= new reply since forum marked as read
Do you support exempting people of different faiths to be exempted from shared secular activities because of the 'meaning' on each religious calendar?
PS: just wiki'ed it: yes, it appears that newspaper is right wing.
But my knowledge of the Australia media scene is limited to knowing the name Murdoch.
Anthem singing is not a forum. It is a mandatory secular requirement meant to embody the notion of togetherness. An acknowledgment that members of society all benefit by belonging to a group called a country. The only meaning of refusing to participate is to express the unwillingness to be part of that country, which is whimsical at best, offensive at worst.
The point is not nationalism (and my personal allegiance is to values over country)
In this case, in this example, the secular activity happens to be liked nation building.
But what I wrote was pointing to the excessive accomodation of religious whims.
Nice attempt at deflection from the main issue in the name of defending 'religion'
Back to the point: how far should secular countries accomodate religious whims?
The main suspects being the Roman Catholic Church, Hinduism and Islam.
You want to paint me as a Republican.
There was an old European saying: "he who wants to kill his dog claims it has rabies"
It works like this here:
rug likes religion (in an off soil culture, aetheral generalisation), yorktown doesn't.
On a Democartic site, let's say yorktown doesn't like religion because he's a republican
Childish, malicious and dishonest ad hominem ploy.
Republicans are free to discuss their political platform
Muslims are not free to discuss muhamad, Christians to doubt the crucifixion.
Just like you do not feel free to discuss Moses, as you believe without proof.
But there is a burden of proof on historical claims.
You argued religion is belief without proof, ergo free of the burden of proof.
Not so with Moses.
If a Republican says he saw Jesus btw, I'll be waiting with my bull-o-meter and power supply.
Please, do try to avoid the same stale tricks. Again, it's about ideologies, not people.
Were all Nazi Party members monsters? No. Was Nazism abhorrent? Ya betcha.
In the same way, Islam, as it is currently practiced is a danger. Are muslims bad people? No. Can you find ISIS fanatics? Are there 100s of millions who believe in death for apostasy? yes.
To answer the other part of your rhetorical (and disingenuous) question, the Democratic Party is a party of geovernment. Its ambition is to run a vast country, the USA. As such, that party has to have a stance on the dangers the country faces. Some of these dangers are caused by religious ideologies. Of which Islam is currently at the forefront.
In domestic policy, the Democrat running the country also gets to decide on the school syllabus. Not teaching reality (the Big Bang, Darwinian evolution) is bad, harmful for American kids. This harm is directly caused by the Christian sects, among which yours, the Roman Catholic cult.
Now, back to my original question to you. You speak from an abrahamic religion perspective. When did Moses live?
Now, why don't you want to enlighten me about Moses?
Don't you want to spread the good news of the Bible?
When did Moses live?
You claim to be a Christian.
If you do not know who Moses was and when he lived, your faith is arguably woo woo.
Unsubstantiated historical claims.
We'll discuss the 'order' of the days in Genesis in Religion 102.
You seem to be stuck at Moses 101.
You can evade and fudge all you will, at the end of the day, things are pretty simple
(and there is therefore absolutely no need for any prepackaged arguments)
Bottom line: the holy books are full of errors and violence, therefore junk.
Unless you can prove the content: Moses, creation, genesis, Noah, Jesus, etc.
Until you can show all these factually ridiculous claims have some merit, you have no ground.
And with books so irretrievably flawed, no objective morality.
I never used insulting words, you did.
Ergo, tu quoque non placet.
ineptia (Latin)
Noun
ineptia (genitive ineptiae); (fem.)
silliness, folly, absurdity
And when you call my reasoning garbage, to which dictionary do you suggest I should refer?
Your finaggling about nuances in translation aside. And premises are part of the reasoning.
They are what the person chose to adopt as basis for his reasoning, using reason to do so.
Anyway, like in the finger/moon Confucius parable I already quoted, you always look at the finger (premise/reasoning distinguo, 50 shades of absurd/inept) rather than face the fact:
you are regularly less than civil in your choice of words, although I will grant you you are deft enough to stay just inches within the limits of not becoming downright rude.
Well done, Sir, you are uncivil with style
(not to mention rarely debating the beef of issues: when did Moses live?)
I wouldn't know.
I'm not very spiritual, just trying to do my bit to restrain and deflate the violent religions.
Sine the Mayan cults disappeared, that's Hinduism, Islam and the Roman Catholic Church.
But that would be one step further.
Let's start with not granting exceptions to secular rules for reasons of superstitious observance.
One step at at a time, one step at a time, we might end up cancelling religious holidays.
