The direction that this post has taken is rather like what happens when two or more argumentative Indians meet and talk about the same topic. To start with Secularism. India has a constitution drawn up by Indians which called the nation secular. This has been interpreted by all our politicians for sixty two years to mean, do everything to hurt the majority Hindus and pamper the minorities, particularly the Muslims and now the proselytizing evangelists. I flatter myself that I am secular but this non sense is galling to me as much as the secularism that galls Primal and Susie. Many of us too want to amend our constitution to clarify what secularism should mean! In our opinion, that should be, that the State has no business in the religious lives of its people and will not interfere. It would also mean that one law for all. Muslims cannot choose selectively what is good in Sharia like four marriages, and opt for jail terms instead of their arms being cut off!

The second issue has not really become an issue here in educational institutions except in the Madrassas. I believe that if Darwinism and Natural Selection cannot be taught by any educational institution, that institution should not be funded by tax payers money. The vast majority of Indians, deeply religious Hindus, have no problem with Darwinism and Natural Selection and quite why anyone should be funded with their tax money to be taught something totally different is illogical. Being a democracy however, and in a spirit of living and letting live, which Indians have shown since the advent on St. Thomas on Indian shores, they are willing to let the minority institutions teach what they want but with the proviso that when it comes to higher education and employment, the graduates of those streams of education should compete with the others on equal footing and should not be mollycoddled with affirmative action quotas. Such an approach to education should be a win win situation to all concerned.

Nice to be here and shoot the breeze as it were. Very stimulating interactions here.

Whether churches run schools or not, children will still be indoctrinated in school. Perhaps not indoctrinated by religion, perhaps by left/ right wing politics…who knows….but there will always be some influence. To be quite honest, you are living in your own fairy tale land, just as much as those with religious beliefs, especially if you think that Ireland is turning out children from catholic schools that are indoctrinated robots…….Kids don’t sit in school and learn about religion all day Susie….the country has moved on past that. There’s not a hope that young men and women are leaving school believing that Adam and Eve are their long lost ancestors……..If you think they do believe that Susie, then you credit the young people of Ireland with too little sense. It’s good to think though, that our schools can teach and prepare on subjects that are important in the world, perhaps by learning about them, they can prove/ disprove them…Subject such as Maths, Physics, Economics and even religion. By learning about something, you can often unmask its flaws. By not learning about something that is clearly substantial, well that’s just ignorance.

There are better ways to show the flaws in religious beliefs, but I won’t be signing up to your method of don’t teach/ don’t tolerate type approach.

It’s not the 1950’s anymore Susie.
@Susie -

He described Aids as “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

Instead, the Pope said the disease could be defeated by keeping to the teachings of the Church on marriage and faithfulness. In the past, the Catholic Church has said that HIV and Aids can pass through condoms.

This week, Pope Benedict is visiting Cameroon and Angola on his first trip to Africa as Pope. There are around 33 million people across the world suffering from Aids, of these 27 million live in Africa. Since the 1980s around 25 million Africans have died from the disease.” So, tell the people that condoms don’t prevent the spread of Aids, and bingo, there is a nice rumour that is difficult to unravel, ‘cos it came from the church. But of course the Pope isn’t alone. Take George Bush, and his administration, which we all know had a huge amount of influence from the ‘pro-life’ and generally right-wing churches in America which helped to get him elected and re-elected. In 2001 Bush banned funding to groups that promoted abortion services overseas. That policy affected two of the largest distributors of birth control in Kenya (which didn’t provide abortions, but which were affiliated with London-based organisations whose members helped provide them in other countries). The two groups were forced to close 5 family planning clinics after losing the US funding. In 2003, Bush set up the President’s Emergency Plan For Aids Relief (PEPFAR), which would not allow funding to be used to buy birth control. Why? I would say, it is because of the influence of the religion.
But, to return to the Pope’s influence. There are 1.1bn baptized Catholics worldwide, 300m of which live in the US, and 143m of which live in Africa. Are you really claiming that none of these people pay any attention to what the Pope says about the use of contraceptives? That Catholic people, the world over, are prepared to play ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ with their Church’s teachings, ignoring what St. Peter’s representative on earth tells them about contraception?
So, Vedder, I think you should refer to Mr Primal Sneezer in his original blog if you believe that people shouldn’t be anti-religion. By the sounds of it, he was forced to undergo Catholic indoctrination in his childhood as there was no alternative. What I have suggested is that the alternative could be no indoctrination of children, and especially not at school; let them choose religion if they want to when they have become adults. If parents want to teach the good ethics they they believe have somehow come out of religion let them teach those ethics to their children. Brilliant. The world hopefully will be a better place for it. But keep religion out of it. If people wish to read about how ‘evolution is only a theory’, that God created the world in the last 6000 years and that everyone is decended from Adam and Eve, that’s fine with me. But it shouldn’t be taught to kids as though it has equal status with Darwin’s ‘evolution by natural selection’ explanation of the world. There should be nothing institutionalised about religion. It should be completely separated from the organs of the state. And, where people expect to be allowed to stop working 5 times a day, in order to pray in an easterly direction, they should be told to do so on their own time, on not on company time.

