study it.

"Which one?" they ask as they proceed to quote from a post that they'd previously dodged.

One thing I don't do is dodge questions - if they're brought up I respond.

I only replied to @UKMikey's point (and not even his whole post) as I wanted to clarify my position.

I don't see why "it"* would be. I know you want to convince me it is but your efforts so far have been pathetic. You need better arguments than those with which you've been thrusting impotently for years.

*I actually listed two options. That's kind of key to the false dilemma (also false dichotomy or false binary) fallacy. But I think I understood what you meant.

Consider @Sprite's last post.

By answering "yes and no" they are of the belief that it may influence a person's outlook. That may then lead to a rights violation.

What's the difference with violence??

So you wouldn't know that it's pathological...or you purport to not know. Got it.

Sorry, I'm confused by this.

Faith itself doesn't do it. Faith just is. Adherents to faith may do it.

But if a faith puts a premium on "us vs them", is it not more culpable.

You keep giving people too much credit than I think they deserve, and as a result are ignoring how powerful religion can be. People's psychology varies so much it's hard to predict how they'll behave given a reason to commit a rights violation.

I'm sure you're aware of the Milgram experiment. It shows how "normal" people can be driven to cause harm under certain situations.

Why can't religion be a driving force?

Are we talking empirical data or personal experience? I certainly don't have access to the former and, in fact, I'm doubtful anyone does.

My personal experience is that Christians do it more than adherents to any other faith, but that certainly isn't to say that all Christians do it per my experience. My experience is that if Christians have done it, it's mostly been pretty innocuous, with only a couple instances where individuals were more aggressive. Of course that also isn't to say that Jews or any other religious adherents don't do it, but that I don't have personal experience with them doing it.

That's interesting, and may be because of the differences in UK vs US Christianity.

 

[TexRex]

Seriously? You can't make the connection?

lol

That's a compelling-ass argument right there.

The individual is responsible for the violation of rights,

but the religion may be a factor in the decision by planting the seed, or something much bigger.

A seed--or something much bigger, whatever that is--is not action.

You can see how attitudes can translate into harm here:

Discomfort isn't harm. One's discomfort especially isn't harm to another.

Also, not providing care for an individual--if that's the sort of practice which wasn't explored--isn't a violation of rights, whatever foundation notwithstanding, as there is no natural right to be cared for by another. It may, however, be in violation of employer mandate and thus be grounds for termination of employment. I feel like a well-reasoned effort was made to convince you of this elsewhere but apparently it didn't stick.

Note that there is little evidence for it in this review,

but it's not hard to see its manifestations in countries that are heavily religious.

Then it's not hard to show it. And by "it" I mean that belief itself causes one to harm another or otherwise violate another's rights.

Remove the brainwashing and you would probably see a reduction in violation of rights.

Again with the masturbation. You allege that they are brainwashed (itself distinct from simply holding a particular belief, and a state that isn't reached absent coercion by another party) and assert an outcome following the hypothetical removal of that supposed brainwashing. You should examine why you're driven to resort to this so that you may stop, as it's kind of pathetic and really no more compelling than your opening salvo.

So we don't take a backward step, and make sure we only progress from a rights protection point of view.

Intervention in religious exercise is unnecessary when religious exercise violates no rights. In the event of rights violations, whether the perpetrator purports to be religious or not, there ought to be recourse and remedy for the victim.

Though I don't adhere to religious doctrine myself--especially because of that, even--I'm a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I know Christians have demonstrated a propensity throughout history and right up to present to reject that right, and though you purport to be a Christian no longer, that you seem to also reject that right doesn't surprise me. It would also seem to explain your disposition against the Islamic faith.

I should say that Christians rejecting others' religious freedom isn't an expression of faith, rather it's rooted in the desire to subjugate. Some vermin just want to decide what people can do and say. Purported faith needn't even enter into it.

It's kind of like that rat in Kentucky what refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, thereby denying their legal right to wed.

It wasn't about religious conviction. Had that been the case, it could have simply deferred to an actual human being who would respect others' rights so that it wouldn't have to act in defiance of its supposed faith. No, the rat just wanted to keep them from marrying and has acknowledged as much since in purporting to "defend marriage." Now it's ordered to pay two men $100,000 (half to each) for violating their rights. Good.

