A change from politics...

[sqbr]

I've been pondering doing one of these for a while, but wasn't sure I'd get the wording right. Since it worked so well on his lj, I've decided to completely steal the language of angriest's recent post instead(*).

1. Tell me your religious beliefs. It can be as simple as "I am an X" or it can be a lengthy paragraph if you like. If you feel your religious and/or spiritual beliefs are private, either don't reply or leave a note saying as much.
2. If you want to reply to something someone else has written, feel free - particularly if you want to ask them a question about the religion you've always wanted to ask but have never been able to, or felt comfortable enough to.
3. This is one of the biggies: if someone asks you a question and you don't feel comfortable answering it, do not feel obliged to answer. Either don't reply at all, or drop a quick reply saying "I don't really want to answer that".
4. Religious intolerance will not be tolerated. I'm aiming this particularly at the aggressive atheists who seem to get their kicks scoring points, but the rule applies in any direction.

I know a lot of you are on both flists, I decided to do it now while it's still fresh in your heads. You are quite welcome to repeat/post a link to your comment over there! And yes fred_mouse I know you were also planning on stealing his idea, but, well, there's no reason it can't be stolen multiple times :D

(*)And yes, I checked it was ok. Don't want to be sued for copyright violation by the big mean famous writer :)

Comments

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I'm an atheist.

As I said there, I believe intensely in the separation of Church and State, and also believe that so long as we continue to fail at that (and we are failing), there can be no true, mutual religious/spiritual tolerance.

Atheists are angry because of Christianist hegemony that interferes with our human rights. To me, telling us not to be angry is like telling feminists to be nicer.

Asking us not to go out of our way to be meanyheaded to individuals who are minding their own business is, obviously, just fine.

[alias_sqbr]

I believe intensely in the separation of Church and State, and also believe that so long as we continue to fail at that (and we are failing), there can be no true, mutual religious/spiritual tolerance.

Yes, and being angry about that is I think completely understandable. It makes me pretty angry sometimes, though I'm as likely to get angry on behalf of religious non-christians as atheists. (Well, apart from the genuinely "Pro all religions but anti-atheism" crap which assumes everyone has a "higher power" e.g. in * Anonymous or "The Artists way". Though I guess that probably excludes some religions too like animism. Maybe?)

It's the assumption (which you're not making, but I have seen other people make) that every religious person (or every christian, etc) is in favour of theocratic hegemony and thus as an individual worthy of anger which is the problem. I guess the reason I get so annoyed by it is that I got HEAPS of crap from my atheist friends when I was a left-wing, pro-science, pro-separation-of-church-and-state christian, and this actually made me stay christian longer since it seemed the more open minded option. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to say "Don't be an intolerant atheist" etc which keeps the genuinely mean spirited atheists in line without making the decent-but-justifiably-angry atheists feel like they're being told to shut up.

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

This is such a tiny thing, but I do feel guilty when I take advantage of the Christmas postage reduction to send out my cards. Why on earth does the Government sponsor cheap communication for Christians. Not that I don't take advantage of it.

[alias_sqbr]

At least in America they have Thanksgiving, and a large enough jewish population celebrating Hanukkah(*), that "The Holiday season" actually makes some sense. Though I get the feeling it means people have trouble getting their head around any religions having major holidays outside that period or none within it.

That said: I'm not christian, and still sometimes send christmas cards :)

(*)Although apparently this isn't actually that big of a festival compared to some of the others at different times of year

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I don't see your logic. You think sending christmas cards is about being christian? Last time I checked, they mostly have Santa on them.

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

I don't see your logic. You think sending christmas cards is about being christian? Last time I checked, they mostly have Santa on them.

No, I think the public holidays and subsidies are for Christmas, which for me is actually a celebration of my faith (though my Christmas cards are just catch ups). It means one faith gets it made easy to celebrate.

[alias_sqbr]

It's easy not to realise how christian centric the christmas "season" is if you're not a member of a religion whose primary holidays are at a different time, and have to try to schedule work/family etc around them with no help (or understanding) from the government or surrounding culture. I didn't realise until I read some discussion by jews and muslims.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I can see that. It must be annoying being forced to spend nearly 2 weeks of your annual leave when everyone else is on holiday and travel is expensive, when you'd really rather take them at some other time when your family and friends are involved in your cultural / religious festival.

I still don't think christmas cards are about christianity, though. Like Easter eggs and Valentine's presents.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, I see your point. Yes, I think sending christmas cards is a fairly secular act for most people (though one that only makes sense in a semi-christian context), I think it was the fact that they're subsidised that bothers emma_in_oz.

