1: Belief in one God
– creator ) transcendent & immanent
– sustainer )
– source of mercy and compassion
– lover of peace
– who speaks through His prophets
– ultimate judge of all persons and things
2: Belief in Human Conscience
– value of prayer
– reflecting values of truth, honesty, fair dealing
– no envy or false witness
3: Recognition of Divine and Human Justice
– non-violence
4: Recognition of human virtues ie prudence, courage/fortitude, justice, temperance
– fasting – moderation/temperance
– one day of prayer/rest
– pilgrimages
5: Honouring Family Life
– respect for parents and elders
– nurturing of children and young people
– respect for life – eg unborn children, the dying/chronically sick/disabled
– value of life-long marriage
– respect for women
6: Positive treatment of those in need – eg
the poor/refugees/displaced/exiles/prisoners, detainees/captives etc –
those with learning difficulties, physical disabilities
7: Economic and social justice
NB – Zakat and Tithing – Value of honest labour
8: Developing the Whole Person – Education/Scholarships/Training/Research
Positive role of science
Hylton Jan 2011
The differences though are profound. One is tolerant, the other intolerant.
Example:
Turn the other cheek.
As opposed to:
Cut the cheek off. Especially if the cheek belongs to a woman.
How do you reconcile the two?
In southern India and Ceylon,with respect, the Christians believe themselves to be Aryan, ie Indo European, and the Muslims/Tamils non Aryan, so where do we go from there?
————–
The Muslim does not believe in the Trinity, which makes it rather difficult to bring the psychotherapy of the two beliefs together, based as it often is on Id/ego/superego
Christian Unitarians are the only ones who share such opinions, and quite often I do too.
And how many of those ideals are adhered to by followers of each book ?
How many men without sin does his Lordship know ?
How many secular people adhere to Christian values without partaking of the religion itself ?
How many times have both books been misinterpreted intentionally ?
How many times have wars been waged by one on the other ?
I have two legs, two eyes, two ears, two arms, I walk upright, I use tools it doesn’t mean I am the same as a chimpanzee.
Shared values of mankind.
Need
Greed
Envy
Pride
et al.
Carl-
And how many of those ideals are adhered to by followers of each book ?
Most of what Lord Hylton presented are not actually Ideals but positions in teaching. EG, it is not an Ideal to believe in only one god, it is a statement of Fact.
Others are, but I doubt that you will find many that just refuse the “good bits” as is claimed. People are people, after all.
How many men without sin does his Lordship know ?
Only one in Truth, though the expression can be broadened to those whose Sins are forgiven, or are generally righteous. Language also plays a factor in these things.
How many secular people adhere to Christian values without partaking of the religion itself ?
None. Hebrew and Japanese have n word for “Religion” an our word for it is abused. Nonetheless, all Religion is is our beliefs that bind us, or that we live by. If you follow the Values you are inherently following the Religion, whether or not you follow other bits of it.
How many times have both books been misinterpreted intentionally ?
This is presumptuous Carl.
Why did you assume I wanted to oppress people of other Religions and say that I was like the BNP?
I’d be very careful in these matters, you are guilty of the same sort of problems as you try to condemn.
How many times have wars been waged by one on the other ?
Never in Truth. Christians and Muslims tend not to go to War over mere Religious differences. The Crusades were the only actual Wars between Christians and Muslims but even they were fought over the Rights to make Pilgrimage and the Rights to access to various sites like Jerusalem and because members of the Christian Faith were being Harassed, and the First Crusade was called to defend the Eastern Empire from being conquered by the Ottomans.
Theology was not the sole factor in the Crusades.
There were Seven General Crusades.
I have two legs, two eyes, two ears, two arms, I walk upright, I use tools it doesn’t mean I am the same as a chimpanzee.
I wasn’t aware anyone had said you were.
Shared values of mankind.
Need
Greed
Envy
Pride
et al.
That is a very pessimistic View.
Thank you for your comments. It has taken me some time to read them. I aadmire your persistence in replying reasonably to various people’s points of view.
Maude, not all Muslims are Violently disposed. As with all Religions, there are varying degrees. I find the “I have no Religion, now listen to what I say and do it because society should be Secular and I have the right to tell you what to think” crowd far more Intolerant than the average Muslim in the Western World, and far more imposing of their Religious Faith. Islam has also divergent denominations, such as Sunni VS Shiite. Sunni Islam is far more moderate than is Its Shiite alternative.
That said, there are profound Theological Differences. One focus on God who became Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, the other See’s Jesus as Messiah and Prophet but also a Mortal man, and denies his Divinity. Christianity is also a Trinitarian Faith in which one God is Eternally existent as Three Persons, whilst Islam is insistent on the Singularity of God.
Morally Islam focuses more on Raw Obedience and ritual Prayers at fixed times, while Christianity focuses more on specific individual morality and Redemption, as well as the Spirit of the Law, as opposed to the Letter of it.
Nonetheless, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic Faiths, worship the same God, and have the same basic Foundational beliefs and same basic Primitive Moral Roots, though Morals in ach have diverged as the specific Cultures Advanced.
Despite being told otherwise, after all as a Christian I must hate those of other Religions according to somewhere and want to oppress them, I have always been one to think that Religion is the same thing as Philosophy. No one lacks Religion. Religion is just our beliefs about the world we live in. Most, if not all, Religions, even the Fringe ones like Scientology, will always address real Problems faced by Humanity, and discuss a real world we all live in and share. Thus, they will all have some slither of Truth to them. Religions are simply our attempt at understanding our world, and the codified beliefs regarding that world is what a Religion ultimately amounts to.
As Humans tend to have the same feelings, same thoughts, same problems and same desires, and as we do live in a shared world that runs the same way for everyone, even if God did not exist the moral codes and ethical values, as well as specific beliefs, would ultimately find themselves in our thinking somehow.
As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the Sun, and even the New Ideas we see today aren’t really New at all.
I do happen to believe in God, and am a Christian, as is Lord Hylton, but also believe as C. S. Lewis said that believing Christianity is True is not the same as believing all other Religions False. I believe they all reflect the way the world was seen by a person or group of people, and thus will always address the same problems, and perhaps by Revelation or Experience learn of this word and how we ought live.
I have always thus promoted the study of Religions, as a Source of Wisdom and understanding, and have always sought to ensure Religious Freedom. Discussing these e ideas Honestly is something I think we need as a society, Which is one reason I’d like the Humanists to finally admit their beliefs are also just a Rival Religion, not something alto Sather different. It too covers the same ground as it were.
Still, in regards to Islam, I’d say that Muslims can be Law Abiding, Kind, Forgiving, and Helpful, or they can be Terror Sympathisers wanting to destroy the Western World. But because they can be either, we can’t assume that if someone is a Muslim he is somehow evil. People ought be held accountable for their own actions, not be found Guilty by mere association to a broad label.