I think again about Christians who sexually abuse children, especially those Christians who are prominent figures in the Church. Obviously Christians who aren't prominent figures in the Church perpetrate the heinous act, and certainly there are likely far more Christians, prominent figures or not, who don't--Christianity isn't to blame. But prominent figures in the Church do it and the Church frequently ventures to conceal these heinous acts, not because the Church condones it as being based in the faith but because the Church fears loss of control it has over its congregants.

I also think about Qualified Immunity and how it's advocated for, sought, and granted to deny victims of abuse by state actors remedy for rights violations. Religious belief doesn't even play a part in the application of QI. Those who advocate for, seek, and grant QI just don't want to compromise the control they have.

Not in every case.

I know that. When, then? Why then? Why at all?

I'd wager it plays a background role rather than being the sole driving influence more often than not, but I wouldn't know how to study it.

I mean you could cry about "political correctness" (Boo!) like you did after a lab dissociated from that rat bitch James Watson for its bigoted diatribe. Say you'd try to study it but they will come to get you--it's a fine cop-out, that one.

One thing I don't do is dodge questions - if they're brought up I respond.

[snort] Oh-kay. [wink]

I only replied to @UKMikey's point (and not even his whole post) as I wanted to clarify my position.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Consider @Sprite's last post.

By answering "yes and no" they are of the belief that it may influence a person's outlook.

That may then lead to a rights violation.

Not absent specific action by the individual, over which one has agency.

What's the difference with violence??

No difference. It's still agency.

I think all sorts of things about others. Rather than religious belief or any other collectivist nonsense, my thoughts are influenced by individuals' words and actions. However I may feel about them, I still manage to not perpetrate rights violations against them. Absent a legitimate physical threat against my person or that of another close to me, the worst I'm likely to do is dissociate from another. That's not a violation of rights, instead it's me exercising my own right to freely associate. In the event one ventures to harm my person or that of another close to me, I will act to neutralize the threat in a manner which may cause physical harm, but that would be defensive only and would indeed be my right.

Sorry, I'm confused by this.

That's fine. I'll just go on assuming that your engagement is in bad faith unless it isn't apparent that particular engagement is so affected. Your propensity for bad faith engagement has been such that I never actually stopped.

But if a faith puts a premium on "us vs them", is it not more culpable.

Correct, it's not. It's still just belief. It's up to the individual to harm or otherwise violate the rights of others, or not, as is presumably much more likely to be the case.

That rat in Illinois what stabbed a 6-year-old Muslim boy to death and severely injured the boy's mother was purportedly radicalized by conservative talk radio (shocking, I know) but even if some bitch explicitly said to do what it did, it was still up to the rat to do it. Voices on the radio can't make you plunge a knife into a 6-year-old's body 26 times.

You keep giving people too much credit than I think they deserve, and as a result are ignoring how powerful religion can be. People's psychology varies so much it's hard to predict how they'll behave given a reason to commit a rights violation.

I've done no such thing. People suck. People are dirty and violent. And religion is delusion, even if it's shared by many. But it's still on the individual to act. If religion was to blame, every adherent would be capable of the worst of any adherent, and that's clearly not the case.

You're giving religion more credit than it deserves, and as a result are ignoring how responsible the individual is.

I'm sure you're aware of the Milgram experiment.

Is that your way of saying you think I should be and that I should look it up if I'm not? No. You're trying to use it in support of a claim you're making and so it's on you explain what it is and how it's supposed to help. You probably should have done so to begin with and my eyes are glazing over as I expect it to be irrelevant.

It shows how "normal" people can be driven to cause harm under certain situations.

Why can't religion be a driving force?

Why is it? It's your claim which you have repeatedly asserted without evidence and so I'm inclined to dismiss it without evidence.

That's interesting, and may be because of the differences in UK vs US Christianity.

It's my personal experience. I'm not counting observances of individuals whom I'd expect to similarly other me. I don't know that my experience is consistent with "US Christianity" because it's the only experience I have. I equally don't know if it's inconsistent with "UK Christianity" for the same reason.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Then it's not hard to show it. And by "it" I mean that belief itself causes one to harm another or otherwise violate another's rights.

90% countries banning gay sex are majority Muslim or Christian

The population of over 90% of countries that ban same-sex relationships is majority Muslim or Christian. Thirty-five of the 71 countries that criminalise homosexuality, or 49%, are nations where most citizens are Muslims, according to the Erasing 76 Crimes... Read More »

www.secularism.org.uk

I'm not arguing against your point that human beings have agency (which I think you acknowledged with your gif) - I'm showing that the sometimes pernicious nature of religion can motivate a person/group/state to violate rights. The person is still in control (unless a court finds them mentally unwell).

