Elimination of religion

[nygreenguy]

Im not sure if this is philosophy but this is about morals.

Is it wrong to want religion eliminated. Does it seem prejudicial to think this belief set is a disease on society?

Is it wrong for me to think that their beliefs SHOULD be able to be examined when it comes to things like public jobs? (pending they may interfere like in teaching or making laws)

Am I a bigot?

[RexT]

If you eliminated all religious people from public jobs, society would crumble. They make up the vast majority of people.

And yes, I think it is wrong to want to eliminate and entire class of people. I know you meant to eliminate their beliefs and not them, but how would you eliminate beliefs without eliminating the believer?

[Michael]

Im not sure if this is philosophy but this is about morals.Is it wrong to want religion eliminated. Does it seem prejudicial to think this belief set is a disease on society? Is it wrong for me to think that their beliefs SHOULD be able to be examined when it comes to things like public jobs? (pending they may interfere like in teaching or making laws)
Am I a bigot?

I don't think it is wong to want religion eliminated, but I'd say otherwise if you tried to eliminate religion.

[Garnet]

Let me ask this. Suppose there is a bridge engineer that works for the department of transportation in your state. The guy is a great engineer, a genius, in fact.

Now say said engineer dances naked around a bonfire every Wednesday night to celebrate the life giving breath of the great dragon.

Does it really matter?

[shipload]

No...It doesn't matter.

However, suppose there is a very influential man, with connections and money, who believes that the world is headed to a global conflagration he believes is foretold in documents and teachings he holds sacred. He wishes to help bring about this conflagration, as he believes it will usher in the reign of his god on earth. Should such a man be allowed to be president and have access to launching weapons which would bring about such a conflagration?

What if his beliefs also lead him to view extant natural resources as extractable up until the conflagration...thereby threatening billions of people.

[tjakey]

Though I am probably as "anti-religious" as any, I would really like to think I am for things more then against them. Rather then being against religion I am for education. Rather then being against some group of believers I am for tolerance, me for them AND them for me. I think religion should be taught in the schools in the sense that they are examined and studied like any other social structure. I have no fear that in an arena of free discussion religion fades as the truth is understood. What I am for more than anything is that arena of free discussion.

[nygreenguy]

If you eliminated all religious people from public jobs, society would crumble. They make up the vast majority of people.


Me:
Is it wrong for me to think that their beliefs SHOULD be able to be examined when it comes to things like public jobs? (pending they may interfere like in teaching or making laws)


And yes, I think it is wrong to want to eliminate and entire class of people. I know you meant to eliminate their beliefs and not them, but how would you eliminate beliefs without eliminating the believer? The how isnt the issue, and people deconvert all the time without disappearing.

[nygreenguy]

I don't think it is wong to want religion eliminated, but I'd say otherwise if you tried to eliminate religion.

Why?

[nygreenguy]

Let me ask this. Suppose there is a bridge engineer that works for the department of transportation in your state. The guy is a great engineer, a genius, in fact.

Now say said engineer dances naked around a bonfire every Wednesday night to celebrate the life giving breath of the great dragon.

Does it really matter?

It depends if you read my op or not.


Why does it seem many conveniently miss the "interfere with their job ie education/ law making etc..." part?

[RexT]

The how isnt the issue, and people deconvert all the time without disappearing.Well, since you put it that way, I have no problem if you want to convince people to deconvert via argument, education, etc.

[nygreenguy]

Well, since you put it that way, I have no problem if you want to convince people to deconvert via argument, education, etc.

Yes, oh gosh, I wouldnt consider killing them all.


That would be too easy.


Ok, that was low. (but still funny)

I just think there needs to be a more active front in challenging evolution. Im sick of them getting to blabber on in schools, courts, in our governmental offices, in the media seemingly unchallenged.

We need to make it certain its not WRONG to be an athiest. Granted, most of US already do, but we need to spread this to others.