The point I was making in relation to looking in both directions at once was one where I was trying point out that there seems to be quite a few contradictions in your arguments. Also, I’m not sure that I can take your comments on tolerance or freedoms seriously taking account of the fact that you seem, according to your last post, rather agressive and angry against religions. Indeed history is littered with examples of people that have suffered because of their beliefs at the hands of those that weren’t very tolerant to belief, and vice versa, but intolerance has been the common factor. Like I stated in my last post, Intolerance of religion appears to be increasingly more dangerous then religious beliefs themselves.

I think we need to be reasonable about this. Parents don’t send their kids to church schools to shield them from different religions. It’s fair to say that most Mothers/ Fathers aren’t thinking about all other religions when deciding where to send their children to be eduated. They are looking for the best schools within a reasonable distance. In relation to allowing teachers to mention religions, but not to teach them. Well, that’s not really a good education is it. I mean.. Should teachers teach the name of the poem, but not the lines. Or just show children a map of the world, but not go more indepth into the geography. Personally, I think a good grounded understanding of religion should be given…Not because I believe, but because religion is an elephant in the room, if you know what I mean. But they should also be taught about the downsides of religion/s…It’s shouldn’t be just the “It’s all Good” style teaching.

I agree with you that there are aspects to religion that are terrible, and in some cases barbaric. I see many aspects of life, even outside of religion as awful, but i wouldn’t want to find all society guilty. Nor will I pretend that there are no aspects to religions that are good. In fact, I think increasingly that many within religion are questioning many aspects of their religions..Personally I see this as a step in the eventual evaporation of religion…Just as I believe that it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to have the right for their children to be educated in religious schools, where, by the way, they learn more than just religion all day, I also think that children being thought other aspects of religion that most people would agree are good, is perfectly fine… But if you’re going to drop the axe on everything in life that you can find wrong with, then you will eventually find yourself standing in the ruins of everything.

There are good people and bad people in the world…..Okay, that was established long ago. But the point is that you seem full of hatrid towards religion, it almost seems like an obsession. As if your lack of belief depends on belief. Or perhaps, you’re less an atheist, and more an anti-theist, and need religion to justify your position.

I agree that ethics and morality do not equal faith, again that was established long ago. Some may see your idea of ethics and morality as your own faith, assuming of course that you have faith in them. And going by the way you talk about a framework, it sounds like you see them as organised, and if your children or friends follow them as you do i’m sure….then perhaps you have the green shots of a religion.

Finally….the pope isn’t responsible for AIDS or the spread of AIDS. I mean, most of the world doesn’t pay any attention to the pope, and in countries where AIDS is on the rise, they have no access to contraception, even if they wanted it……….STD’s are on the rise all over Ireland amongst the young…..Do you think that’s because they’re all listening to the popes teachings on the use of condoms? Now come on, get real.

After reading your response I can’t help but feel that you are trying to look in both directions at once on many of the points you made. For example, you state that the RCC shouldn’t have any input when it comes to the education on minors, but then you go and state the importance of tolerance and freedoms. I assume therefore that you would be tolerant towards a parent that decided that they wanted their child/ren educated in church schools…..Or do you think that they shouldn’t have that right. I think it’s a bit rich for you to lecture about all free societies only to say that no church should be allowed into the education system educating children. Religion is one of those aspects of life that is so important to so many people that you can’t just decide to dismiss or it for so many and expect them to be comfortable with it, even if you are only trying to dismiss it for their children in school. Although, as I stated at the start of this paragraph, you seem to be looking in both directions on the subject, as in the last paragraph in your last response, you seem to imply that teachers should be able to teach religion in schools, in contrast to what you stated at first, and in previous posts.

May I ask, should parents be allowed educate their children about religion….Or is it just certain people that you are intolerant in allowing to teach it i.e. those that are the clergy?

Finally, in response to the comments in the second paragraph…..well, what can I say….I just wanted to you elaborate, no one was asking you to go OTT….that was purely your own choice. I must say however, that there have been a lot of people with the titles that you listed that have been very good people, simply because they held such a title does not make them bad, or bad for kids.

Okay, let’s be honest…….I believe in no God, simply out experience and what seems commonsense to me, not to all, but just to me. I often ask people how many Gods they believe in, and most say one, I ask, why not two, and when they say there is no reason to believe in two, I respond……”That is the reason I don’t believe in one”. I agree with you on the point that people want to believe in a God, just to comfort themselves……..As the idea of a divine being going about the universe, handing out justice and doing good is what they want to believe. Even reasonable questions like, where is God, what is god made from, why won’t god appear are enough to discredit religions in my own opinion.

But, let there be no doubt, there are many good people in the world, that a deeply devoted to their religions, and indeed do great good. And it would appear that it’s their beliefs that motivate them…Let them teach….I think intolerance against religion is becoming more dangerous than religion itself.
Many people that claim atheism claim to be so for no other reason than a modern day fashion, and the hope that they may be seen as an intellect if they are seen to be wearing this fashionable intangible jewel . Many are against religion and like to ridicule those that may align themselves with a faith. NOT GOOD. There is a difference between those that attack religion / beliefs, and those of us that simply do not believe, but don’t want to use it as an excuse to undermine others right to decide, or to make decisions for their children.

Reasonable debate will win the day, but over time………Not some odd logical that we should on the warpath suppressing belief, albeit through peoples children.

BTW I have nothing against blokes dressing themselves however they wish, just that they don’t do the other two things as well!