Hopefully.
Secular must trump religious.
I am not big on anthem singing or whatever, it's just that if a secular activity is planned for a group, it must be given priority over rituals of ideologies whose only grounding is tradition and beliefs without evidence.
Further, when faced with a firm stand, the religious chamans always find a way to adapt their rituals. In Europe, in the countries which have placed restrictions on islamic shawls, the Muslim chamans hurried to explain why god was OK with going along with the law rather than with the vestimentary customs inherited from the Arabian peninsula.
Let's not get bogged down on discussing the merits or absence thereof of singing anthems.
My only contention was that if a secular activity is deemed mandatory, it trumps religion.
And if I read you correctly, we agree on that.
As to the merits af any secular activity, it can be decided upon by means of democracy.
So the value or lack of it of singing anthems is for the people to decide.
But once it's been decided upon -taht or any other secular rule- it must be adhered to
That is were we apparently differ (secular group activities must be *mandatory"
If an activity is deemed mandatory (like school attendance), then it IS mandatory.
Unless kids individually decide to go to school or not.
But then it's not democracy anymore, it's anarchy.
I suppose we agree on many points, but obviously not on the conclusion in this case.
On missing a day of school
- doctor's appointment: health reason: we agree it's valid
- funeral: part of familial group cohesion: valid, up to a point (third cousins twice removed?)
- "we're taking a trip we'll be back in a couple days..." debatable (one shot vs pattern)
On whether the singalong is compulsory or not: it can be and depends on the country. It is mandatory in the two most populated countries on earth, India and China.
In the case of the Australian school in the article, if it was the school rule to sing the national anthem during school assemly, then it was mandatory. If a school has a school uniform, it becomes mandatory. If you disagree with a rule, influence the school to change it or change school. I really do not see how school rules could be called non mandatory.
Empirical evidence shows the religious chamans end up altering their rules when faced with a non sequitur.
Let the Jehovah witness chamans reinterpret the Bible so that it allows taking an oath.
If not, then your question comes in full swing: if the Jehovah witnesses got one exception, why not grant another to Mulslims? Next, Hindus. and why not maintain forever the esception Christianity currently enjoys? Why is Sunday a day off, and not Friday as the Muslims would be justified to ask. Saturday for Jews and some parts of Christianity. Why not Tuesda for the Followers of the Sacred Spirit of the First Tuesday of Creation, a religion I just made up because I get the feeling next Tuesday, I'd rather stay at home?
It's endless, and opens the door to step by step encroachment of mad practices. In Britain, there are Shariah courts operating alongside the Law of the land, and they were recorded as operating sometimes in flagrant contradiction. Some imams were caught on tape accepting to officialise weddings with underage girls because they were physically nubile.
What next? In Germany, a court exonerated a husband for beating his wife on the grounds it was condoned by the Quran. Once you start giving in, there's no telling where it stops because it is the very nature of religion to always demand more towards total submission. Look at how the Roman Catholic Church in the US is fighting tooth and nail to avoid participating to health schemes on the ground it might end up paying for birth control pills and the like.
It never stops.
Christian fundies, Muslim fundies, Hindu fundies, let's stop accomodating them.
Period.
Because the exemptions granted to one are a justification to grant more to the other.
It's endless.
...for either side. ???????
My only concern is the trickle effect:
- start one concession, and others start asking for more
- then another group ask for yet different exemptions
Religious groups will always ask for more..
...anybody. (except Taxes for churches..I'm all over THAT one)
I mean, by religious decree of the church i just made up, you can't tax me?
No taxes for the church if it's me.
(i'm joking, but not far from what churches would say)
I am not a nationalist either, my allegiance is to basic values. And I'm an atheist.
And I personally dislike the quasi automatic childishness of the lyrics of anthems.
However I note the practical value of exercices in nation building like anthems.
- they help multiracial countries like India or Singapore build some feeling of commonality
- their absence leads to a feeling of split communities like in Europe
It might be childish, but it seems to help create harmony among the groups of the great apes we are.
1/ Islam only applies the golden rule among believers
Believers and non-believers are never on an equal footing, save for some Meccan verses which are by muslim canonic Law superseded by the far more divisive and violent Medinan verses. Modern apologists try to find some quotes which might fit the bill, but they never quite hit the mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Islam
Anyway, the golden rule certainly doesn't seem to apply to women:
2/ there is no two-way respect in Islam:
Believers and non-believers are explicitly unequal:
Believers (in Islam) are the good guys:
While non believers in muhamad and Allah are scum:
Respect is a two way street when the two parties agree on it. The Quran doesn't.