@Zarove:
I disagree with your perception. Reason:
< < YouTube links removed by moderator - explanation below >>
Show me the equivalent in the Secular society or any other in Europe, of Europeans or British people in anything akin to these pictures.
The moderator should be sacked.
This is discriminatory and can only be answered with more of the same from an opposing view.
It is in violation of the T&C’s.
2. Don’t incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, age or sexuality or other personal characteristic
A note from the moderator today:
There is a hazy line between acceptable argument and the incitement of hatred.
I do not believe the comment from Maude Elwes above is itself incting hatred. However at least one of the YouTube videos that was linked in the comment does appear to encourage hatred. For this reason it is unacceptable and the links have been removed.
We want to keep active moderation on Lords of the Blog to a minimum and we certainly do not want to discourage people from linking to relevant material when making an argument. Given the nature of debate around this topic, and the risk of straying across the line, can I suggest that referring to the fact that such points are made/material exists without linking to it would be preferable in future.
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
@Hansard Society: I apologize for my offer of explanation and its being unacceptable.
Add a goodly number of other lists of ideals and human-enablers:
Caroline Myss’s findings of the similarity, even congruity, between the definitions of the seven Christian sacraments & the practical-foci for enhancing and developing them as ‘innate’ and ‘individual’ sacramental-energies; and the definitions & practical-foci for the seven indian-religions chakras; and the seven Jewish-religion ‘innate-divine-energies’ (sefirots);
also David Boadella’s (independent but descended from the best of Wilhelm Reich’s work) pastoral psychology finding that each such energy-centre had a somato-psychic and a psychosomatic function (namely bottom-to-top Grounding; Centering; Boundary-ing; Bonding; Sounding (communicating); Facing; and Spacing.
Such other works dealing seriously, honestly, factually, and skilfully with ‘ideals of human-life’ might well be headed by “Wisdom of the Body Moving” (Linda Hartley) wherein her education, research, and practical professional life-work has delivered-up very practical and self-help models for developing, even ‘rescuing’, one’s innate movement (and thence physiological, intelligence and intellect) abilities.
———–
I note the contrast between the Muslim (and also Indian religions’) body-movements during prayer – all much ‘healthier’ than the Christian mere (and often mere-token) hand-clasping and kneeling.
2149W020311.JSDM.
To be fair one can move if one prays as a Christian. Also, some Muslims, contraied for Time or Space may still Pray in less motion.
But I do think the interrelatedness to the ideas is accurate.
Missing from the list is the notion of human rights so let me offer you a proposition:
“Human Rights are the duality of Law”
If one accepts this notion then one must also accept the notion that some Human Rights and Laws are universal, take for example the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
For a true universal right to exist all world nations must agree without veto that this is the case which clearly it is not. So in reality UN declared universal rights are really an ambition seemingly unachievable.
What then of universal laws, do they exist? In religious terms they exist as the Bible’s Ten Commandments and by association they have universal human rights. I wrote a list stating the two together but it was so offensive I had to remove some.
Talmudic laws with accompanying Universal Human Rights:
4. LAW: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. UHR: By right no day has a special place in religion.
5. LAW: Honour your father and mother. UHR: By right you are free of any obligation to honour your father or mother.
6. LAW: You shall not kill/murder. UHR: You have a right to life.
8. LAW: You shall not steal. UHR: By right nothing is owned by anyone.
9. LAW: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. UHR: By right you can accuse your neighbour of something they have not done.
10. LAW: a) You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife. b) You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour. UHR: By right you can desire your neighbour’s wife and desire anything belonging to your neighbour.
Even shortened the list it is still very offensive. The point I’m making is that a society controlled and dominated by a religion cannot give proper regard to human rights by exercising the laws of its religion. The only way to achieve this is in a secular society where the state and religion are formally separated and the more unpleasant aspects of human rights duality are constrained by common law. Both Israel and Iran cannot reliably say they will respect human rights because some of those rights might be offensive to their religions.
You can take any law you please and produce a human right but not a universal one. For example, it is illegal to drive a vehicle whilst holding a mobile phone. You have a human right to hold a mobile phone when the vehicle is stationary. It is difficult sometimes to know whether a law is in fact a human right until the duality test is applied. Both cannot coexist together as they form a contradiction.
Ref: Division according to different religions
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ten_Commandments
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Here is the European version of ‘Rights’ toward children.
Can it be possible?
< < YouTube link removed by moderator - see explanation above >>
ME: The video posted is shocking but it relates to Human Rights.
In the absence of a law we enjoy civil liberties. When a law is established the civil liberties removed become a Human Right if one accepts the principle of duality. Some of these Human Rights become inviolate as Universal Human Rights.
The problem is that Human Rights are being peddled as Universal Human Rights when they are no such thing because there has to be consensus amongst all nations that the right is inviolate something very difficult to achieve.
Human Rights are culturally based and relevant to the society that exercises them and they can be offensive to others with differing values, hence the move to Universal Human Rights to level the playing field.
Subjectively, the Ten Commandments only give us two UHR: the right to live a life resulting from the duality of not killing or murdering someone and the right to give something you posses to another from the duality of not stealing.
Above I suggested that both Israel and Iran could not reliably grant Human Rights because of conflicts of duality within their religions. The same applies to the Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/vatican.breaks.from.italian.law/22233.htm
Clearly duality is causing problems. The fortunate part is that the Vatican as a separate state is ‘quarantined’ within a secular Italian society. The same isolation should be imposed on Jerusalem and Mecca to allow secular societies to establish themselves around them.
As to the video, you are looking at people mourning Husayn Ibn Ali.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali
At the time we were immersed in the post Roman dark ages and most likely breaking all the Ten Commandments on a regular basis. The self harm that Shia endure to mourn their loss; is it a civil liberty or a Human Right?
“Above I suggested that both Israel and Iran could not reliably grant Human Rights because of conflicts of duality within their religions. The same applies to the Roman Catholic Church:
I didn’t quite understand this, I knew a little of Islamic teaching and from that perspective understood.The same with the RC Church but my knowledge of Israel and it’s religion was superficial so I took the opportunity to find some informastion. I looked at the Talmud. Now what you wrote makes more sense.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/index.html
mAUDE, perhaps I am mistaken but I had thought we were discussing Muslims in the Western World in general.
Secular Society has seen terrors, all one needs to do is look back at the Sopviet Union, then look at the Modern Peoples Republic of China and its flagrant Human Rights Abuses. Cghina is a Demcoracy, whether we like to admit it or not, is officially Secularer with no State Religion and run off Humanist Principles and Values, and still manages to kill its own citesens.
I’m sorry, I dont see Secularism as a gurenteeor of Liberty, and dont’ se Islam as a gurenteer of oppression.