From my understanding, you are laying all the blame on the person and none on the religion.

I don't think religion should get a free pass here, especially when you consider human nature.

And as for "ideological masturbation", I see it as blue sky thinking. You find something bad (not that religion is wholly bad) and you look to neuter it.

 

[UKMikey]

Your "blue sky thinking" sounds like a bit of a correlation/causation mix-up to me. I oppose theocracy and authoritarianism but not the right of individuals to believe what they like. Nutters abound in many countries, but those countries can't ban gay sex if they are not in charge of the legislature.

Break the link between church and state.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Your "blue sky thinking" sounds like a bit of a correlation/causation mix-up to me. I oppose theocracy and authoritarianism but not the right of individuals to believe what they like. Nutters abound in many countries, but those countries can't ban gay sex if they are not in charge of the legislature.

Break the link between church and state.

I don't oppose people believing what they like; I'm saying we should call out those beliefs so that they may evolve.

I don't know when/how it's possible to reject the null hypothesis when looking at such things. Looking at those figures and shrugging "well, we don't know for sure what the causation is" seems like the wrong way to go about it, however, especially considering how Christianity is manifesting in the US with very real consequences.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't oppose people believing what they like; I'm saying we should call out those beliefs so that they may evolve.

I don't know when/how it's possible to reject the null hypothesis when looking at such things. Looking at those figures and shrugging "well, we don't know for sure what the causation is" seems like the wrong way to go about it, however, especially considering how Christianity is manifesting in the US with very real consequences.

No hypothesis should go unchallenged and "prove it isn't" is what seems like an assbackwards way of going about proposing one without further supporting evidence to me.

All I think we're asking for is solid data that religious belief is a significant cause of violence, especially when other Christian and Muslim nations don't exhibit the same behaviour. Do those countries which do have anything else in common besides theocracy? Do the countries which don't ban gay sex have Christian or Muslim citizens?

Personally I think behaviour should be called out before beliefs, not that that's ever stopped anyone else from doing the opposite.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No hypothesis should go unchallenged and "prove it isn't" is what seems like an assbackwards way of going about proposing one without further supporting evidence to me.

I'm not sure what further evidence can be provided for LGBT rights suppression and its association with religion.

Thirty-five of the 71 countries that criminalise homosexuality, or 49%, are nations where most citizens are Muslims, according to the Erasing 76 Crimes news site.

Thirty-one countries, or 44%, are majority Christian.

The remaining five countries include Nigeria, which has a roughly 50-50 split of Muslims and Christians. The other four are either Hindu or Buddhist majority. No country with a nonreligious majority bans homosexuality.

Do you want to interview the legislators and see how much religion features in their decision??

There's more here:

Why do some countries disapprove of homosexuality? Money, democracy and religion

Why are there such big differences in public opinion about homosexuality? It turns out where you live can be a major influence on how you feel.

theconversation.com

LGBT rights in Indonesia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In July 2015, the Minister of Religious Affairs stated that it is difficult for Indonesia to legalize same-sex marriage because deep-seated religious norms speak strongly against it.

Frankly, I don't know how to persuade you that religion is a factor since it seems so blindingly obvious.

All I think we're asking for is solid data that religious belief is a significant cause of violence, especially when other Christian and Muslim nations don't exhibit the same behaviour. Do those countries which do have anything else in common besides theocracy? Do the countries which don't ban gay sex have Christian or Muslim citizens?

Your smoking example is a good one.

Not all smokers suffer from the detrimental effects of smoking, and yet we know it is harmful to health.

If we look at the motivation for certain attacks, perhaps we can better understand the relationship between religion and thoughts leading to action.

Authorities in the Belgian capital shot and killed a Tunisian national on Tuesday hours after they say he gunned down three Swedish soccer fans, killing two of them, and posted a video online in which he claimed credit for the attack and said the Quran was “a red line for which he is ready to sacrifice himself.”

 

[UKMikey]

Frankly, I don't know how to persuade you that religion is a factor since it seems so blindingly obvious.

Why did Ireland outlaw abortion?

Why did they later overturn the ban? They're a still staunchly Catholic country.

Clue: democracy.

Frankly, I don't know how to persuade you that religion is a factor since it seems so blindingly obvious.

To you.

Your smoking example is a good one.

Not all smokers suffer from the detrimental effects of smoking, and yet we know it is harmful to health.

Because we have scientifically obtained data which isolates the carcinogens and harmful substances in tobacco as a root cause of health problems. The plural of anecdote isn't data.

Isolated radicals should not be a cause to throw the baby out with the bathwater by condemning or outlawing an entire religious community. For governments to adopt a policy of "Islam is bad" requires more proof than "a lot of countries which are Muslim are bad" because Muslim countries can also be good. Isolate the cause.

 

[Danoff]

People need to stop pretending that Islamic terrorism is fuelled by Islam.

Religion doesn’t make you violent, it just gives those who are inherently violent a cover story and or scapegoat to act that way.

It's an interesting concept, the belief cannot make a person violent. But what makes a person violent if not the contents of their thoughts? Where are we thinking that the violence is coming from? Pure emotion? That's not always the case, but let's go with it. Suppose that violent people are always emotionally driven rather than driven by their thoughts - if then something like religion makes you angry, and angry in such a way as to think that others are to blame, then did the religion fuel the violence? If it fuels the anger, and the anger is what actually compels to person to violence, is the religion fueling the violence?

This is precisely the reason I don't like to get into "blame" or "justice" and instead just like to take people based on their actions. Because it's so difficult to figure out what exactly motivated what and how much. But I think it's very difficult to claim that Islam does not fuel terrorism given that Islam actively teaches all of the components of terrorism. Likewise for Christianity, Judaism, and probably a host of other religions.

There are many mental traps that people get into that allow them to dehumanize others and ultimately carry out violent acts against them. These mental traps are not responsible for the act, and they shouldn't be banned or censored. But they should be recognized for what they are - encouraging of violence.

It is ok to characterize thought patterns and logical traps as promoting of violence. It doesn't shift the blame off of the person. It helps us to understand people.

 

[Sprite]

It's an interesting concept, the belief cannot make a person violent. But what makes a person violent if not the contents of their thoughts? Where are we thinking that the violence is coming from? Pure emotion? That's not always the case, but let's go with it. Suppose that violent people are always emotionally driven rather than driven by their thoughts - if then something like religion makes you angry, and angry in such a way as to think that others are to blame, then did the religion fuel the violence? If it fuels the anger, and the anger is what actually compels to person to violence, is the religion fueling the violence?

This is precisely the reason I don't like to get into "blame" or "justice" and instead just like to take people based on their actions. Because it's so difficult to figure out what exactly motivated what and how much. But I think it's very difficult to claim that Islame does not fuel terrorism given that Islam actively teaches all of the components of terrorism. Likewise for Christianity, Judaism, and probably a host of other religions.

There are many mental traps that people get into that allow them to dehumanize others and ultimately carry out violent acts against them. These mental traps are not responsible for the act, and they shouldn't be banned or censored. But they should be recognized for what they are - encouraging of violence.

It is ok to characterize thought patterns and logical traps as promoting of violence. It doesn't shift the blame off of the person. It helps us to understand people.

I agree that everyone should be judged on what they do.

However I don’t think Religions of any sort make them violent. They can as you say encourage violence, they can also encourage great acts of kindness or compassion too.

Personally I’d be happy without religion in the world, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised if someone is religious I’m not one to argue they shouldn’t be. I listen and then I offer an alternative viewpoint. If that person then enters a civilised discussion and will return the time I’ve afforded them, then all is well and I can be happy. However one thing I have found over the years is I’m more likely going to run into those who just want to say their part and get in a huff when they realise I don’t agree with them. So if religion and politics for that matter crop up, I either excuse myself from the conversation of sit back and have some popcorn.

What I do hate about religions is all the get out of free jail cards they use to duck and dodge their own religious rules. I also dislike the hypocrites who, drink, do drugs, deal drugs, have pre-marital sexual relations mainly when they’re young and the as they get older preach to everyone how wicked everyone else is. This ranges from individuals right up to the whole religion.

Two that spring to mind are sexual abuses by Catholic Priest with the Church hushing things up where they can, Muslim grooming gangs and a very odd get out or workaround is the Eruv in Manhattan.

If your religion says you have to do something and you don’t agree, then in my eyes you don’t really follow that religion you’re a hypocrite. If there is a god out there, then doing some of the teachings you agree with and ignoring those you don’t, then I’m pretty sure he/she/it isn’t not going to be happy and you’re not getting your happy ever after.