I may seem like an ass sometimes when I challenge creo-freaks who are publicly evangelizing, but why should it seem ok for them to spread their shit, but not for me to challenge it?

Im usually called a bigot for such action.

Just pisses me off and makes me irrational.


Bastards I tell you, the whole lot of them.

[RexT]

So you want to challenge evolution in schools and end religion? Ok, call me confused. If you're joking I'm not laughing. If you have a serious point then perhaps you could be a bit clearer and make your argument more explicit.

[Michael]

Why?

Well, if by 'try' you mean to merely argue religion to be useless or somehow epistemically/morally impermissible, then I'd retract my statement. Yet, if by 'try' you mean something like machiavellian means, abuse, prohibit, harass, etc the free expression of religion, then i'd conflict with you. I'd conflict because I believe you to be violating another person's freedom.

Otherwise, I'd view your 'trying' as permissible albeit unfortunate because...God exists! And, Religion rocks my socks! ;)

[Garnet]

It depends if you read my op or not.


Why does it seem many conveniently miss the "interfere with their job ie education/ law making etc..." part?

How do you know if someone's beliefs will interfere with their job? Particularly before you hire them? You have to investigate and probe. Is that the right thing to do? How do you make the determination that someone's beliefs are an impediment to their ability to perform work? If you open the door to examining beliefs then you're going to find out that engineer dances naked around a bonfire, even when it doesn't matter.

I'm not talking about world politicians here, that's a whole different set of issues.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Let me ask this. Suppose there is a bridge engineer that works for the department of transportation in your state. The guy is a great engineer, a genius, in fact.

Now say said engineer dances naked around a bonfire every Wednesday night to celebrate the life giving breath of the great dragon.

Does it really matter?

Say instead he dances around a burning cross every Wednesday night dressed in white robes and hoods. Would that matter to you? Religion is just a world view. It is a choice.

[Flying Buttress]

Wanting anything is not wrong; it's whether and how one tries to obtain their wants that may be problematic.

One's beliefs are their own business. Their actions are the basis for judgment.

[Garnet]

Say instead he dances around a burning cross every Wednesday night dressed in white robes and hoods. Would that matter to you? Religion is just a world view. It is a choice.

His fashion choice and object of veneration doesn't matter to me.

[Pavlov's Dog]

His fashion choice and object of veneration doesn't matter to me.

It is not a fashion choice. It is symbolism that means something to him. It is part of his world view that I find repulsive. I would never knowingly higher a KKK member or a neo-Nazis, even if they only did their racist stuff on their own time. They can have their freedom of speech and I can have my freedom of association.

[Matty]

And yes, I think it is wrong to want to eliminate and entire class of people. I know you meant to eliminate their beliefs and not them, but how would you eliminate beliefs without eliminating the believer?

I dont think eliminating then is necessary, hwever i'm all for any of these people losing their jobs the second they put religious sensibilities above their actual job description (i'm thinking the pharmacist - morning after pills, and muslim - pork product and alcoholism treatment debacles) . The second they make that choice it should be perfectly legitimate to say:

"YOU chose your religious sensibilities over your job, you are fired and dont expect a reference. if you are lucky maybe your God will pay your mortgage for you, but i doubt it, now get the fuck off my premises and go sort out your priorities, dipshit. "

How do you know if someone's beliefs will interfere with their job? Suppose i am a pork butcher and i have a devout jawa costume wearing muslim apply for an assistants position. Would it be wrong for me to think that maybe she is going to be a fucking pain in the ass if i employ her and choose not to go thst route (yes, it would in the current climate, but i posit that it shouldnt be) ? How about an off licence? Pharmacists, abortion clinic? Pig farm? Shellfish factory, stem cell lab? There are a zillion jobs out there with direct conflict with someone religious so-called morality and that should be recognised and the PC laws over such bullshit equality shoud be revised. If people cant or wont do the job they applied for and are paid for, bin them, then they should only be able to whine about religious bias to their vicar or imam, not to the fucking industrial tribunal.