While one can certainly have an Islamic Society that is oppressive, the same is True of any other.
Z: The Pope would most certainly see what’s been written here as aggressive secularism. But so would the Grand Mufti, the Chief Rabbi and the Grand Ayatollah.
All of them would see their societies run based upon religious law and deny us our Human Rights because they are offensive to their Church. Secularism is an inconvenience, but it allows spiritual freedom to flourish, universally, and in the presence of Human Rights.
Sennex-
Z: The Pope would most certainly see what’s been written here as aggressive secularism. But so would the Grand Mufti, the Chief Rabbi and the Grand Ayatollah.
But then again, you see their own views as oppressive and tyrannical, and claim they deny us our Human Rights, which seems a bit hypocritical. The real question I have asked, and its one no one takes seriously, is why I should see Secularism as a Government that has separated itself from Religion and used only dispassionate and objective Reason, and not as a Religion in and of itself with its own Laws, Morality, and perception of the world?
It seems to me that this is what Secularism has become. It is a Religion in and of itself. It is a Philosophical Understanding of the world and how it works, from which we derive moral and ethical codes based upon a specific understanding of the Human Animal and the Human Condition. All of these things emerge from a specific narrative about who and what we are, our origins, and the meaning of life, and what it means to be Human, and seems to derive it’s authority from being unquestionable in its presentation of reality.
What makes the Philosophy behind today’s Secularism really any different from a Religion? And why should its assumptions about who and what we are and what is right or wrong be simply accepted and not subjected to the same sort of questioning and criticism we give Religion? What is the real distinction?
All of them would see their societies run based upon religious law
But, I see a Secular Society as one also run off Religious Law. Just because we are not accustomed to thinking of them as such, and in fact insist that Secularism is the opposite of Religion, doesn’t alter the fact that our laws stem from an understanding of what it means to be Human, what the meaning of our lives is, and the nature of our existence in this world, and how we should behave in it.
Simply because this philosophy is one that doesn’t acknowledge God doesn’t mean its not inherently Religious, for as I’ve told others, Theism and Religion are not the same thing. Our Secular Laws are derived from a Secular Philosophical belief system that covers all the same ground that Religion covers, from the meaning of life, to what morals we ought to hold to.
So I should say that our Secular Laws are themselves the product of Religious Thought, which simply pretends o be somehow fundamentally different from others.
and deny us our Human Rights because they are offensive to their Church.
Rabbis and Aytollahs don’t have Churches.
That said, a lot of what they do is offensive to our Secularism.
A lot of what they allow is offensive to our Secularism too.
I’ve read news Stories about people who simply wanted to deny a single bedroom to a gay couple in the UK and being fined for it, because our Secularism has made it a high sin to discriminate on the basis of Sexual orientation. Our Secular Morality towards Homosexuality trumps their Religious Liberty on their own property. They therefore loose there basic Human Rights in regards to Land Ownership and Free association. I’ve also seen how people are denied Free Speech for the same caused.
In addition, some people are forced to do things they don’t want to do. Today’s Faith Schools are force to teach Children about contraception and how to obtain an abortion, all because the Secular Morality we hold to says this is required. They are to free to object, they must comply to the overriding Secular Morality that can override their Religious Morals. If the situation were reversed, you’d argue that this is a clear sign of how Religion denies us our Human Rights. If one imposed a Religious Standard that such things could not be taught, it’d be a Violation of our Human Rights and would be wrong, and we’d need to stand against it. But, somehow, its not wrong to impose the Secular Standard son Faith School.
To me its really the same thing. The Secularism is not the opposite of Religion, its simply an alternative Religion, which seeks to dominate the society it is in, and which wants to make all people adherents of itself.
Secularism has also lead to rampant Human Rights Abuses. Sweden for example will actually prosecute you for Home schooling, as a modern example. The Modern Peoples republic of China is Staunchly Secular, and based on their Secular beliefs have imposed a lot of laws which have caused Human Rights Abuses.
Secularism will not guarantee us our Human Rights. Furthermore, what you say are our Human Rights are derived from an essentially Humanist Religious Context, and in actuality you simply want one religious perspective to dominate all others.
Why should Humanist Philosophical presumptions and the tenets of Modern Secularism really go unchallenged and be assumed True?
Secularism is an inconvenience, but it allows spiritual freedom to flourish, universally, and in the presence of Human Rights.
No, it doesn’t.
Secularism can be used to crush the Freedoms people hold most dear, and to force them to act against their will in the interest of serving the moral code Secularism insists we hold to as a society.
It ensures only the Human Rights it defined itself out of its own beliefs, which are not Universal by any means.
One of the videos I offered for explanation was directly connected to ‘The Lisbon Treaty’ and the European collusion in that Treaty of paedophilia.
It was an exposure of Europe’s willingness to embrace something our society considers a horrendous crime and make it legal here. This video was made by the SIOE. And showed only an open book and the revelation of The Lisbon Treatie’s acceptance in our European law of this most awful of crimes.
The other video was of an American seminar of women, trying to fight on behalf of women around the world who suffer terrible abuse with the sanction of religion. This seminar included a very moving speech by a female Iranian doctor and the experience she and her family suffered at the hands of a that religious society.
The other showed the beating of women in the street by men with sticks. This was carried out by the State. The men beating the women were the equivalent of traffic wardens, hired to assault women who did not adhere to the religious code of dress.
I have to write, that I am devastated by the fact that women and children are unable to show or speak of the horror of the abuse they suffer, world wide, in our secular society. And that therefore their fight for liberation will be so much more difficult.
It is a betrayal of what I felt we all stood for. Freedom and human Rights. And it is a betrayal of all women.
The first video was a seminar on abuse at the hands of Mislim men.
The second was a video with presumably an Iman, explaining the Koran verses that deal with wife beating.
The third was by TheFatAussieBa****D who is obviously right wing and depicted a ceremony that is not generalised throughout Islam. It finished with the words “And you guys wonder why I am paranoid about letting the F****** into Australia”.
The youtube page was a display of racial rhetoric.
———————————
Abuse at the hands of men has happened for many years in both our christian and secular society. Examples can be found in our society to match those mentioned except we do not profess religion as at fault.
The explanation by the arab gentleman explained clearly that neither the Koran nor Allah justified hurting women at all. Taking things out of context would have you believe all Christians believed we should carry out an eye for an eye.
The video by the Australian was an attempt to brand a whole religion as abusive when it was a religious ceremony not unlike those of Christian self flagellation by a minority group. Similar can be found on most religions and self harm is evident in secular society too.
CH: I entirely agree with what you say. The theme of the thread LH is getting across is we have more in common than any of us realise, centred I would say on the Ten Commandments.