 

[Exorcet]

However I don’t think Religions of any sort make them violent. They can as you say encourage violence, they can also encourage great acts of kindness or compassion too.

Personally I’d be happy without religion in the world, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve realised if someone is religious I’m not one to argue they shouldn’t be. I listen and then I offer an alternative viewpoint. If that person then enters a civilised discussion and will return the time I’ve afforded them, then all is well and I can be happy. However one thing I have found over the years is I’m more likely going to run into those who just want to say their part and get in a huff when they realise I don’t agree with them. So if religion and politics for that matter crop up, I either excuse myself from the conversation of sit back and have some popcorn.

Depending on what you're considering religion, it can do a lot of things, but it also tends to be more often than not based in the illogical and propagate misinformation. This isn't something that makes decisions for people or completely controls their morality, but it can very much influence them. It's also unnecessary baggage as whatever good religion might do can be found through other means like reason.

Still, people can do good in spite of religion and they should be left to decide for themselves if they want to follow a given set of beliefs.

What I do hate about religions is all the get out of free jail cards they use to duck and dodge their own religious rules. I also dislike the hypocrites who, drink, do drugs, deal drugs, have pre-marital sexual relations mainly when they’re young and the as they get older preach to everyone how wicked everyone else is. This ranges from individuals right up to the whole religion.

I don't see the problem with this. It could be a sign of dishonesty or hypocrisy, but it could just as much signal that they are thinking people that don't accept the first thing they hear.

My own path out or religion was very far from dropping everything at once. It started by turning away from the most obvious problems first. I also had fact check, because being indoctrinated heavily influenced my world view. There was a time when I thought it was a fact that some kind of god existed, it was a fact that this god came to Earth as a human, a fact that the world was flooded by this god, and a fact that people would have their eternal fate set by this god among other things. This absolutely impacted my decision making. Which is as it should be, it's same as knowing the fact that falling from a great height will kill you will influence what you do when standing on a cliff. You may want to live or you may want to die, in both cases knowing what will happen if you go over the cliff is going to change what you do near the edge. Layers and layers of false facts like the ones I had a lot of exposure to from religion can really slow down the escape process.

Say that you believe the following four things; there is a god, he says only truths, he says there is a heaven and hell, he says homosexuality will send you to hell. If you hear this from a young age first of all, you're not equipped to question it. Evolutionary pressure has essentially built in the appeal to authority fallacy into children (parents may disagree). As you grow you may develop an increasingly likelihood of questioning portions of your belief, but something probably has to trigger it. You're never going to meet a god that doesn't exist so it's easy for that to go unquestioned. You can test what is stated to be the word of god, but even if you prove those false, that could simply be a case of misinformation on the part of whoever told you that something was god's word. Heaven and hell are like god in that you're never going to experience them so they can potentially go unchallenged for a long time. Homosexual people may or may not be encountered, so there may be a lot of chance involved in questioning what they are like and if what they do is wrong.

So out of the four points I listed (god, truth, heaven/hell, morality of homosexuality) two seem unlikely to be challenged very often while one is readily testable, though can be interpreted in different ways, and one is testable but heavily depend on circumstance to be challenged. This looks like a good formula selective belief. It may also created the layering effect I mentioned earlier, as if one attempts to move away from falsehoods they are unlikely to challenge what they perceive as facts with a higher degree of certainty (in this case that god, heaven, and hell exist) when they are grappling with less solid facts (god speaks only truth, homosexuality is wrong).

Two that spring to mind are sexual abuses by Catholic Priest with the Church hushing things up where they can, Muslim grooming gangs and a very odd get out or workaround is the Eruv in Manhattan.

To me the first two are more about disregard for other people than hypocrisy. Even if we say for the sake of argument that following every tenant of a religion would prevent these things, does that make complete religious adherence a good thing? Wouldn't Christian police and fire fighters have to refuse to work on Sundays? Would NASA be spending billions losing spaceships because Copernicus would have had to recant on the heliocentric model?

If your religion says you have to do something and you don’t agree, then in my eyes you don’t really follow that religion you’re a hypocrite. If there is a god out there, then doing some of the teachings you agree with and ignoring those you don’t, then I’m pretty sure he/she/it isn’t not going to be happy and you’re not getting your happy ever after.