On the flip side, it is perfectly legit to be biased against atheist old me, were i to apply for a job as a vicar or priest.

I think religious sensibilities are a very clear indicator in some cases of how effectively people are going to be able to follow their job descriptions. Basically if there is any obvious "moral" conflicts between aspects of the job and the religion of the person involved, it should be perfectly allowable to not employ them on that basis.

Now all that said , much as i do think that religion is a weeping pox sore on the fetid arse of humankind, many people ARE able to exist without ramming it down other peoples throats, so i would gladly give them the one chance to do so. One and only.

[dug_down_deep]

Call me cynical, but I think that mostly business people aren't qualified to make judgments on people based on perceived distinctions in their beliefs, since we must assume that much of the time the business person starts from a flawed belief system to begin with. Of course you can present hyperbolic examples to make the issue seem simpler than it is, but that doesn't mean the issue is simple. It just means your example is simple.

On whether or not it is OK to want religion to go away, of course it is. Maybe a more interesting discussion would be: Why do you want religion to go away?

(But then the thread will probably belong in the Religions (http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)forum.)

[kennethamy]

Call me cynical, but I think that mostly business people aren't qualified to make judgments on people based on perceived distinctions in their beliefs, since we must assume that much of the time the business person starts from a flawed belief system to begin with. Of course you can present hyperbolic examples to make the issue seem simpler than it is, but that doesn't mean the issue is simple. It just means your example is simple.

On whether or not it is OK to want religion to go away, of course it is. Maybe a more interesting discussion would be: Why do you want religion to go away?

(But then the thread will probably belong in the Religions (http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)forum.)

I think that this thread has no philosophical content, and very little content of any other kind.

[Garnet]

It is not a fashion choice. It is symbolism that means something to him. It is part of his world view that I find repulsive. I would never knowingly higher a KKK member or a neo-Nazis, even if they only did their racist stuff on their own time. They can have their freedom of speech and I can have my freedom of association.

I figured you were heading that direction. I find that world view repulsive as well. I also find several components of Christianity repulsive and borderline abusive. So?

Do you then support interviewing someone you are going to hire about their religious, political and social beliefs? And if you personally find something repulsive about their world view, then it's a-ok not to hire them?

Keep in mind that many people find atheism repulsive and equate atheism with a complete lack of morality.

[dug_down_deep]

I think that this thread has no philosophical content, and very little content of any other kind.
I agree with the first part of that comment, and disagree with the second.

I'm sending this one to Religions. Amen.

[kennethamy]

I agree with the first part of that comment, and disagree with the second.

I'm sending this one to Religions. Amen.

Well, you may be a minimalist. That's fine.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Do you then support interviewing someone you are going to hire about their religious, political and social beliefs? And if you personally find something repulsive about their world view, then it's a-ok not to hire them?

Not religion, because that would be illegal. But yes, I would not hire someone who had a worldview that I found repulsive.

Keep in mind that many people find atheism repulsive and equate atheism with a complete lack of morality.

And that is their right. Religion always gets lumped in with things like race, sex, etc. Religion is a choice that people make.

[Garnet]

Not religion, because that would be illegal. But yes, I would not hire someone who had a worldview that I found repulsive.

If you could change the rules, would you include religion in that? Would you modify your hiring processes to include questions about a person's worldview?

That's what I'm trying to get to. Should a decision to hire someone include an investigation of what they believe and what worldviews they hold?



And that is their right. Religion always gets lumped in with things like race, sex, etc. Religion is a choice that people make.

I'm not speaking to a person's right to an opinion. Nor am I speaking to whether or not religion is a choice.

[Matty]

i think if is is even remotely likely to have a bearing on the ability to do the job then bloody right it should be involved and used as a legit reason for a negative decision.

Until the day there is an atheist Pope, i think it is massively unequal.