The Shia wants to feel the pain of their martyr in very real terms. But consider Christianity generally. The faithful take Holy Communion in the presence of symbolic violence; the preferred way of torture by the Romans, slow and very painful. Now you tell me, apart from the clergy, who feels the pain of Christ on a daily basis. Nobody! Well nearly nobody.
Perhaps they should occasionally crucify say a Cardinal or an Archbishop in St Peters square (himself crucified on an inverted cross) to remind Christianity of the pain and suffering of Christ. Can’t do that, Italian secular society would not allow it. The Italian Exchequer however, would have no problem selling tickets to the event?
@Carl.H.: You have deliberately missed the gist of my post and the removed content. Conviently I’d say. And the others I apparently did not put up, would then have been acceptable to you, by the sound of your last post directed at me?
And what is so outrageously odd is that after watching a video of men hitting very young children with razor blades, in their heads, leaving them pouring with blood, one of them a baby in his mothers arms, and happening today, not of the long past, all you can see in that is a ‘fat, old Australian man’ you call a bxxxxxxd, saying he doesn’t want those ‘fxxxxxs’ who would do such a thing in his country. He, you see, as the abuser. He is the person who is causing ‘racial hatred.’ Not the perpetrators of such an act, but a fat man who is appalled by such behaviour.
These children were screaming. One, whose mother had her baby in her arms, was mortified and terrified, but, unable to do or say anything from fear of retribution if she did. And you say this was okay because it was a religious ritual and to show it was intended to incite racial hatred?
The other video, was a film of a religious man explaining how it is right for men to beat their wives. That they must do it in such a manner as not to make bruising, or have it show on their body that can be seen. He said that beating the wife was acceptable under Islam and good for the women, as long as it was done in secret to conceal the brutality. And to show this religious man instructing men on such a matter was trying to incite racial hatred. Not as a means of trying to expose what goes on in our secular society here in our midst and have it addressed.
Had I been able to find film the equal of this, carried out by Christians today, or, any other religion, I would have put those up as well. Showing it through many or all religions and that therefore the matter had to be addressed across the board, but I could not find one.
The idea you have that this is something all men do to women and chidlren, at some time, is not acceptable as an argument. Because, wife beating and child abuse, of any kind, is not acceptable in any form or from any religion, regardless of how much money they have.
Where in the ten commandments are we told physical abuse is okay? And what do the ten commandments have to do with Christianity? They were struck into stone and brought down from the mountain by Moses, who lived a very long time before Christ showed up.
Christianity is not the Torah. And so many of you seem confused by that. I wonder why?
That aside, my memory of the Ten Commandments is, Thou Shalt Not. Not as I recall my films to show, Thou Shall, as long as you do it and it doesn’t show. Or, do it under the guise of a religious ceremony.
For a start, you have a distorted view of what race is. Race is not a religion. Islam is a religion of many races. And those races are of all skin colours.
This thread was intended to compare religions. If you deny people the right to witness the differences and pretend it is something they have no need to see, because it is criminal for them to witness, then who is the sick bxxxxxd? Not the fat Aussie. If I recall correctly, this Aussie was virtually speechless by what he had received as a film from his friend. And the strangest of all things is that ‘you’ would see his use of bad language, something you are prone to on here, for far lessor crimes than smashing young children in the head with razor blades until they bleed. And his denouncement of this being imported into his country, seen as ‘race hatred.’
Whether it is Shia or Sunni, or, any other form of the religion, which this thread is about, is irrelevent. Those women and children were/are being brutalised in the most dastardly way. When you censor what is truth, you censor the right to know what is going on in our midst. And that is collusion in crime of the worst kind.
you call a bxxxxxxd
I did not, that was his name on youtube.
you’ would see his use of bad language, something you are prone to on here
Please evidence this allegation as it is obviously untrue.
Sennex, I’m sorry you seem not to really understand a good deal of what Religion is but, a few points.
1: The Ten Commandments are in Torah, not Talmud. While the Talmud also comments on them (thus records them) there Origin is in Torah.
2: The Ten Commandments are not Universal to all Religions.
3: The UN’s Charter and all its documents, including the Human Rights Charter, are not Secular rather than Religious, but are themselves Religious in Character.
As I’ve explained many times, though I’ve been called stupid or pedantic and even had a dictionary definition thrown at me (which supported me even though the poster didn’t realise this) is that Religion is not Theism, and what we call Secularism is really just its own Religion.
Religion is a set of beliefs about the Fundamental nature of our existence, and its meaning and purpose. This is what the Dictionary defines it as. Basically, Religion is a sort of Philosophy by which we understand existence, and draw from it how we interact with it.
Proposing a Secular Society like one outlined in the UN’s Human Rights Charter is also enforcing religious Morality onto others. Its just that the Religion is the Humanism that dominates so much. By the way, that same Humanism can, and often is, itself oppressive.
You also seem to misread the Ten Commandments and the Human Rights Charter. No one but s Communist would argue that nothing is owned by anyone. People own land, cars, clothing, various electronic devices, dinner plates, and a host of other possessions. If Ownership is by Right nonexistent according to the UN’s Human rights Charter, then British Law, and the Law of most other Nations that have ever existed, and exist now, violates the Charter, yet the UN never says a word.
All that said, my point is this: Why should the specific views of a Secularist be seen as somehow unquestionably True? Secularism as we practice it now makes demands on us and sets up limitations on our behaviour based upon its own set of beliefs about the nature of our existence and the meaning of life. It has its own Moral codes and ethical Standards. Simply saying this is Secular rather than Religious doesn’t really Change he fact that you are still promoting a very specific way to look at the world, understand our existence, and live our lives. It also seems striking that you are using documents to back this up. What gives those Documents their Authority? And why must we look at said Documents with reverence and accept the tenets they pronounce as Truth? If I were to do this with the Bible I’d be told I wanted to create a Theocracy and compared to Iran. I was in an earlier thread just yesterday merely for quoting from the Bible. Yet somehow one can Pontificate from the UN Documents and with a straight face say “We all must do this, this the only way” and not see hat they are imposing a Religious view onto all of society.
You said much the same of course but seem to come down hard on the “We need a separating of Religion and Government” line, but that’s what I challenge. Just how do you fine “Secular”? What makes something not Religious? If Human Rights aren’t Universal, then why do you propose a separation of Religion and Government? Would all Atheist even agree on what a Human Right is?
Looking at Atheism, would Ayn Rand sign the Humanist Manifesto? Would Frederic Neitche sign it?
There’s a world of difference between Objectivism and Humanism, yet both are Atheistic and both of their adherents claim they represent a Secular rather than Religious view.
I’d say they both represent a Non-Theistic Religious view, and that its all a false distinction anyway.
