Atheism

I suspect our political masters don't want a populace educated in critical thinking. They want you to know just enough to register and vote, but not enough to look deeply into the issues and make an informed choice. Cynical old me . . .

I wouldn't be so quick to call it being a cynic. More of a realist.

http://oblogdeeoblogda.me/2014/04/20/ugandan-catholic-easter-message-calls-for-genocide-of-gays/

Yay for jeebus?

That's doesn't approach cynical Setanta. It's a trite old platitude.

The deeper you look into issues the less chance there is of making an informed choice. I don't recommend it.

Your political masters want you to want to work. Which is incredible from an evolutionary point of view.

It's quite amusing actually.

The more people talk about critical thinking and looking deeply into issues the more you can be sure that they have never engaged in either activity and probably have no idea what they entail.

The idea that Melanie Nathan has anything to do with Jesus is proof that no thinking of any sort is going on and a pure conditioned reflex to a conditioned stimulus is popping out.

You Canadian Traitor!

More of that ol' time religion:



http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/04/18/14/filipinos-dutch-crucified-good-friday-rites

The brits still have an official brit state religion, like Israel or Iran. That's not very progressive...

Yes, but they're taking it out of their politics. When I visited Central Asia some years ago, many of those countries make it illegal to promote religion, and most are Muslim countries. I see that as progressive compared to the US and many other countries.

I don't know... if we start to stuff the head of kids with atheism, it's gona be just another state religion, as it was in the USSR. Freedom of speech trumps everything for me. That includes freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

I'm not even suggesting that kids be taught atheism or any religion. That should be the choice of the individual. For most people, religion is an accident of birth; they follow in the religion of their parents. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just that religion should not monopolize our politics.

Most people don't understand that "freedom of religion" should also be "freedom from religion" in politics.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is quite progressive in England it is fair to say. How exactly would you progress further than what is the current practice.

To compare us to Iran is ridiculous. That suggests a propagandist at work to me and they are the sworn enemy of freedom of speech. Like Iran we wear shoes and have tap water.

Separation of Church and State is a grave error of judgement. It lays down the red carpet strewn with roses for charlatanism, demagoguery , tailor-made religion, marketing and confusion leading to incomprehensibility. As we can see.

Yes, too much religion in politics is definitely an issue in the US.

Please... What is Anglicanism if not a "tailor-made religion"?

The fact is that the UK still has a state religion, like Iran and Israel. I am not saying they are the same type of countries, just that on this issue of separation of church and state, they are as non-progressive as can be.

It is of no consequence to even a half-baked evolutionist that the matter is an issue (definitely being a uselss word) in the US. It is an issue everywhere except possibly in remote locations in the Gobi desert.

It is what works that counts. So take religion out of politics and see if that works more to your satisfaction. Somebody's less is often still somebody else's too much.

But as you cannot imagine such a state of affairs let alone describe it you are self-evidently, from a low-gear critical thinking point of view, comparing, invidiously, religion in politics as it is and has been, with some airy-fairy abstraction about which you haven't the faintest idea and thus have no route to get you to it. It sounds like the Steps to Heaven to me bathed in a golden haze of self-justifying nitwittery.

Dafter even because it's located here on earth in contradiction to every single piece of evidence whereas the StH are only one possibility regarding the after-life and might be said to have equal validity to any other speculation.

Taking religion out of politics does work better than the alternative, spendi... no need to reinvent the wheel.

I don't want to get into another debate about the absurdity of Anglicanism.

It is often seen in our much too progressive nation as the Conservative Party at prayer, for more getting and spending, or a £billion property company. Or sometimes as the provider of comfortable niches for the younger sons of the gentry. Jane Austen is quite good at examining the latter.

What is so wonderful about progressiveness? One might paint the walls of one's rooms but continually painting them as if painting walls gives a meaning to things cannot but result in there being no room left to stand. Painting yourself into a corner times four.

You're wrong on that score, spendi. When people with religion push the teachings of the bible such as "homosexuals are sinners" and they try to defeat equal treatment for them is simply wrong. Who's to decide what other humans love is, and deny them equal rights?

The bible is the only place that talks against homosexuality.

Most religions denigrate women. What's so good about religion in politics?

If you want to raise the boogeyman of tailor-made religion, you could do better than harp on Anglicanism...

Try a little more consistency, and a little less random ranting against everything and its opposite.

State religions limit equality between members of society, and are prone to persecution of other religions and beliefs, or lack thereof, which is why I dislike them.

Stealth . . . i'm a stealth traitor . . . i'm not actually Canajun.