To be fair if i had a devout religious type apply for a job, i would question their smarts before their morality. Not long before but it would be my first thought.

"Hmm, your CV says you are a YEC. Well i HAD to interview you legally speaking however if you believe in a 6000year old earth, you are clearly not smart enough to work anywhere other than MacDonalds, and even then i'd probably keep you away from the hot and sharp things, so lets not waste both our time. Thanks for applying, dont let the door hit your arse on the way out. "

[Pavlov's Dog]

If you could change the rules, would you include religion in that? Would you modify your hiring processes to include questions about a person's worldview?

Yes.

That's what I'm trying to get to. Should a decision to hire someone include an investigation of what they believe and what worldviews they hold?

For some jobs, more than others, but yes.

[Pavlov's Dog]

"Hmm, your CV says you are a YEC. Well i HAD to interview you legally speaking however if you believe in a 6000year old earth, you are clearly not smart enough to work anywhere other than MacDonalds, and even then i'd probably keep you away from the hot and sharp things, so lets not waste both our time. Thanks for applying, dont let the door hit your arse on the way out. "

Where is the rep button when you need it.

[Garnet]

For some jobs, more than others, but yes.

Then we are in partial agreement. My only difference is that I would say for some jobs, yes. For the majority of jobs, no.

In my specific example of the engineer, his proclivity to dance around a bonfire and pay homage to a dragon has no bearing his ability to perform his job.

I understand the distinctions of when world views do impede someone's ability to do a job. I like Matty's examples, in particular. I get concerned however, with the idea that potential employers should delve into things in a person's background that have absolutely no bearing on their ability to perform work. My employer has no need to know that I am an atheist, that I do not associate myself specifically with any political party, that I am pro-choice, that I think monogamy is vastly over rated and that yes, gay people should be able to get married.

I realize that was not part of the intention of the OP that everyone should be questioned about their beliefs or worldview for every job. And I've probably gone off on a de-rail. But I've seen and experienced things that make me wonder if examining a person's world view before being hired, whether it matters or not, could really happen.

[Christina]

I don't know that I would discrimate based on religious beliefs even if I could, but if someone stated their religious beliefs in an interview or on their resume I would probably not hire them based on their lack of good judgment. We're serious about people keeping their religious beliefs out of the workplace and it's a stupid thing to bring up in an interview.

[nygreenguy]

Then we are in partial agreement. My only difference is that I would say for some jobs, yes. For the majority of jobs, no.



This is more what a meant. We simply couldnt have a YEC evolution professor. I also dont think we should have a JW surgeon, or pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions.

And now we have these fucks demanding time to pray, having special washing stations, etc...

Bullshit. And if we refuse to accommodate their bullshit then were bigots.

[Ray Moscow]

"Hmm, your CV says you are a YEC. Well i HAD to interview you legally speaking however if you believe in a 6000year old earth, you are clearly not smart enough to work anywhere other than MacDonalds, and even then i'd probably keep you away from the hot and sharp things, so lets not waste both our time. Thanks for applying, dont let the door hit your arse on the way out. "

If the candidate was a geologist, would/could you trust the guy not to throw a "flood correction" into his calculations or some such nonsense?

"Hmmm ... you do realise that we're drilling into strata that, according to your worldview, do not and cannot exist, right?" :)

Or if she were a microbiologist, who just thought evolution was a bunch of hooey?

"No, microorganisms really do evolve resistance to antibiotics. It's not 'just a theory'."

[Matty]

Thats also a bloody good point, I hadn't even started on the "interpretive" sides of things. We could be there quite a while, i hadnt even finished questioning their smarts and general morality!!


What the fuck happened to that satellite Ali Durka, that's 30, million bucks worth and you assured me you had calculated its trajectory to the nearest...........oh shit, no. no, no Tell me you didnt use the projected speed of angels doing laps round a pinhead as a baseline velocity again did you. You didnt? Phew.

