yayyyyyy God

[Kanada Kev]

Pastor issuing 7-day sex challenge

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/bizarre&id=6502213

[SaggyBalls]

Finally.

[bradm]

On Tuesday night at 8pm (in both Toronto and Ottawa, I think), the PBS science program Nova is running an episode titled The Bible's Buried Secrets, which claims to be "An archeological detective story" which "traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible." (Does anyone else remember the series Testament by John Romer? It was a really good history of the bible [mostly the New Testament].)

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

[Birdy]

[d_rawk]

Back when I worked doing surface mount at [unnamed electronics manufacturer in T.O.] prayer time was taken very seriously.

I used to always read on lunch to sort of counterbalance the redundancy of the shift (my job was basically to wait for a machine to break so that I'd have something to fix), so instead of hitting the cafeteria, I'd sneak into the change area with a book and read it while eating. It evolved into a popular place for the Muslims to use for prayer, so I'd be surrounded by people praying. It was pretty awesome.

[Birdy]

It's sad to think that people have to fight for the right to pray.

[Kanada Kev]

It's sad to think that people have to fight for the right to pray.

Where in Canada is this the case Birdy? The Charter's freedom of religion guarantees the right to practice your religion in private (home, mosque church, synagogue, etc.,) but not necessarily in public institutional space (government, school, etc.)

So, how is the RIGHT to pray being denied? If that right is being denied to somebody then the laws are there to fix it.

[Birdy]

Check out the photo I posted above - McGill University, amongst countless others.

Muslims believe they must pray five times a day as one of the five pillars of Islam, and by denying prayer in public spaces, we're denying students and government employees the right to follow the pillars of their faith.

And then it furthers into privatized jobs, where unions dictate when breaktimes are, when lunch is, etc. and how that conflicts with their prayers. Some non-unionized jobs aren't granted breaktime at all, where I believe it's only after 8 hours in Ontario that you're granted a 1/2 hour lunch break and two fifteen minute breaks.

And then to further that, as D_jango brought up, where are they to pray? In the cafeteria surrounded by everyone else? Or do they seek out little private spots in their workplace to go and do what they feel is their duty?

It's sad. And a huge issue.

Not 'necessarily in a public institutional space' is the problem if people hold jobs, go to school. And increasingly a problem when the structure of privatized institutions models itself off of the public, and what our 'constitutional' laws and freedoms are, and really unfortunately, aren't.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

this special gem below was found on buses over in the UK, after much money was raised by a lot of people to advertise their message (Richard Dawkins included):

Which kinda really pisses me off, as if I were to imagine a Christian message being sprouted up along side of a public bus, the outcry would be fucking horrendous. Yet somehow, this crap is acceptable? Both sides are beliefs. One in a god, one not. Seems sooo hypocritical to me.

[Birdy]

Some fight for representative governments, and then argue religion should have no part in our public institutions?

[Birdy]

Muslims Killing Muslims over being a different type of Muslim

I'm sorry, but is this Iraq thing seem to anyone else irreversably fuÇked.

It seems that they possibly needed a tyrant in power so that they could all be afraid together, unified in fear of Saddam.

fuÇking religion, forever and always a means to remove individual responsibility and thus promote absolute inhumane acts.

Dickheads.

[Birdy]

holy christ, i know i'm fueling this thread right now, but it's been a shitty day here in Chatham and i've spent a few hours surfing around the internet reading up on secularism. And as you can probably tell from the previous three posts, i'm taking sides.

Secularists seem to argue secularism as important in order to provide for a more inclusive society. Or so it seems.

But just surfing around on the internet, i've found the following little titles for secularist blogs:

God is for Suckers

Kill the Afterlife

Angels Depart

Daily Bible versus 2007

Kingdom of Heathen

Religion is Immoral

Your Religion Sucks

HOW do such titles lead to a more inclusive society? Is secularism one big hypocritical joke? I'm starting to think secularism is a failed ideology/philosophy for what's its trying to accomplish.

[Thorgnor]

Being anti-religious and endorsing secularism are different things, just 'cause the interweb conflates the two doesn't mean that governments should be religious. By the logic of your questioning Catholicism should be abandoned because of the Protestant movements having proven Catholics as following a "failed ideology". You see the problem with saying an ideology has failed? It's either more succesful for a given set of goals at the time or not, but it isn't good or bad. Judgements made by people, religious or secular are flawed when they take a value based stance, therefore welcoming your style of "good vs. bad" thinking and it's counter-part cultural baggage (and necessary religious implications) is less than one step from condoning Bush style totalitarianism, which is nothing close to your beloved Libertarianism.

So what is it that you would like exactly?

No one is saying that you cannot allow your religion to dictate your morality, they are saying that freedom of religion should provide all of us with a certain amount of freedom. If you are free to tell me that me soul is doomed, I should be free to say that your God is dead. But your God should never be permitted to decide if I am a criminal.

[SaggyBalls]

"No one is saying that you cannot allow your religion to dictate your morality, they are saying that freedom of religion should provide all of us with a certain amount of freedom. If you are free to tell me that me soul is doomed, I should be free to say that your God is dead. But your God should never be permitted to decide if I am a criminal."

+1

"But just surfing around on the internet, i've found the following little titles for secularist blogs:

God is for Suckers

Kill the Afterlife

Angels Depart

Daily Bible versus 2007

Kingdom of Heathen

Religion is Immoral

Your Religion Sucks

HOW do such titles lead to a more inclusive society? Is secularism one big hypocritical joke? I'm starting to think secularism is a failed ideology/philosophy for what's its trying to accomplish."

+1

It seems as though we all want to get past all of the issue at hand and the polarization of the positions.

Who's gonna be the better people?

Hopefully us.

