G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))

[hobbes]

Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 02:54
And just to qualify, I subscribe to neither nationalism nor loyalism.
I am not a catholic (big or small "c") nor a protestant.
Hardwiring can be re-wired.

Let me qualify that, I can see that I need to distill politics out of these terms.

If someone asks me where I am from, I say St. Louis, but I haven't actually lived there for 15 years. St. Louis is where my childhood was and what I identify as homebase. It doesn't matter how long I live in Texas, I will still feel like a visitor. Same with nationalism. I will always consider myself American, no matter where I live. So I want to separate out that I mean "identify with" and not "will forever blindly defend or follow". Hope that is clearer.


For myself, I followed the football Cardinals for many years, since I can remember actually. The team was terrible, but my parents, friends and I would get together every weekend and watch the game. We would be losing 31-0 in the 4th quarter and we were all sure that this week, we would come back and win. These are the delusional thoughts of sports fans about their hometeams.

Needless to say the owner moved the Cardinals to Arizona and St. Louis got a new team, the Rams. Although they play in St. Louis and have won the Superbowl, I only objectively root for them. They are in St. Louis, therefore they are my team. The passion just isn't there. This team is not what formed me, they are inposters. As for the Cardinals, I hate them. Rooting for them would be like rooting for your cheating lying ex-wife.

In fact, I live in San Antonio, Texas now. This year the Spurs won the title, I could careless. Meanwhile, in the college tournament, I was dying a little with every basket scored against my college team.

I hope people have their own sports analogies as it will make my point easier to comprehend. I bet you do, as you take your version of football quite seriously. When you move, do you switch team loyalty?


So by nationalism and loyalty I meant to stress your identification with a certain place or country or simply the "hometeam". I did not want to get into the political aspects of these words. You can take a man out of a country, but you cannot take the country out of the man.

[chalice]

Just take the man out of the country, Hobbes, that's enough for me.

I see your point but sporting analogies fall short when it comes to religious endoctrination. I was raised in a strict catholic environment and, I agree, this resonates through my everyday life. I envy your objectivity but this has never been made available to me.

Even now, as an adult, in trying to educate my children, my beliefs are compromised at every turn. There is no educational structure where I live where a child can be taught without the old, rigid rules of religious conformity. My son has entered his third year of primary school (his first communion year) and the faeces will hit the fan when the school finds out that he has never been baptised. I fear for him. Really.

He is given ridiculous catacisms to recite and I must tow the line so as not to contradict whatever truisms those teachers impart upon him. There is no escape from it, not here anyway. I feel irreversible harm is being done to him daily and I must smile and nod.

I count myself lucky to have broken conditioning to some degree but catholic morals cast long shadows and what I hope are independent views are probably only echoes of contempt for being misled.

[hobbes]

Yes, you have those Catholic guilts embedded in your wiring. Even if you can logically state that you need not feel guilty for "x" or "y", you feel guilty anyway (Is that what you meant when referring to "casting long shadows").

I endured many months of this dating the daughter of a former nun. Their living room was like a gift shop of crosses. Anything she enjoyed was considered a source of shame, and sex was just one of many items on that list.

You cannot never erase the effect your religious upbringing has imprinted on you, just like the cigarette smoker can never forget what that first cigarette tasted like. Oh, but if he could.

For you, this imprint serves as a source of anger, as you placed those teachings in there as a child, all in good faith, only to find out later you were being contaminated with shite.

Well, having never been exposed to religion, I have nothing in that slot. For you this slot is a source of anger, for me I wonder if my capability for "faith" was forever sealed when my hardwiring set. Although, as with you, you can be "unfaithed" but with some residua.


Well, I'm on the verge of a ramble, good night, it's been fun.


edit: "being on the verge" was probably an understatement

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@16 September 2003 - 14:49
J2K4

I profess no great knowledge on US Constitutional affairs. Indeed I think I am right in saying that it is area of rich pickings for lawyers as they weave their own peculiar brand of magic in trying to develop new and interesting interpretations.

I also don't know much about the lump of rock - other than it sounded quite large and heavy (clearly not designed to hang in a tastefully discrete frame  )

I think ultimately in any such situation, it is the intent of the individual rather than the act itself. The judge in question is unknown in these parts and consequently I can pass no comment with regards his intent. Those local are much better placed to examine the dynamics of the situation.