Hold on what d'you mean you thought the firmament would stop it, oh for fucks sake..........

[Pavlov's Dog]

I understand the distinctions of when world views do impede someone's ability to do a job.

I don't care how great of an engineer he is, I will not hire someone who is actively in the KKK.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't care how great of an engineer he is, I will not hire someone who is actively in the KKK.

Me, neither. You have to consider his/her impact on the rest of the employees, the customers, the company's reputation, etc.

[Jobar]

I do believe that life and property will be safer, that liberty will be surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be more joyous, and death less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah can be destroyed from the human mind.

That said, though, I won't agree that the elimination of *all* religions would be a good thing.

I think there are some religions that may do more good than harm. Zen Buddhism springs to mind. So does Taoism. And I've got no serious beef with Unitarian Universalists, or even Quakers and reformed Jews, for that matter. As long as a religion doesn't damn unbelievers, and doesn't proselytize unduly; and doesn't demean or abuse its believers, or require them to profess things completely contrary to fact, then it may be a net benefit to the society which contains it.

[Matty]

True too PD and RM , the implications extend much further than the actual effect on their personal job ability.

Taking on one person at the rick of pissing off the rest of your workforces, and at the risk of portraying your company as "racist friendly" is hardly worth it.

Thats not even taking any personal feelings into account.

[dug_down_deep]

Until the day there is an atheist Pope, i think it is massively unequal.
How do you know there isn't?

Back when my family was attending services at a Reform Jewish synagogue, my wife raised the question, Do you think the rabbi believes in God? At first glance, the question seems silly, but when you think about the possibilities, it's a good question. What if you attended seminary school, read a whole bunch of torah and so forth, and then found yourself actually doubting the existence of the god that is being talked about? Would you necessarily abandon your career, especially if you felt that the religion was still effectively a good thing?

And consider that belief tests are subject to the same sorts of faults that dicta like Only heterosexuals need apply are subject to. Good thing all those priests and conservatives aren't gay, right? Good thing all those commies don't love personal power, right?

Nothing is simple. People are notoriously bad at judging other people.

[Garnet]

I don't care how great of an engineer he is, I will not hire someone who is actively in the KKK.

Good for you. Now, be sure to thoroughly investigate everyone you hire to make sure of that. Start with the interview question, "Are you an active member of the Ku Klux Klan?" Follow up with private investigators to make sure they didn't lie about it. Let me know how that works out for you.

[Matty]

How do you know there isn't?

Back when my family was attending services at a Reform Jewish synagogue, my wife raised the question, Do you think the rabbi believes in God? At first glance, the question seems silly, but when you think about the possibilities, it's a good question. What if you attended seminary school, read a whole bunch of torah and so forth, and then found yourself actually doubting the existence of the god that is being talked about? Would you necessarily abandon your career, especially if you felt that the religion was still effectively a good thing?
I would, because the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of telling people to believe and live their lives according to things you no longer believe, would be too much. I know some people (pick a pope) get off on getting paid for hypocrisy, but i couldn't do it, I long ago realises my penchant for straight talk and honesty is probably the one thing standing between me and my millions.

I do cynically wonder how much such people actually believe vs simply say/perpetuate to further their own power and money goals, but thats a different question.

You have a point about secret beliefs though, what i mean is that only when someone can openly say "I do not believe in God" and still be head of a a church or religion, THEN we can start to pretend like religious beliefs have no bearing on employability or suitability in some sectors. If the religious were open minded enough to subscribe to such a thing, i'd be a lot happier to employ an overtly Xtian scientist, however the phrase "till hell exists AND freezes over" would seem somewhere like the type of time-scale I'll be waiting.

[Ray Moscow]

Good for you. Now, be sure to thoroughly investigate everyone you hire to make sure of that. Start with the interview question, "Are you an active member of the Ku Klux Klan?" Follow up with private investigators to make sure they didn't lie about it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Once I interviewed with a very large company, who asked me to affirm on their application that "I have never been a member of the American Socialist Party or any other subversive organisation."