This is a simplification. If a follower of a religion believes that something is true and then ignores it, I think you have a point. However, they may choose not to follow a certain rule because they don't believe it. That is not only OK, but I think it's noble. You might technically be correct in saying that they don't follow the official or mainstream version of their religion, but rather than making them a hypocrite, it could just make them a member of their own sect.

 

[Liquid]

Why did Ireland outlaw abortion?

Because of Roe vs Wade in the United States. Old Catholic bigots were worried that Roe sentiment would spread through and because of the diaspora (not just Irish-Americans; there was a long history of pregnant women having 'holidays' in Great Britain) so populist crook Charlie Haughey pushed it through to appease them and the next government of Garrett FitzGerald got the blame.

Technically, they didn't outlaw abortion, it was already illegal under the Offences Against The Persons Act, but the eighth amendment made it constitutionally impossible to change that position.

Why did they later overturn the ban? They're a still staunchly Catholic country.

People's attitudes had changed. 35-odd years is a long time and although Ireland is still a confessional state, the Church has far, far less direct political influence than in the past.

 

[UKMikey]

Because of Roe vs Wade in the United States. Old Catholic bigots were worried that Roe sentiment would spread through and because of the diaspora (not just Irish-Americans; there was a long history of pregnant women having 'holidays' in Great Britain) so populist crook Charlie Haughey pushed it through to appease them and the next government of Garrett FitzGerald got the blame.

Technically, they didn't outlaw abortion, it was already illegal under the Offences Against The Persons Act, but the eighth amendment made it constitutionally impossible to change that position.


People's attitudes had changed. 35-odd years is a long time and although Ireland is still a confessional state, the Church has far, far less direct political influence than in the past.

My point was that even a 69% Catholic country is capable of progressive legislation provided the church's influence is diminished or eliminated. It's not the Catholic people in Ireland that are repressive but rather the establishment that was seemingly acting against their wishes.

Break the link between church and state.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Break the link between church and state.

And why is there a need to break that link...?

Answer: Because of religion's influence on people, and said people wanting to create a theocracy or laws based on that religion.

-----

I had an interesting chat with my mum's Methodist minister the other month, where she told me that she was actually agnostic (and not to share this news with my mum), and embraced parts of other faiths in her life.

Her disposition and attitude is what I'd love to see more of in people who follow a religion.

 

[UKMikey]

Break the link between church and state.

And why is there a need to break that link...?

Answer: Because of religion's influence on people, and said people wanting to create a theocracy or laws based on that religion.

I've said it all along that the second part of your sentence is what's causing the problem, but theocracy isn't just down to religion. Not all religious countries are theocracies. People are still free to worship whichever deity they like.

 

[HenrySwanson]

....but theocracy isn't just down to religion. Not all religious countries are theocracies.

Right....but one of those problems, as well as the people involved, is religion.

Would there be theocracies without religion?

EDIT: I can see where you're coming from, that if it was the religion then every state with a religious majority would be a theocracy. But there are myriad reasons why this isn't the case, and doesn't alter the fact that religion is a (sometimes) major factor in a lot of harmful decisions.

Again, people have lived well into their nineties smoking like a chimney - but we still know smoking is a causative factor in a lot of conditions.

 

[UKMikey]

Right....but one of those problems, as well as the people involved, is religion.

Would there be theocracies without religion?

Would there be people without oxygen? Oxygen must be the problem.

 

[Danoff]

Would there be people without oxygen? Oxygen must be the problem.

Would there be gun crime without guns? Guns must be the problem.

This statement is crafted specifically to challenge you on the logic of this argument.

 

[UKMikey]

Would there be gun crime without guns? Guns must be the problem.

This statement is crafted specifically to challenge you on the logic of this argument.

Relative culpability should be the deciding factor. I don't know whether religion is so fundamental (no pun intended) to the creation of theocracies that the only way to dismantle the latter is to do away with the former.

My argument all along has been that one doesn't lead to the other by itself. It takes at least a soupçon of totalitarianism mixed in with it along the way.

I don't see how religion can be the driving cause in the creation of theocracies unless all religious nations are theocracies. The country where I live used to be one. Something changed, and it wasn't the religion.

Again, people have lived well into their nineties smoking like a chimney - but we still know smoking is a causative factor in a lot of conditions.

Are non theocratic religious countries statistical outliers? Don't you think this should be established before characterising religion as the driving force behind violence and bad law? It's not like we haven't been asking you to do so all bloody thread.