Much more interesting is the concept of "The Rights of Man". Although I am sure the founding fathers had only the highest motives I doubt whether any social edifice can truly defy the ill-intended.  But then again, some safeguards are better than none.

I would be interested in what people think their rights are, and are they safeguarded or not? Without being too boring perhaps we could limit it to essential rights (is the right to party essential? ... perhaps.  )

I fear that although almost all religions do have a set of moral codes and, by and large, the basic tenets of these codes are the same, a theocracy is not a happy place to be. Perhaps I am being constricted by my own cultural boundaries, but I think I prefer a liberal democracy to any other form government. Of course, liberal democracies are messy and largely ill-disciplined and dis-organised.  but what better way to keep at bay those who "know" what is best for us? Not the most visionary political standpoint I know. I think rather it is one borne out of seeing government in action over the years.

Sorry this has strayed off topic a little. The Rights of Man and God is there a link?   

PS Thank you for your kind words Hobbes and Clocker - I never thought of Biggles as a clown before but it has a certain fit even if you are familiar with the books.

Ah-

You know, both sides have made much too much over the whole case of Moore's "rock".

It has been a showcase for astounding ignorance on both sides, with nobody even marginally equipped to argue or debate the unassailable facts of the matter, so really, though care should be taken when discussing it, neither side, pro or con, serves, or is served, by what passes for discourse.

The media is culpable also.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 11:54
Even now, as an adult, in trying to educate my children, my beliefs are compromised at every turn. There is no educational structure where I live where a child can be taught without the old, rigid rules of religious conformity. My son has entered his third year of primary school (his first communion year) and the faeces will hit the fan when the school finds out that he has never been baptised. I fear for him. Really.

He is given ridiculous catacisms to recite and I must tow the line so as not to contradict whatever truisms those teachers impart upon him. There is no escape from it, not here anyway. I feel irreversible harm is being done to him daily and I must smile and nod.

I find this part of your post deeply disturbing Chalice.

I have fought battles with schools over religious education. The choice of faith to follow lies with the parent, not the school. Forced religious brainwashing must be fought against. Our children come first, their whole future is at stake. I feel you must fight for their rights, demand it, don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.

Or you could emigrate to Australia, schools here are very much different to the UK.

[ilw]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don't feel bad that your kids weren't baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.

I hope you like your kids being teased

[Billy_Dean]

ilw, I wouldn't allow my kids to be in a position like that.

I have four kids, and a grandson, none of whom have been baptised. All my children are glad not to have had religion forced on them.

Schools have no right to brainwash kids, full stop, I don't care what they say.

I've had several run-ins with schools in England with my two eldest over religious instruction, and always won, neither of them were teased.

In Australia, I have had no problems at all.

[cowswithguns]

Originally posted by ilw+17 September 2003 - 08:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw &#064; 17 September 2003 - 08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don&#39;t feel bad that your kids weren&#39;t baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground. Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.

I hope you like your kids being teased [/b][/quote]
I&#39;ve found that in most primary schools here now the norm is for children who want religious instruction to attend those lessons at a nearby school eg a Catholic school or the like.

Parents have to give their permission for their children to attend. It is now not a compulsory part of school life. This is how it should be....it should NOT be forced on anyone.


Edit: I&#39;m from Melbourne, Australia

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by ilw+17 September 2003 - 17:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 17 September 2003 - 17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@17 September 2003 - 07:46
don&#39;t feel bad that your kids weren&#39;t baptised, feel proud, take the moral high ground.&nbsp; Tell them your kids are to be given other lessons when religious instruction comes up.

I hope you like your kids being teased [/b][/quote]
What a strange thing to say&#33;

[ilw]

why? I&#39;m sure in many schools singling your child out for special treatment causes teasing. I&#39;m sure if you did this for all your children that at least one of them must have experienced some blowback from it. And i doubt that N. Ireland is the most religiously tolerant place for children. Was never an issue at my school, we all had religious studies, but that was studying religion as a concept and the various religions.
Why the second reply?