LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYes, and you also said that all beliefs are to be respected in a secular society. Which is it?Originally Posted by drkpower
Yes, and you also said that all beliefs are to be respected in a secular society. Which is it?
i once took an oath on th constutution, did not seem to be a problem
What?
Respect for something and basing a policy on something are two very very distinct issues.
Can you not see that.....!?
Because the problem isn't about you it's about the oath
You're basing your policy of swearing to religious icons on those swearing to them respecting them no?
It's pretty simple in my opinion anyway. The state has absolutely no business imposing any religious belief on anyone.
I can't see how a secular oath, based on promising to the court and the people to tell the truth in court, or to behave within the law and in the best interest of the nation while holding public office would be in anyway offensive to anyone.
How is it any worse than a religious oath which may be meaningless to someone who is an atheist, humanist, agnostic, or someone of a different faith. Or, to some may even be offensive.
Religious oaths simply have no place in a democracy, they belong in a theocracy.
I mean, how would a Christian react to having to swear on a Koran in an Islamic-influenced country ? Or, swearing in some Buddhist way in Japan ? Would you do it? Would it have any meaning ? Would it mean you might lie and feel it had no consequence ?! Would you feel that something was being 'forced' upon you ?
In my opinion anyway, if you believe that we should live in a proper democracy and believe that Government and public office holders are granted their authority to rule by the people, and not on some religious basis then you should really see why a religious oath is contrary to all of that.
If you take an oath like this, it should be a promise to the people, not a promise to God. Promising things to God, Buddha, Allah, The Dagda or any other supernatural beings are really a matter of private faith, not of state.
I just think we should grow up and take responsibility for our own affairs as a nation and a society, not pass responsibility for such important civil matters to a religious entity.
Being non-Christian does not mean that you're not Irish, or somehow an outsider in this society. We live in a Republic, these old oaths are throw backs to a different era where the church was established as part of the state, as it remains in Britain today.
We really need to move on and complete the transition from an archaic, theocratic monarchy to a proper republic.
You defined "respect" earlier as "allowing an ideas to be printed". This, of course, isn't "respect". It is free speech. Allowing someone to say something doesn't mean you respect what they say. Please acknowledge that in your next post.
Now, you said that all beliefs should be respected by the government. "Respect" would mean that the ideas would be treated seriously. Okay. But now you say that when serious matters of policy are to be decided these beliefs are not to be "respected" at all, that we are to show no respect to astrology, and Scientology and Christianity etc. when matters are "serious".
This means that the state in fact does not "respect" these ideas at all, but disregards them when it matters. I get it now. You are talking about "respecting a person's right to have a belief" (up until the point that they are in government, apparently) and not "respect for the belief".
Now, if government ministers go to mass, and pray to God, and say that prayer is a good thing, and push forward the idea that prayer is good etc. bu then disregard "prayer" when matters are serious, then, of course, this is merely tokenism and not respect. If you really respected an idea you would, of course, hold that that idea is good in all situations.
It's like how evolutionists respect the idea of evolution and don't ever have to not take it seriously (because they have much reason to respect it), and how a young earth creationist will disregard their belief if, let's say, they are looking for oil, or if their personal health is threatened and they have to avail of modern medicine. Relevance of evolution: medicine
Surely if an idea has to be disregarded when matters are "serious" then the idea is not truly respected at all. Can you agree with that?
If you really respected an idea you would, of course, hold that that idea is good in all situations
What an unusual theory. Have you thought this through properly? Respecting an idea does not mean you should "hold it to be good in all situations" or include it as the basis of government policy.
One example of many: I respect the view that co-location is an answer to the lack of capacity in the health system. I dont agree with that view though. And if I were in Government it would not form part of my healthcare policy.
Yes, I gave a few examples of how a secular state might show its respect. I prefaced the examples with the phrase for instance which usually means the list is non-exhaustive. But well done you spotted that one of the examples of respect might also be a matter of free speech. Try and engage with the substance rather than trying to score points....
I'll rephrase: we should hold that it is worthy of consideration in all situations. We don't have to abandon the idea when things get "serious".
Anyway, your position is not that we should respect co-location, it is that we should respect ALL ideas, and yet you have also stated that you do not respect Astrology at all when a serious decision is to be made. In fact, you wouldn't even consider it?! You think it is ludicrous to do so! Why? Because it isn't based on reason. Neither is Christianity, and it is equally ludicrous.
Put it seems, for the sake of PC, you wouldn't correct a person who thought so for fear of demeaning them? Why? It's just a debate, the same as a debate on co-location. Why aren't you afraid of demeaning people who propose co-location?
But it was an instance of respect for the idea of free speech and NOT an instance of respect for all ideas, which was your point. That "instance" shouldn't be on any list, exhaustive or otherwise, as it doesn't really support your idea of "respect" for all ideas.Yes, I gave a few examples of how a secular state might show its respect. I prefaced the examples with the phrase for instance which usually means the list is non-exhaustive. But well done you spotted that one of the examples of respect might also be a matter of free speech. Try and engage with the substance rather than trying to score points....
I'll say it again: if an idea is "respected" by the government then it is worthy of serious consideration when a serious decision is to be made by the government. And yet you say that Astrology is not worthy of consideration when a serious decision is to be made. You've also stated that an idea should only be respected if its held by a sufficient amount of people. These views are inconsistent with the thrust of your argument that all beliefs are to be respected by the government.
My view is, and has always been, only ideas which are based on reason and rationality are to be considered by the government and truly respected and considered. That is secularism. Of course, this stop not stop a private citizen expressing a religious view and practicing religion.
However, you should not expect your view to be taken seriously and respected if there is no evidence that you are correct. I don't know why that is such a hard thing for you to accept. I'm simply saying in essence that the Government should strive to be as reasonable as possible.
seems alot of people are happy with pluralism aslong as Catholicism dominates and has a veto
What does the Irish President spend their time doing. Work in progress
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote