Can you seperate your faith from your politics?

[Wessexman]

I would tend to agree with that. Maybe moreso with the ethical part than the cosmological and metaphysical part, however.

However the others deeply influence one's ethicial views.

Personally I always find it funny atheists are so quick to go from private disbelief to attacking religion in society. It makes little sense to me.

[Smidgey]

However the others deeply influence one's ethicial views.

Personally I always find it funny atheists are so quick to go from private disbelief to attacking religion in society. It makes little sense to me.

Some atheists do, some don't. Some people, take the late Carl Sagan for example, do a much better job than people like Richard Dawkins (a man I find difficult to like). Sagan was never forceful with his views on religion, but he always sought to promote freethough through education. Dawkins' method is too adversarial and aggressive.

Why does it make little sense to you? It might make perfect sense to an atheist, just like it might make perfect sense for a non-Catholic to see a Catholic preaching their beliefs and trying to convert people, especially in the third world. In a sense, religion in society in many nations in the West is quite weak anyway - certainly the Christian religion, I cannot speak for the Muslims, of course...

[Wessexman]

Well it makes little sense to me because I agree with T.S. Eliot that culture and religion are different sides of the same coin or with Russell Kirk, Robert Graves and Eric Voegelin that culture comes from cult. Men act according socially and culturally derived normative ideas as Robert Nisbet put it, these are deep rooted, beyond the complete rational understanding of individuals or an entire generation and tend to gradually merge with ideas of ethics, cosmologgy and metaphysics that can rarely, in human society and history, avoid cross-breeding with spiritual and religious ideas. Certainly I therefore think it is foolish to attack our traditional beliefs but beyond that I even think it necessary, if the traditional belief system is destroyed, that another take its place.

Onnthis view secularism is basically atomism being an attack on society and culture; which it is.

[Smidgey]

Well it makes little sense to me because I agree with T.S. Eliot that culture and religion are different sides of the same coin or with Russell Kirk, Robert Graves and Eric Voegelin that culture comes from cult. Men act according socially and culturally derived normative ideas as Robert Nisbet put it, these are deep rooted, beyond the complete rational understanding of individuals or an entire generation and tend to gradually merge with ideas of ethics, cosmologgy and metaphysics that can rarely, in human society and history, avoid cross-breeding with spiritual and religious ideas. Certainly I therefore think it is foolish to attack our traditional beliefs but beyond that I even think it necessary, if the traditional belief system is destroyed, that another take its place.

Onnthis view secularism is basically atomism being an attack on society and culture; which it is.

Only on that view, which may or may not be correct.

I think you mistake me when you believe me to be a secularist. I am a freethinker, I believe that freedom of religion and conscience is what is important. You see, in my country, there is no established church. That is not the case in England, but the English are welcome to do as they please. The Dutch republic or the USA during its formative years would be good examples of societies with religious toleration (for the most part, certainly compared to many of their contemporaries) that certainly did not lack a culture or social cohesion (intra-state within the USA, probably not inter-state, but that can certainly be put down to its age).

In this country there is also a great tradition of argument in favour of religious toleration, from Locke to Hume and Mill to Russell. Tell me, if you were a Victorian gentleman, would you have opposed Mill's essay on the rights of women because it went against this countries Christian foundations? Many (if not most) at the time did.

[Wessexman]

Only on that view, which may or may not be correct.

It correct, certainly in essentials and certainly a long way beyond all secularist ideas on society, man and religion I've seen, as Durkheim and Weber will back up.

I think you mistake me when you believe me to be a secularist. I am a freethinker, I believe that freedom of religion and conscience is what is important.

This is a secularist assumption, I believe the individual and social well-being more important. You are perhaps more eloquent than the likes of rebirth and the Pope's nanny but your inaccurate assumptions about man and society are little different.

You see, in my country, there is no established church. That is not the case in England, but the English are welcome to do as they please. The Dutch republic or the USA during its formative years would be good examples of societies with religious toleration (for the most part, certainly compared to many of their contemporaries) that certainly did not lack a culture or social cohesion (intra-state within the USA, probably not inter-state, but that can certainly be put down to its age).

However they did not attack their traditional belirf system and values(except for a few like Paine who were generally scorned.). I do not take an established church as essential, I simply see it as a useful prop for a traditionalist idea of social values.

In this country there is also a great tradition of argument in favour of religious toleration, from Locke to Hume and Mill to Russell. Tell me, if you were a Victorian gentleman, would you have opposed Mill's essay on the rights of women because it went against this countries Christian foundations? Many (if not most) at the time did.

I certainly think poorly of all those thinkers particularly the last three but even Locke to quite a degree(I think it was Dr.Johnson who both said the first whig was the devil and that Hume was a Tory chance.).

[Smidgey]

It correct, certainly in essentials and certainly a long way beyond all secularist ideas on society, man and religion I've seen, as Durkheim and Weber will back up.


This is a secularist assumption, I believe the individual and social well-being more important. You are perhaps more eloquent than the likes of rebirth and the Pope's nanny but your inaccurate assumptions about man and society are little different.

However they did not attack their traditional belirf system and values(except for a few like Paine who were generally scorned.). I do not take an established church as essential, I simply see it as a useful prop for a traditionalist idea of social values.

I certainly think poorly of all those thinkers particularly the last three but even Locke to quite a degree(I think it was Dr.Johnson who both said the first whig was the devil and that Hume was a Tory chance.).

There was no argument here except a lot of opinion and personal belief. You think poorly of three thinkers, you think poorly of Paine, highly of Burke, etc, etc.

I get very little actual argument from you, or substantive points, except for your opinion, which is the established opinion of other writers you happen to agree with

[Candour Man]

At the 2008 London Mayoral election I voted CPP, though a non Christan I agreed with meny of your non religious policies.

I planned to do the same for the EU elections the following year, however above the entry on the ballot paper was a blatently Christan slogan, though one I would have found not the lest objectionable outside a Church, neverless considered most inappropiate for use in a modern democratic context.