 

[Danoff]

Relative culpability should be the deciding factor.

I think that makes sense. I qualify that partly because it's difficult to say that a concept or inanimate object is culpable for something - but concepts are how we decide to act, so if we interpret "culpable" broadly I think it makes sense.

How culpable do you think religion is for theocracy?

I don't know whether religion is so fundamental (no pun intended) to the creation of theocracies that the only way to dismantle the latter is to do away with the former.

My argument all along has been that one doesn't lead to the other by itself. It takes at least a soupçon of totalitarianism mixed in with it along the way.

I don't see how religion can be the driving cause in the creation of theocracies unless all religious nations are theocracies. The country where I live used to be one. Something changed, and it wasn't the religion.

Are non theocratic religious countries statistical outliers? Don't you think this should be established before characterising religion as the driving force behind violence and bad law? It's not like we haven't been asking you to do so all bloody thread.

Religion teaches totalitarianism. It is intended to govern, and itself represents a form of divine government. What changed is adherence. Modern religious people often do not adhere as strictly to their religious teachings as compared to the past. This is because morality often comes directly into conflict with religious teaching, and morality generally wins in that conversation. When a religion teaches something that you think is wrong, you're presented with a cognitive dissonance that is uncomfortable and begs to be resolved. Many people resolve this in favor of morality, even if not for any other reason than for social reasons.

Religious fundamentalists still demand theocracies, because to be a fundamentalist in many of the religions we're talking about (especially Islam) is to demand that the will of your god be enacted through force - which is the domain of government.

 

[UKMikey]

How culpable do you think religion is for theocracy?

I've no idea and think it should be on those proposing that it is to provide verification, although there doesn'tseem to be much chance of that on this thread. Do the holy books say you need to set one up? I thought it was about rendering unto Caesar. Does the Qu'ran specifically insist on theocracy?

Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life

More than a year after the first stirrings of the Arab Spring, there continues to be a strong desire for democracy in Arab and other predominantly Muslim nations. A substantial number in key Muslim countries also want a large role for Islam in political life. Meanwhile, few think the U.S. favors...

www.pewresearch.org

Religion teaches totalitarianism. It is intended to govern, and itself represents a form of divine government. What changed is adherence. Modern religious people often do not adhere as strictly to their religious teachings as compared to the past. This is because morality often comes directly into conflict with religious teaching, and morality generally wins in that conversation. When a religion teaches something that you think is wrong, you're presented with a cognitive dissonance that is uncomfortable and begs to be resolved. Many people resolve this in favor of morality, even if not for any other reason than for social reasons.

Religious fundamentalists still demand theocracies, because to be a fundamentalist in many of the religions we're talking about (especially Islam) is to demand that the will of your god be enacted through force - which is the domain of government.

I think it's possible to oppose religious fundamentalists without condemning their religion but their fundamentalism. If the solution is reform of the religion as it seems to have been historically. I don't see how you can impose this from outside or I don't think it'll take.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Are non theocratic religious countries statistical outliers? Don't you think this should be established before characterising religion as the driving force behind violence and bad law? It's not like we haven't been asking you to do so all bloody thread.

But you had that with the LGBT posts??

With theocracies the outliers would be theocracies not based on a religion, which isn't possible.

And my point is that it could be a driving force behind some actions, yet may be the in others.

 

[UKMikey]

But you had that with the LGBT posts??

Had what?

With theocracies the outliers would be theocracies not based on a religion, which isn't possible.

Disagree. If you're going to propose targeting a specific religion then shouldn't all countries following that religion should be taken into account, not just theocracies?

And my point is that it could be a driving force behind some actions, yet may be the in others.

OK, it doesn't sound like you're going to provide any kind of independent citation for this claim, but what action do you think should be taken against a religion whose proportionality as a cause behind "some actions" is under debate?

 

[Danoff]

I've no idea and think it should be on those proposing that it is to provide verification. Do the holy books say you need to set one up? I thought it was about rendering unto Caesar. Does the Qu'ran specifically insist on theocracy?

I'm not an expert on scriptural interpretation. The Islamic theocracies of the world say it does. It is somewhat inherent in the concept of a theocracy that the law of the land is derived specifically from scripture as the totalitarian god insists we all live.

Understanding Sharia: The Intersection of Islam and the Law

Sharia guides the personal religious practices of Muslims worldwide, but whether it should influence modern legal systems remains a subject of intense debate.

www.cfr.org

If the solution is reform of the religion as it seems to have been historically. I don't see how you can impose this from outside or I don't think it'll take.