[djmelbatoast]

All of these discussions are moot because what I believe is right and what everyone else believes is wrong.

[Kanada Kev]

No one is saying that you cannot allow your religion to dictate your morality, they are saying that freedom of religion should provide all of us with a certain amount of freedom. If you are free to tell me that me soul is doomed, I should be free to say that your God is dead. But your God should never be permitted to decide if I am a criminal.

VERY well put TB.

Extreme sides always seem to utilize black & white (with us or against us, etc.) arguments.

For me, it comes down to how to satisfy everyone's 'differences'. In most cases, you simply can't. There's always somebody who is going to feel "left out". So why not be inclusive?

I was impressed with the Remembrance Day services in Ottawa just last week. There was a religious "representative" there to lead a prayer. He prefaced it by inviting people to join in and send their thoughts (prayers) to whom the individual believed was their "god" or to those soldiers and families involved. I can't remember the exact words, but it was perfect, IMHO. Instead of dividing people on religious beliefs, it united them in a way that could not offend. There needs to be more of that.

[Birdy]

Being anti-religious and endorsing secularism are different things, just 'cause the interweb conflates the two doesn't mean that governments should be religious. By the logic of your questioning Catholicism should be abandoned because of the Protestant movements having proven Catholics as following a "failed ideology". You see the problem with saying an ideology has failed? It's either more succesful for a given set of goals at the time or not, but it isn't good or bad. Judgements made by people, religious or secular are flawed when they take a value based stance, therefore welcoming your style of "good vs. bad" thinking and it's counter-part cultural baggage (and necessary religious implications) is less than one step from condoning Bush style totalitarianism, which is nothing close to your beloved Libertarianism.

So what is it that you would like exactly?

No one is saying that you cannot allow your religion to dictate your morality, they are saying that freedom of religion should provide all of us with a certain amount of freedom. If you are free to tell me that me soul is doomed, I should be free to say that your God is dead. But your God should never be permitted to decide if I am a criminal.

OK, i'll go with secularism being less successful at what it's trying to accomplish at this given point in time.

I'd rather see a world where Muslims didn't have to get a court case to decide whether they are permitted to follow their pillars and pray five times a day at work or school.

Maybe i don't get it, and need some sort of explanation.

How does secularism provide for an inclusive society when it denies the right of any religions of any kind/shape/form in any public institution? That's EXclusive, not inclusive.

Kev, i'm totally with you, it DOES come down to how to satisfy everyone's differences, and for the most part, it seems secularism only satisfies the atheists and/or agnostics. I'd much prefer a Canada that recognizes 75% of it's citizens as religious and tries to incorporate that into it's government. If we tried to do such a thing in a way like this religious representative did in Ottawa, I think we'd promote a much greater understanding of all religions and quite possibly a greater acceptance of them as well.

[d_rawk]

How does secularism provide for an inclusive society when it denies the right of any religions of any kind/shape/form in any public institution? That's EXclusive, not inclusive.

It doesn't have to do that - the idea is just that public institutions can't be held at the mercy of an organized religious body to the exclusion of others.

I think the task we are charged with, in the interest of inclusiveness, is to marginalize dickishness and reward attempts at understanding and accommodation.

[Birdy]

Ok. If I think in terms of how far secularism has taken us, that being that i don't think we'd ever go back to a society in which public institutions can be held at the mercy of one religion, would it be okay to think that we can do without it? Or are we still living in an age where such a thing would be a threat?

I don't think we are, but it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say.

[d_rawk]

Personally, I'd think that you wouldn't want to give up the principle. ie., you wouldn't want to say "it is ok for the civil institutions to formally merge with a religious body", even if the threat seemed remote.

Now how we act on that, though, we've got a lot of room to play with and a lot of room to act decently or indecently. As the threat of a single hard-hammer faith enjoying the opportunity to call all the shots diminishes, I think we can start to let go a bit about our paranoia about all of that and would do well to give each other the space to openly acknowledge the degrees to which they inform themselves by 'big' ideas with less trepidation and fear.

I think secularization as an overarching principle is here to stay, and I feel that is the correct trajectory. Promoting the understanding that secular government does not mean discounting religiously informed voices or preventing, devaluing, or otherwise excluding their participation within or around civil institutions is something that needs to be worked on.

All IMO.

[d_rawk]

this special gem below was found on buses over in the UK

Hey Birdy, I know you tune in and out of this thread, so just in case - did you see the article I posted earlier about these bus slogans? I thought it was a good read.

[Thorgnor]

Ask Turks if they're ok with getting rid of secularism.

Not all devout Muslims must pray five times a day, although that is the prevailing practice in most Muslim cultures.

[Birdy]

I didn't see that... thanks D!

Here's what struck home for me, and probably, (actually, hopefully) for most:

But back to those bus slogans. The "stop worrying and enjoy your life" bit I find more problematic. Not because I want people to worry and not enjoy life, but because for so many people it is really difficult to do this right now. Which is why the real message that needs to get out there is about encouraging one another in active compassion.

That, surely, is something we could all agree on? Compassion – an identification with the suffering of others so that you feel the need to alleviate pain and challenge injustice – is at the heart of the best kind of humanist thinking and living, and also the best kind of religious thinking and living.

I fear secularism gets twisted and mis-interpreted by too many (i'm guilty of it myself) to ever lead way to the real heart of the matter - we all want something that's good for us all. Those blog titles I posted above are kind of a case in point. What's found on the intraweb, well I agree with TB, shouldn't mean governments should be religious, but they should very well serve as an indication to how we have publically approached the issue and how we have publically reacted to the issue. I'm not saying governments should be religious, I'm saying governments should recognize religion, not on a document, but in their daily operation and should do their very best to be inclusive of all, if they are to ever promote the societal will to be inclusive of all.

[Birdy]