I don’t’ think you can have a Government that is Free from Religion, because I don’t’ think Religion is just mystical beliefs and Theism, but is about how we understand ourselves and our world. Its obvious that all Governing Policies will be base don some understanding of the world, and I don’t think one is going to be inherently different form the other in terms of the fact that they still operate n subjective Philosophical perceptions and grand postulations.
Why should the Secularism as expressed by the UN’s charters be unquestioningly obeyed? And what makes it somehow unquestionably better than anyone else’s beliefs?
I also must ask you to learn History. You bring up the Post Roman era Dark Ages. They never existed. The term is no longer used by Historians, and was originally defined by Petrarch to describe the decline in Latin Literature. The version you allude to, where life was short and brutal, Religion ruled all and no one had Human Rights, science was suppressed, and people were frequently burned at the stake for mere disagreements, didn’t actually occur.
The Early Middle Ages said see progress in the Arts, and Sciences, they had far more Freedom than we generally think they did, and the standard of living was not just dire.
One other to Senex; I know you want to show how th Ten Commandments contradicts the UN’s CHarter, but some of those you listed actually don’t conflict at all.
EG- The Right to Life VS do not Murder.
It seems those two are quiet complimentary. If I have the Right o Life then others don’t have the right to Murder me.
I’m not sure how you think applying “Do not Murder” conflicts with “You have the right to life”, in fact one tells the reason for the other, and they both seem needful to function.
Z: For the righteous, ‘The right to life’ is a Universal Human Right and ‘do not murder’ is a law or a commandment by virtue of duality. Christ is ‘murdered’ on the cross but God exercises the Universal Human Right by allowing his resurrection thus demonstrating that life is eternal. Belief in the resurrection is to believe in the right to life and to accept the commandment ‘do not murder’.
Senex-
Z: For the righteous, ‘The right to life’ is a Universal Human Right
The Irony is, no its not., The same UN Sponcered rights you call “the Secular Hman Rights” say Abortion is a womans right. How does that afford a Right to Life for he baby thats murdered?
The whole UN Human Rights Charter was based on the Hmanist thought of the late 19th and early 20th century, he same thinkign that was based on the earlier Enlightenment, the same thinking that inspired Marx, and the same thinking that todays neo-Atheists cling to.
Which, as I’ve said and been mocclked for, is not really an alternative to Religion, but rather simply an alternative Religion.
You won’t get rid of Religious thinking in a society, dor all thought ultimatley derives from Religion except the most besial such as ” I am hungry and will eat”.
Religiion is simply our understanding of the world around us, how we interpret our own existance. it is our mist basic abnd fudamental beleifs about that existance.
Secularism is ultimatley its own Philosophical understanding of our existsnce that rests on central Philosophicla tenets and certain Dogmas, and is really no different from Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism in that its primary purpose is to explain the nature of that existance and how we should live.
At the same time, it makes mroality and value judgements which it asusmes shoudl not be questioned, such as a womans fundamnetal right to chioose an Abortion. This is made to not conflict with a Universal righ to live by simply declarign soemthign not Human till Birth, but that alone is a subjective and highly debatable starign point, don’t you think?
Whewter or not you support BAoiton ( I suppose you do, but you’ve not said to my knwoeldge) yo can surly appriciatge that not everyone does. But syaign that those hwo do’t are simply tryign to oppress women or impose thier Religion and shoudl live uner a Secular moral rulign that allows others to abort, but they domn’t have to, isn’t good neough. If oneoppose Abortion becuase oen see’s it as Murder, one naturlaly opposes it beign legal.
Why shoudl todys Secular thought be unqeusitonable and allowed?
and ‘do not murder’ is a law or a commandment by virtue of duality.
Actually the Command not to Murder is pretty simple. It is seen as wrogn to take anothers life, because thta other has a right to it. The idea of a Right to Life is basic to Torah.
No, thats not just a Modern interpretation.
Christ is ‘murdered’ on the cross
Executions are not the same as Murder. Jesus was Crucified by the ROmans, but under a Legal Auspice of the Governor.
He was innocent, but it was still a Legal Execution, which makes it distinct from Murder. Wrongful yes, but not Murder.
Also, in Christian thought it served a Higher Purpose.
but God exercises the Universal Human Right by allowing his resurrection thus demonstrating that life is eternal.
No, in Christian Theology Jesus is ressurected in order to give us the gift of Eternal Life via identification wqith him. God also doens’t excersise a Universal Human Right, rather he is Ressurected. (Remmeber, Jeus is God in Christian thinking.) Most pepl who de arne’t ressurected physiclaly, and it si not a right not to die as we all inevitably do.
But the point of Jeuss in Christian thinkign is tht we can be ressurected into a New Life apart from our Sins, and ushere dinto the Rewards in Heaven by mean of our Salvation which was secutred by Jeuss’s Attonign Sacrifice. His Death ouges us of WIn, and his ressurection allows for us to gain that New Life.
Not quiet the same thing.
Belief in the resurrection is to believe in the right to life and to accept the commandment ‘do not murder’.
Does htis include for htose before Jesus was born? Or for Modern Jews?
The Ten Commandments cannot be undertsood soeely from the point fo virew of the Cross, as they preceed them.
They were given to Moses on Sinai, about 1000 years earlier that Jesus’s Birth, much elss hsi Cricifiction.
In fact, Jesus came to fulfill th Law, and to provide a perfect exampel of it. Obiously, one doesn’t obey the Law becuase of the example, the exampel must come after the Law.
Abortions where necessary to save the life of a mother are mandatory (the unborn are not considered human life in Jewish law, thus the mother’s human life overrides).
http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#Life
When you start mixing faiths be careful. I suggest you read the Torah and the Talmud.
The above is from the 613 Commandments that are subsidiaries of the 10.
Zarove I should note to all others that you have been banned from many forums for perverting the text of the Bible and it’s meaning.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
Religion
“1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions
“.
This is the most general acceptance of the meaning religion.
Carl, you are lying again. I’ve not been banned from numerous sites for perverting the Bible, and bringing up anything from another forum, which I make easy as I use the same username, is itself just a cheap form of Ad Homonym attack. Do you really think that’s the most Honourable way to go with this?
That said, you also don’t seem to realise that Jews do not all believe exactly the same thing. I’ve read that Talmud. (Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem. Actually.) I’ve read Torah and I’ve read numerous Jewish commentaries. I can cite for you any number of Jew who would argue against Abortion-on-demand, or who argue against all Abortion.
Jews do not, and never have, possessed a singular perspective on such matters and are, as with Christians, or Muslims, actually a rather Diverse lot. The idea that one website will have what Jews believe in is rather a bit naive of you.
Its as if Reformed Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are the same to you.
Just as its obvious that your hatred of me and intolerance of my perspective leads you to find internet websites I had problems on to bring up here to discredit me, tis also obvious that your just looking for a source that backs your claims up.
And even then it fails as my point wasn’t specifically about Abortion.
The point is, why should we give the UN’s Charter on Human Rights a Sacred Status above that of anyone else’s beliefs? Why do we assume a Society run off Religion will deny Human Rights if, as Sennex said, Human Rights are not Universally understood? What exactly makes the Modern ones derived from the Humanism of the Enlightenment unquestionable? Why should they be seen as automatically superior and automatically the ones everyone needs to follow? If someone disagrees with them, do you simply force them into compliance? How is that really different than forcing any other Religious view onto everyone else?
My point is that what we think of as a Secular Human Rights code that is free from Religious considerations still rests on subjective Philosophical underpinnings which in turn rely on a specific outlook on the world and what it means to be Human. I say this is really just a Rival Religious perspective rather than Neutral.
I also argue that Secularism is not really a granter of Freedom or individual Liberty, all societies have rules that other societies deem wrong, but which are rooted in how they understand the world, and that in the end this is more about winning people over to a specific perspective, but trying to make it unquestioned.
But what happens when you question the Secular view as presented by the UN’s Charter of Human Rights?
And how does Zarove being banned for twisting the Bible according to Carl who hates him even address those concerns?
Zarove get this right, for once, I don’t hate you. You are annoying me and when I see you chase a lady, I will come for you.
Your writing all over the internet is abusive, you upset lots of people and are convinced of your superior knowledge, which I might add is lacking. You state various diffferent things in various different places attempting to disguise.
You can’t help it I know it but you need help, seriously. All you ever do is create trouble no matter where you go. Have you ever considered why this is ?
You call abortion murder but fail to mention this a minority opinion. You attempt to bring faiths into the argument jumping from one to another to suit your purpose. You haven’t the backing of those faiths so stop misrepresenting them. The only person you represent is you and imho your sanity is questionable.
One minute your “hometown” is Dayton Tennessee then it’s Sussex, or was that Ulster. Get some help please.
@Carl.H:
Your last paragraph above to Zarove explains exactly what I feel about you in many ways. You accuse him/her of your flaws.
This is ususally a sign the person who expresses such feelings is annoyed because they see themselves in the person they downgrade.
‘Oh would some power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us’
Robbie Burns.
I have never lived in Dayton nor professed to Maude.
@Carl.H:
You are, of course, being deliberately obtuse!
Oh Maude that’s only your angle on it ! 😉
One last. Thanks for posting the definition of Religion. Baroness Murphy did in the past too. But no one reads it when they post it. They know Im wrong in how I define it and being pedantic and this will prove me wrong.
But if you read the definition, you see that I am right.
Religion is a Set of beliefs about the nature of our existence, and that’s definition One. The UN’s Charter of Human Rights rests upon its own set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental nature of our existence. Thus, the UN’s Charter is essentially the product of a Religious outlook, an dnot Free From Religion.
Which was one of my points.
I have a big problem with this field of endeavour, and with its woolly vocabulary:
there are certain human-values that are ‘shared’ (notably between different religions);
there have to me written and ultimately enforced certain ‘human rights’;
undoubtedly there are exhaustive lists of ‘human-needs’, too (at least in the Multinationals’ Buyers’ and Distributors’ offices if not in Government and Community hands);
and likewise of ‘human-hows-as-to-how-those-human-needs-might-best-and-most-affordably-be-met;
but I never see a list of human-needs&hows precursoring discussion, debate, and declaration, and dust-ups, of ‘human-rights’.
========
0233W09Mar11.JSDM.
Reading this thread has brought to mind the most recent Judgment in respect of the Christian couple who were denied the right to adopt or foster children any longer because of their Christian beliefs.
Judges in these matters hang on to the belief that secularism is neutral whist religion, in this case, Christianity, is not. The belief being that Christianity is a matter of opinion, when, in fact, it is a matter of faith. The attitude must be taken on the grounds that secularism isn’t opinion. What do they believe it is? It surely isn’t faith. It is in fact political correctness, for want of a better term. And how long will those ideas, rigged up by mortal men, not Gods, be considered politically correct?
Political correctnes is based on the nihilist idea of there being no absolute truth. Yet, recently a report said, Christianity, and nothing else, is the foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy. Civilisation then, was built on this principle of faith.
However that court judgment has a far more sinister fall out.
Recently our Prime Minister had his beautiful new daughter baptised into the Christian faith. So he has three little children and one must assume he is Christian, or, ascribes to the faith in some deep way, as his other child goes to a faith school.
Therefore, is he expecting a knock on his door by our dutiful social services in order to interview him and his wife on their attitudes and responses to teaching his children the ins and out of homosexuality? Is he expecting to have his three children removed from his care should he not have the right response to the boxes they must tick?
Is he Christian or did he simply give a Christian ritual to his child to enable him to enrol her in a faith school when she is of age?
And, as his children come from a Christian accepting home, does this mean they will be indoctrinated with the wrong messages regarding the sexual practices of 2% of the population? Do they intend to suggest, because the doctrine he associates with, has this anti minority inclination and therefore, wouldn’t that couple be the wrong people to raise children? Surely we must ask, are he and his wife fit parents in this secular society of ours? Is there any guarantee he and his wife are suitable for parenting in this secular society?
Add to this the very real expectation that all religious families, who are connected to religions who do not adhere to the secular way of thinking on this matter, having to go to court to keep their children at home with them, rather than them ending up in care or in the home of foster parents who do go along with this position. If you take that one step further, the chance that their children, if they will not denounce their faith, could be adopted out to same sex couples.
The last report I read giving same sex couples preference over others in thse matters.
You scoff. Don’t. Our tyranical state is only one hairs breath away from this. These court cases make it so.
Hansard Moderation-Team, please:
Could you at least number each comment, if not in addition each line ?
Many of us need to quickly show, or find, where the commenter(s) are coming-from, or referring-to, in the sequence of The Topic, the Comments, and the Replies; and to which particular line, words or word of the Post/Topic or sub-post/sub-topic the commenter(s) are singing about or screeching at each other (and thereby at us listeners)over.
Far too prevalently a (good or challenging) comment gets followed by at least one non-sequitur comment (and or reply).
Surely any commenter here, on such a testily-would-be-democratic e-site as the Lords of the Blog, should be able to refer by briefest possible numbering to a point or any part thereof ?
Then perhaps it wouldn’t matter how time-date-topic-jumbled most of the Lords of the Blog publishings persistently come across as.
—–
This topic’s oeuvre from Lord Hylton is very succinct, and clearly spaced, and all items fit under his Main Heading;
but one intuits that it is only an ‘oeuvre’, and especially after following subsequent additions to Lord Hylton’s few Essentials, that it is by no means an adequate list of ‘chapter headings’ within the Topic – and by the way, where exactly is this opening- Topic clearly evident or stated ?
=======================
1715W090311.JSDM.
