Campaign against judicial religious oaths

[tmesis2008]

It is merely a declaration of being truthful and honest.................... why is it that Militant Athiests are trying to remove all presence of religiousness?

I'm getting fed up with stuff like this

So, you would have no problem taking the oath on the Koran? Do you think, if we changed the law tomorrow so that all people had to take an oath on the Koran, that it would just be accepted? If not, why not? Answer that question honestly and you have the answer as to why Humanists are campaigning: i.e. the same way that you would campaign if 250,000 people in your country were Christian and yet had to swear on the Koran in order to take some government/judicial positions. If you take umbrage at the thought of swearing on a Koran, then you can hardly object to people who take similar umbrage at having to swear on a bible, can you?

Do you understand it now: can you accept that the objection is quite valid?

[DaBrow]

So, you would have no problem taking the oath on the Koran? Do you think, if we changed the law tomorrow so that all people had to take an oath on the Koran, that it would just be accepted? If not, why not? Answer that question honestly and you have the answer as to why Humanists are campaigning: i.e. the same way that you would campaign if 250,000 people in your country were Christian and yet had to swear on the Koran in order to take some government/judicial positions. If you take umbrage at the thought of swearing on a Koran, then you can hardly object to people who take similar umbrage at having to swear on a bible, can you?

Do you understand it now: can you accept that the objection is quite valid?

People whom fit your profile of aggressive & Militant Athiests are worse than Islamic Fanatics.

If I was a muslim in a court within a muslim country and asked to swear to tell the truth and be honest, by placing my hand on the koran............ then I would.

Even if I was not a muslim yet lived in a islamic country and called to the courts.


Placing your hand on a book that is seen as truthful and representing good whatever you think, shouldn't matter as long as you are truthful!

[drkpower]

There is nothing that causes blindspots like the psychosis of religious victimhood by saying something like the above while simutaneously advocating that a non believer should swear to their deity.

1. What kind of tosh is the above....?
2. You need to read what I said, not imagine what I said and then argue against it. I am entirely happy for the oath to be removed or an alternative option put in place. I am not religous. I have no deity. I believe in a secular state.

But the broader point (which many of you fail to appreciate) is that secularism is about respect for all beliefs and none. It is not about demeaning and lambasting religon. Agressive secularists merely perpetuate the intransigence of the religous. They do their own aims a disservice and are too stubborn and stupid to realise it.

Or, in the alternative, and I think this is probably closer to the truth, their aim is not secularism (or at best it is their secondary aim) and what they really want is to demean religon because they were demeaned by it at some point in the past.

[tmesis2008]

DaBrow,

Yes, exactly: As long as you are truthful then the book doesn't matter and is only a token. Ergo, dispense with the book altogether. (If it doesn't matter then of course, it makes no difference if it is there or not). Thank you for agreeing with me and agreeing with this action by Irish Humanists.

[drkpower]

I do consider it hilarious that you're still arguing that secularists, humanists and atheists should just put up with swearing legal oaths to imaginary beings, while playing violins about the poor put-upon believers.

I consider it hilarious that you fail to understand a very very straightforward statement.......! D'uh..

Originally Posted by drkpower; see post #25

Of course it is better that it be scrapped/an alternative offered, but lets not pretend that there are thousands of potential judges and presidents not applying because of the oath..

[tmesis2008]

But the broader point (which many of you fail to appreciate) is that secularism is about respect for all beliefs and none.

No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea?

Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs.

More generally it is the assertion that beliefs are not automatically worthy of respect and must earn respect. What's wrong with that?

[drkpower]

No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea?

Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs.

More generally it is the assertion that beliefs are not automatically worthy of respect and must earn respect. What's wrong with that?

Yes, well done, that is the Wikipedia definition.

But naturally things are a little more complex than that and there are many nuances/views as to what a secular state should be.

Perhaps I should have said that secularism should be about respect for all beliefs and none. If your view of a secular state is one that does not respect others' beliefs, then advocate that, but I would feel that my version is a better answer.

[tmesis2008]

Yes, well done, that is the Wikipedia definition.

But naturally things are a little more complex than that and there are many nuances/views as to what a secular state should be.

Perhaps I should have said that secularism should be about respect for all beliefs and none. If your view of a secular state is one that does not respect others' beliefs, then advocate that, but I would feel that my version is a better answer.

You're backsliding. You said that we were misunderstanding secularism and that it was:

[QUOTE]about respect for all beliefs and none. [/QUOTE}

Now you're saying that this really isn't what secularism is but it is what it should be. How can you tell us that we are failing as secularists, when you aren't talking about what it is rather what it should be?

Can you find someone who agrees with your definition of secularism?

Listen carefully. You, DRK, do not respect all ideas. If someone came up to you and said "I believe that Elvis is still alive" you wouldn't respect their idea without some really good evidence. We don't, and shouldn't respect beliefs that are held without evidence.

By your definition, a secular state should be a place where the minister for finance should be able to openly admit to doing the next budget using star charts, and where everyone backs off and respects, and does not demean that idea. That is exactly what you are advocating. It isn't secularism. It's stupidity. The Government should be run, as best as possible, using our best powers of reason, and I can't believe that you think otherwise. Do you?

[DaBrow]

DaBrow,

Yes, exactly: As long as you are truthful then the book doesn't matter and is only a token. Ergo, dispense with the book altogether. (If it doesn't matter then of course, it makes no difference if it is there or not). Thank you for agreeing with me and agreeing with this action by Irish Humanists.

I am not agreeing with you.

The book is a symbol of truth and righteousness, symbolising that you are bearing testament to the court but also the eyes and ears of all living beings and the spirit of good which is a higher being than ones self.

When people like you try and do away with symbolism that is to represent honesty and being truthful, that to me appears sinister and allows the truth to be skewed or bent............ the book enshrines trust which you are trying to remove from a court of law where it is needed for the truth to be sought.

[drkpower]

[quote=tmesis2008;1544213]You're backsliding. You said that we were misunderstanding secularism and that it was:

about respect for all beliefs and none. [/QUOTE}

Now you're saying that this really isn't what secularism is but it is what it should be. How can you tell us that we are failing as secularists, when you aren't talking about what it is rather what it should be?

Can you find someone who agrees with your definition of secularism?

Dont be so childish.....! Picking a definition (from Wikipedia) of something that is not ameanable to strict definition is just silly. Secularism comes in various forms. The world is in shades of grey. Grow up.

By your definition, a secular state should be a place where the minister for finance should be able to openly admit to doing the next budget using star charts, and where everyone backs off and respects, and does not demean that idea. That is exactly what you are advocating. It isn't secularism. It's stupidity. The Government should be run, as best as possible, using our best powers of reason, and I can't believe that you think otherwise. Do you?

Clearly any definition of secularism would not involve the Minister for Finance doing the budget using star charts. If you want to give your views on a very complex subject, stop being so childish.