This was a couple of decades ago, but I wonder whether that's still on their applications.

[Garnet]

Once I interviewed with a very large company, who asked me to affirm on their application that "I have never been a member of the American Socialist Party or any other subversive organisation."

This was a couple of decades ago, but I wonder whether that's still on their applications.

Wow. That's a blast from the past that is best left there.

I know that people applying for jobs that require security clearances have all kinds of hoops to jump through. I wonder if questions like the one you mentioned are asked.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Good for you. Now, be sure to thoroughly investigate everyone you hire to make sure of that. Start with the interview question, "Are you an active member of the Ku Klux Klan?" Follow up with private investigators to make sure they didn't lie about it. Let me know how that works out for you.

A lot companies do thoroughly investigate people they are hiring. This is not news.

[Garnet]

A lot companies do thoroughly investigate people they are hiring. This is not news.

Yup. That's pretty much a blinding flash of the obvious.

[Christina]

Once I interviewed with a very large company, who asked me to affirm on their application that "I have never been a member of the American Socialist Party or any other subversive organisation."

This was a couple of decades ago, but I wonder whether that's still on their applications.


I once interviewed with Ross Perot's company when I was a senior in college. The personal questions that they asked and their morality rules for employees were unbelievable. I waited until they made an offer to laugh in their faces.

[Matty]

I dont get it, its like the questions on immigration."Have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation?"

"Oh, shit i have too, now do i have to mention that 2 month work placement with the Bader Meinhof group or is it only full time Red Hand Gang position?"

I mean who the fuck is going to honestly and openly answer a question that is quite obviously going to get them canned on the spot. Or is that the point, to weed out the distasteful + too dumb to lie? I';ve never quite understood the point of a such questions.

[Christina]

My guess is that Perot had no trouble finding fundies to work for him. When I got to the parts about how I couldn't 'live in sin' with a man, wear pants, smoke or use drugs or alcohol I was cracking up, but the part about programmers having to wear suits or dresses when we got called in for production problems in the middle of the night was a deal breaker all on it's own.

[trendkill]

Religion is just a world view. It is a choice.Views are not choices.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Yup. That's pretty much a blinding flash of the obvious.

Then what made you think it would be a big deal for me to do it?

[Garnet]

Then what made you think it would be a big deal for me to do it?

I didn't say it was a big deal.

ETA: If you want to screen all potential job candidates for membership in the KKK, knock yourself out.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I didn't say it was a big deal.

My mistake. You made it seem like it would be a big deal to have to do that.

ETA: If you want to screen all potential job candidates for membership in the KKK, knock yourself out.

Oh. You did it again.

[DMB]

How do you know there isn't?

Back when my family was attending services at a Reform Jewish synagogue, my wife raised the question, Do you think the rabbi believes in God? At first glance, the question seems silly, but when you think about the possibilities, it's a good question. What if you attended seminary school, read a whole bunch of torah and so forth, and then found yourself actually doubting the existence of the god that is being talked about? Would you necessarily abandon your career, especially if you felt that the religion was still effectively a good thing?

And consider that belief tests are subject to the same sorts of faults that dicta like Only heterosexuals need apply are subject to. Good thing all those priests and conservatives aren't gay, right? Good thing all those commies don't love personal power, right?

Nothing is simple. People are notoriously bad at judging other people.

I have known Catholic missionaries who certainly didn't go along with the Vatican line on things. I imagine they felt they had an important job to do regardless.

A few years ago a survey of vicars in the CofE came up with about a third of them being atheists. It doesn't really surprise me. I knew one who I'm sure was, and I don't hang around vicars all that much.

I imagine for a lot of them it must come on slowly when they're in post. Some do give up in mid career; for others it requires more courage than they have. If you look on it as a career that is feeding your family, giving it up must present the same problems as it does for other professionals. I know teachers who grew to hate the job, but feared to take the leap into something else.