Obviously I'm not going to argue in favor of banning or censoring religious beliefs. But I do recognize that religious beliefs invariably result in religious laws being proposed and passed, and it is why it is important to have a central government tenet that prohibits such laws from being enacted. Because freedom of religion will naturally result in attempted squashing of freedom of religion, and other freedoms.


Edit:

I'm in violent agreement with you here. I agree with your position that religion and should not be in charge of government, and is an essential freedom. I do not agree that religion is independent of the actions that are carried out in its name when those actions are consistent with its teachings.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Had what?
OK, it doesn't sound like you're going to provide any kind of independent citation for this claim, but what action do you think should be taken against a religion whose proportionality as a cause behind "some actions" is under debate?

Your last citation literally says a substantial amount of people want religion in their government and laws....

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not an expert on scriptural interpretation. The Islamic theocracies of the world say it does. It is somewhat inherent in the concept of a theocracy that the law of the land is derived specifically from scripture as the totalitarian god insists we all live.

Do you think theocracies should be taken as the final word on their own legitimacy? Once again it sounds like totalitarianism is the problem, not the religion they use as the justification to introduce it.

Obviously I'm not going to argue in favor of banning or censoring religious beliefs. But I do recognize that religious beliefs invariably result in religious laws being proposed and passed, and it is why it is important to have a central government tenant that prohibits such laws from being enacted. Because freedom of religion will naturally result in attempted squashing of freedom of religion, and other religions.

Assuming you mean "tenet", then that's why I said break the law between church and state, not break the church.

Your last citation literally says a substantial amount of people want religion in their government and laws....

In certain countries, yeah, not in all of them. It says opinion varies. Is the religion to blame when it's not universally the cause?

Why can't the "bad" countries be like the "good" ones and still keep their religion?

 

[Danoff]

Assuming you mean "tenet", then that's why I said break the law between church and state, not break the church.

Yea, I fixed it already.

In certain countries, yeah, not in all of them. Is the religion to blame when it's not universally the cause?

I'm going to copy in my edit from above: I'm in violent agreement with you here. I agree with your position that religion should not be in charge of government, and is an essential freedom. I do not agree that religion is independent of the actions that are carried out in its name when those actions are consistent with its teachings.

Why can't the "bad" countries be like the "good" ones and still keep their religion?

I'm not advancing a point about what needs to be done about any "bad" countries or whatever. I'm continuing from a point we were discussing in another thread (Israel I think), which is that religion promotes totalitarianism (and terrorism), it teaches it, at least according to religious totalitarians (and terrorists). In Islam, one such teaching is Sharia. I think it is important to recognize what these particular memes are saying and link it to the awful actions that people carry out when they follow those teachings.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm going to copy in my edit from above: I'm in violent agreement with you here. I agree with your position that religion and should not be in charge of government, and is an essential freedom. I do not agree that religion is independent of the actions that are carried out in its name when those actions are consistent with its teachings.

If this is the case then the answer is reform. Wear mixed fabrics, even if your holy book proscribes it. I'm just sceptical that such reform can be successfully imposed from without.

I'm not an expert on scriptural interpretation either but if the holy book says you must be totalitarian (and as I understand it, this is by no means conclusively proven) then why aren't all people who follow that religion totalitarians? Are they just bad at their religion, and if so shouldn't that be encouraged?

 

[HenrySwanson]

In certain countries, yeah, not in all of them. It says opinion varies. Is the religion to blame when it's not universally the cause?

Why can't the "bad" countries be like the "good" ones and still keep their religion?

I think you're seeing it in the same way as like how HIV has to be present for AIDS to develop (i.e. all or nothing).

What I'm proposing is that religion is more like variants of the MAOA gene and its effects (in the MAOA case) on aggression, i.e. that it's more nuanced.

 

[Danoff]

If this is the case then the answer is reform. Wear mixed fabrics, even if your holy book proscribes it. I'm just sceptical that such reform can be successfully imposed from without.

Helping people to look critically at the bloody or immoral teachings of their holy book has and does help people escape from religion. But we can't do that if we pretend that religion is perfectly fine and it's just violent people who would be exactly the same (violent) if they were different (not religious) who give religion a bad name.

I don't agree with everything about this quote, but it's appropriate here:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”