Carl, you make it obvious that you lie. of course you hate me, else why internet stalk me to find dirt? Why post put of context things I’ve said?
This is no different from a few days ago on IMDb where I told someone they had misrepresented Martin Luther. They quoted his Famous “Reason is the Devils Whore” quote to prove he favoured Faith over Reason and thought Christians should not use reason at all. I posted a link to the original Sermon in full, and showed that this was not, in fact, Dr. Martins View. Its easy to make someone into a Monster by a snippet of what they have said here or there. That’s what you are doing here, ad I’ve notified Hansard about it.
Zarove get this right, for once, I don’t hate you. You are annoying me and when I see you chase a lady, I will come for you.
You do hate me, see above. I chase no one. I post in various threads hee and give my view. Tryinf to depict me as something of a Monster won’t really work. You aren’t defending Baroness Murphy, your simply attacking me, and often do so when I don’t even mention her.
And I only “Chase” her when she makes a patently absurd hypocritical moral statement, and do so because her thinking leads to a loss of rights. EG when she wants to close down Faith Schools.
But I’ve also agreed with her in the past and other times have no knowledge of the topic sufficient for an opinion of mine to be of worth and simply don’t respond at all.
In other words, I treat her the same way I do Clive Solely, or Lord Norton. Except I don’t use her Title, which she requested. She did want to be treated like a common woman, after all. I always am polite enough to fulfill requests.
Your writing all over the internet is abusive,
No its not. I post many places yes but, I’m not abusive.
you upset lots of people and are convinced of your superior knowledge,
The Irony is, lots of people also like me. It all depends on where you go. I notice you don’t link to ad Monarchist for example. Though one site you linked to in the past, Greenspun, Actually contained people who di like me. The majority of the Greenspun Catholic Forum enjoyed my contributions, and I was made Moderator of the Greenspun Christian Forum when it still existed.
But this is the Internet, so if you disagree its easy to upset someone, and I spent a lot of time debating with Atheists and upsetting them simply by challenging their arguments.
And no doubt that or some other board is where you fill find the evidence that I only bring pain and misery. You’ll overlook where Im liked, and focus only on where I’m not.
which I might add is lacking.
Of course its lacking Carl. I disagree with you, so must be an idiot.
You state various diffferent things in various different places attempting to disguise.
If I wanted to disguise myself, then why do I use the same username all over the Internet? Couldn’t I just as easily use a different user name? If I had, you’d not be able to stalk me.
You can’t help it I know it but you need help, seriously. All you ever do is create trouble no matter where you go. Have you ever considered why this is ?
But, on numerous boards and blogs I am considered s Valuable contributor. Its not like I’m seen as trouble everywhere I go, and you obviously ignore the numerous examples of me being well received.
Even on a board you linked to.
You call abortion murder but fail to mention this a minority opinion.
Its not in the United States a Minority Opinion.
Also, why would it matter if its Majority or Minority? You have honoured people in he past who changed society, such as Martin Luther King, or even those pushing for Abortion like Margaret Sanger. However, when Sanger was working toward acceptance of Contraception and Abortion she was very much in a Minority position. The same is True of Martin Luther King. His views of Racial Equality were a Minority position.
Does being a Minority position make something wrong, or not worth fighting for? If so, how do you explain any social Change? They all start as Minority positions.
In fact, there was no majority support for Abortion in 1966, just 1 year before it was legalised.
You attempt to bring faiths into the argument jumping from one to another to suit your purpose. You haven’t the backing of those faiths so stop misrepresenting them. The only person you represent is you and imho your sanity is questionable.
Actually whenever I cite a Religious body I don’t belong to I mention it is there teaching, and I’m afraid I can easily cite where I got it from. EG, I am not Catholic, but if you harp on Abortion I can easily show how th Catholic Church is in fact opposed to it.
By the way, for work I had to have a Psych Eval. Its routine and happens every five years. I had one just yesterday. The Clinician I saw says I am coherent and perfectly sane.
So I’d say my Sanity is not in question.
One minute your “hometown” is Dayton Tennessee then it’s Sussex, or was that Ulster. Get some help please.
I never claimed to be from Ulster. I do have Freidns and Family there though, which I have mentioned.
As to the rest, its really not complicated. I was born in Sussex and Grew up in Dayton, Tennessee.
Is that really all that difficult to comprehend?
The debate has been getting a little heated on this thread. Please can keep all comments respectful and avoid personal remarks.
Thanks
This morning I listened to Lord Faulkner justify his support to discriminate against a Christians right to adopt or foster children on the grounds of their religious belief. Take into account, this man was in support of discriminating against 41.5 million people in the UK, or, 71.8% of our population.
His reasoning in this matter was, civil law had to take precedence over the right of religious groups, when the religious belief contravenes the law. And in this particular instance, the law says you cannot discriminate against homosexuals or same sex relationships in the instruction of your children. This is a side step, because these people are in no way discriminating against homosexuals. They are engaged in no act which seeks to prevent this practice.
Their belief is essentially passive not active. They merely withold their support and approval passively. They do not hinder or prevent these practices.
Many activities are legal, but, it cannot possibly be illegal not to take part or enthusiastically support a given practice. For example, many people drink, it is legal. Is it thereofre against the law to disaprove or abstain from drinking and by doing so indicate your disapproval to your children? Another, it is legal for a women to engage in the profession of pole dancing. I repeat, it is legal. But, it is not illegal to disaprove of this way of making a living. Or, indeed, advising your child that they can find some better way to earn money.
How can the law find its way into the minds and beliefs of citizens who do not approve of something the state feels is acceptable? And, as a matter of fact, cannot explain why they believe that. Whether because of religious conviction or not?
And what of fox hunting? Prior to its ban it was a perfectly legal pursuit. However, others, not engaged in this persuit, pressed actively for it to be made illegal. They openly campaigned against the sport to ‘overturn’ the status of a ‘legal’ pursuit. It was their belief that they had right on their side. They succeeded. And were they condemed for their actions or belief? Of course not. These people disapproved of this sport and fought for it to be banned. Were any of them pursued by the state for this action or for their belief in this matter? No they were not. Did anyone suggest their children should be removed because of their belief, or, suggest they could not foster children or adopt because of their belief that men should not murder animals with cruelty, even though the practice was legal.
We have to return to Thomas Moore here. How can you be forced to swear to promote a practice or embrace an act you feel is not something you agree with, or, indeed, feel is against your sense of honour. Thomas felt Henry’s act of taking Anne Bolyn for his wife was not something he could celebrate. Henry wanted Thomas to bow to his will and go against his religious belief. Thomas remained true to himself but silent, which, in his legal interpretation represented compliance. He did not seek to overturn the marriage, he simply didn’t agree with it. So, Henry had him beheaded. And, in essence, this is what the state has done to this decent and honourable couple. Whose only objective was to give charity to a needy child.