[DMB]

Well, if by 'try' you mean to merely argue religion to be useless or somehow epistemically/morally impermissible, then I'd retract my statement. Yet, if by 'try' you mean something like machiavellian means, abuse, prohibit, harass, etc the free expression of religion, then i'd conflict with you. I'd conflict because I believe you to be violating another person's freedom.

Otherwise, I'd view your 'trying' as permissible albeit unfortunate because...God exists! And, Religion rocks my socks! ;)

This is all well and good, until you examine what the free expression of a religion means. How about the free expression of my religion (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=3604&postcount=8)?

Freedom of belief is a core human right. The problem of free expression of any particular religion arises when it conflicts with the human rights of others.

[dug_down_deep]

Freedom of belief is a core human right. The problem of free expression of any particular religion arises when it conflicts with the human rights of others.
I pretty much agree with this, but would modify it a touch. Freedom of belief is a given, a human trait. What we do with that belief, including just saying we have it, should be categorized as expression.

[Garnet]

My mistake. You made it seem like it would be a big deal to have to do that.

Big deal isn't what I have used or would use to describe such a process.



Oh. You did it again.

Nope.

[yautja_cetanu]

Is it wrong for me to think that their beliefs SHOULD be able to be examined when it comes to things like public jobs? (pending they may interfere like in teaching or making laws)

I think its "wrong" in the sense that its logically inconsistent. You have intefered in teaching and making laws with your beliefs merely to stop someone interferring and making their laws based on their beliefs.

Now if you were to ask the question "Is it wrong for me to want everyone who has a say in influencing a country to think exactly as I do?" Thats o.k and logically consistent :P In fact its what plenty of people do believe.... its not very nice though...

Keep in mind that many people find atheism repulsive and equate atheism with a complete lack of morality.

Interestingly enough one of the first christian apologetics (Article written in defense of the faith) called "First apology" by Justin Marry (sp?) was written against the romans who claimed that christians were atheist and immoral and therefore needed punishment! :P

[nygreenguy]

I think its "wrong" in the sense that its logically inconsistent. You have intefered in teaching and making laws with your beliefs merely to stop someone interferring and making their laws based on their beliefs. I am literally "without belief", so i wouldnt be a lawmaker basing laws on my disbelief. This is contrary to someone making laws based upon not just a "belief" but on faith. Faith is the all mighty brainkiller here and has no role in lawmaking.

[yautja_cetanu]

I am literally "without belief", so i wouldnt be a lawmaker basing laws on my disbelief. This is contrary to someone making laws based upon not just a "belief" but on faith. Faith is the all mighty brainkiller here and has no role in lawmaking.

Then what do you base your laws on?
- If its your own common sense -> Then that fine but you're a dictator (imho anyway a benevolent dictator is easily the way to go)
- If its a on a particular philosophical ideal -> really show me one that works and start lobbying to get the English Legal system to use it because currently its a mess!
- If its on a general democratic worldview. Then you have to allow consensus from all the opposition especially those you disagree with. Most of these people will be "stupid people" (I think its churchhill who said he main reason for liking democracy was that it hasn't had the chance to fail yet. And in England the word was originally seen as 'evil' and associated with french revolutionary bloodbaths :P)
-If you like the way things are done now with the legal system. Then really its about sticking as many intelligent sounding judges and lawyers in a room so no one really ever know whats going on or what is lawful :P I keep hearing of plenty of fun legal cases from my lawyer friends where its pretty difficult to pinpoint whats going on.

This is contrary to someone making laws based upon not just a "belief" but on faith.

The word faith is really a pretty poorly defined word in popular culture. I'd say law HAS to be based on faith (faith in the judges) because if you don't have faith in them you haven't got anything else (at least in England). American popular culture really deals with the word in such a different way.