This is an utter disgrace in a democracy and especially in ours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/more_sir_thomas.shtml
“The issues: (3) Wednesbury Unreasonableness
The way this ground is stated makes it utterly unarguable. First, it is not the defendant’s position that the majority of the population is to be excluded from being approved for fostering because of their Christian beliefs. Although there is no evidence to this effect, it is, as we have said, stated on behalf of the defendant, and we are for present purposes prepared to assume that this is so, that the defendant has approved foster carers who are “very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs and devout Muslims who are similarly committed to their religion” where “those carers are able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs.” Second, as the literature submitted with the Commission’s case and the material referred to by Mr Diamond in riposte shows, there is no consistent opinion as the desirability or benefit of same-sex couples fostering children. The material submitted by the Commission is not strictly evidence. But it does show a body of opinion which considers that a child or young person who is homosexual or is doubtful about his or her sexual orientation may experience isolation and fear of discovery if their carer is antipathetic to or disapproves of homosexuality or same-sex relationships. The material also indicates that there is support in the literature for the view that those who hide their sexual orientation or find it difficult to “come out” may have more health problems and in particular mental health problems. Whether those views are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, whether the claimants or the Commission have the preponderance of expert opinion on their side, is not the point – and it is not a matter on which we express any views. But in the light of such literature, together with the steer given by the National Minimum Standards, it cannot be said that an examination of the attitudes to homosexuality and same-sex relationships of a person who has applied to be a foster carer is Wednesbury unreasonable.”
“For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order. Moreover, in the light of the cumulative effect of our conclusions in [90]-[106], in particular, contrary to the submissions on behalf of the claimants, our conclusions that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and as to the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, we have also concluded that we should not grant permission.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html
@ The Hansard Society:
Somehow I have managed to get my last post duplicated. Please can you discard of the second one. I don’t know how it happened.
@ The Hansard Society:
Somehow I have managed to get my last post duplicated. Please can you discard the second one. I don’t know how it happened.
Maude, you have hit on something I’ve been discussing rather frequently. I am pedantic when I say everyone has a Religion. We all know some people simply do not have a Religion. They are the most Trustworthy for they have no Prejudice or biases, and merely see the world objectively. Ad they have no Religion, they also have nothing to force onto us at all. But, isn’t it a bit odd that those who have no Religion, or who promote a purely Secular society, seem to still manage to tell us all what we must think, what we must do, how we must behave, and what we must accept?
The Nonreligious people seem to be ramming down our throats a very specific moral and ethical code and a very specific way to look at the world, and are rather adamant that we all fall in line with their own dictates and beliefs regarding the world around us.
We have been told numerous times that it is wrong to impose a Religion onto all of society, and if we do this creates a Theocracy like Iran in which there is no Freedom.
But, they have no Religion, so when they force their own beliefs on us in the name of Reason its OK.
The Homosexual issue is a perfect example of this. Its become one of the most popular causes for today’s Elite Rulers of society, and connects them to the Civil Rights Era. This is our new Civil Rights Cause, ion which Heroic people in the name of Tolerance fight for Gay Rights against evil, bigoted Homophobes.
Of course, being Black is something on is unquestionably born with, and it son this basis that we find Racism morally repugnant. So, we have decided being Gay is something we are born with too and its just the same as race. Its an unchangeable, immutable part of who you are just like Race. Never mind that no actual evidence suggests this, it’s a Proven fact and to deny it is to be a Homophobe who ignores Science.
Further, you must be fully supportive of Gay Rights. You must be 100% behind it. You must believe that its right to even order private parties to rent bedrooms to gay couples, because their rights trump anyone else’s to morally disagree. You certainly are not permitted to so much as suggest that perhaps its not innate an unchangeable. Even if you support Gay Rights 100%, to even suggest it may not be innate is to be a Homophobe.
That’s because the idea of Discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation is wrong is ultimately a Dogma. Its not called that of course, because Dogma belongs to Religion and we know our Secular Ideals are not Religious, and it is on the basis that they aren’t Religious that they are allowed to impose the idea that everyone must accept Homosexuality. If a Christian tried to impose the standard regarding Christian Morality, they’d be seen as Dictators trying to impose their Religion. Fortunately Secularists aren’t Religious. They can just bully everyone into submission that they like.
The same is True of the other Whipping boy Abortion. Its been decided by Secularism that it’s a woman’s right to choose and that’s settles it. The Pro Life positing is Religion and must never be considered. Period.
Secularism has become its own self contained and self referential Philosophy. It has its own beliefs about the fundamental nature of our existence, its own story of our origins it works from, and its own idea of the meaning of life. It has its own perception on the Human Animal and how he lives, and on the basis of this understanding has derived a Moral Code from which to gauge right from wrong.
But Secularism is not a Religion I remind you. Religions do all that too, and in fact this is what defines Religion, but Secularism is not a Religion. That’s what makes it OK to force its Ideas onto literally everyone else in society.
Everyone must be compelled to serve the higher ideals of Secularist principles, live by Secular Morality, and believe in the tenets of Secularist beliefs, else they are a danger to social cohesion, a threat to society as a whole, and bigoted and cruel monsters out to destroy us all.
Secularism has told us that it is good even noble, to question Religious tenets and beliefs, but has set itself apart from all this by adamant insistence that its not a Religion. It has also made its own Beliefs and Authority unquestionable. Secularism must be taken as Self Evident Truth, and its Ideals and Doctrines accepted as unquestionably True for all. While Secularism allows you to be Religious, this must be confined to the Home and in the Church, you aren’t permitted to show this Religion in Public, but only the Secularism beliefs. Even then you must hide your Religion in the Shadows. And if the State can prevent it, you won’t be allowed to spread the poison of your Religion to the Next Generation, so no Foster Children for you.
This is also why Faith Schools must be closed down. They teach Children to be Religious rather than Rational, and we all know Reason must prevail. Secularism and Reason are the same thing. All Rational people are Secularists, you see, and one cannot be a Rational, Freethinking individual if one has not embraced Secular principles.
And again, no one is allowed to question the Secularist assumptions in the same way that one is permitted to Question Religion. It must be accepted as True, every aspect and teaching of it.
And if you want to see these beliefs codified, simply look up the Three Humanist Manifestos. They outline the basic beliefs of today’s Secularists. They really are just Humanists.
And Humanism is what we aren’t allowed to Question. Humanism is Rational, and to even ask if it truly is is insulting and not allowed. Humanism also has a Monopoly on Reason, and to think a Religion can be Rational is wrong. Religion is not rational, only Humanism is Rational, and all Rational people agree with Humanism.
And only Humanism should serve as the basis of our Laws.
You must accept and comply.
Tis how we gain Freedom, you know.