Though I was under the impression all cards were subsidised, just because they're a nice small standard size and weight. *shrugs*

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I think it's interesting the way you talk about the "separation of Church and State" when what you really mean is that you want politicians to act as if they don't have religious beliefs.

Last I checked, aligning your moral system with a particular religion didn't make you a member of the clergy, and the last Bishop who tried to influence an Australian politician got slapped pretty hard by Church *and* State.

Social groups and religions are allowed to have a say in public policy. A separation of Church and State has been lost when judges consult religious texts instead of laws, not when politicians vote to ban gay marriage and go to church on Sundays.

For the record, athiest. Or, as the Dalai Lama says, "compassion is my true religion".

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I think it's interesting the way you talk about the "separation of Church and State" when what you really mean is that you want politicians to act as if they don't have religious beliefs.

No, that's not what I mean.

A separation of Church and State has been lost when judges consult religious texts instead of laws, not when politicians vote to ban gay marriage and go to church on Sundays.

One of these things is not like the other one.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

Well then, please accept my apologies for dressing you up in straw!

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that we are failing to separate Church and State?

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Sure, I can give a few examples.

Most politicians swear on a Bible when they take their oath of office.

There is Christian prayer in Parliament.

Churches such as Hillsong have a presence in State schools.

State funding to Catholic Youth Day.

Children are automatically subjected to Christian doctrine teaching (_not_ teaching about religion, but teaching of Christian doctrine as truth) in Special Religious Education classes in State schools, unless parents specifically opt out.

The human rights of women and gay people - to bodily autonomy and to civil partnerships/marriage - are violated because of religious doctrine.

The State funds Catholic hospitals to provide public services despite their lack of comprehensive health care to women, and their specific efforts to deny women timely access to health care.

The State prevents foreign aid agencies from providing comprehensive health care to women.

That's off the top of my head.

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

I'm going to make a couple of assumptions:
- "comprehensive health care to women" is a metaphor for abortion and other contraception-related treatment.
- You mean "World Youth Day", which is a community event open to embers of any denomination, celebrating Roman Catholicism.

I did a bit of searching, but I can't find any information about these opt-out Special Religious Education classes. All I found were details on opt-in (permission slip required) volunteer-basis RE classes run for state schools by local churches, Catholic, Protestant and any other. I understand that these were "off the top of your head" examples, but could you provide some links to more info on this?

Your responses lead me to believe that you aren't differentiating between "The Church" and religious belief.

We do not have a "State Religion". The power structures of the State do not overlap with any church. Politicians are free to swear on anything they value for their oaths. Having a religious belief - or lack thereof - does not bar you from entering politics. Politicians are required to make moral judgements in making laws, and can draw moral guidance from any source they wish.

If you want a government that is anti-religion, where politicians don't have these freedoms, you had better start your own party. Or move to China.

[alias_sqbr]

I did a bit of searching, but I can't find any information about these opt-out Special Religious Education classes

My state school had someone come in and teach us all creationism, and it was definitely opt-out (not that my parents would have minded RE in principle), but that was years ago.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I wrote about SRE here. It's opt-out by law, though some school may choose it to be opt-in. (Your location may vary.) Schools are not permitted to offer any programmed educational activities to opted-out students during SRE time. And parents and humanist societies who wish to offer a secular ethics option instead have been refused on the grounds that they were not offering an approved religious persuasion.

WA's State Education Department has no idea how many students have been opted out or what religions are being taught in their own State schools. They don't collect that data, and can't answer the question.

On the swearing on a Bible: it matters not to me that politicians can "swear on whatever they wish". I think they _shouldn't_ be swearing on any religious text when taking public office. If they must swear on a wodge of paper (which I find a bizarre concept in itself), how about the Constitution?

Claiming we have no State religion doesn't really ring true to me while the Lord's Prayer is routinely said in Parliament and State schools routinely teach Christianity.

I'm not going to dignify the "if you don't like it, move to China" with a reply. I don't want a government that's "anti-religion"; I want one that's religion-neutral, and that considers religion - all religion, whatever flavour - to be a private matter with no business in State institutions.

[alias_sqbr]

nb: you replied to me, col_ki probably didn't get notified.

Wow, ok, so if that's still in force when I have kids there will be Words.

So certain non-christian religions are allowed? I'd prefer United Universists or Bahai etc to christian, and at least that way the kids would be getting an alternative to the pervasive christianess of society (not that they shouldn't know a bit about christianity too, if only in a "these stories underpin our culture" sort of way. Cam had no religious upbringing and doesn't know useful things like "why is that Supernatural episode called "Lazarus rising"?" etc)

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

(Don't people sub to whole threads? I use subthread notification very sparingly. Ah well, I figure if he's keen on the conversation, he'll come back.)

I've seen the occasional parent report a Baha'i class at their school (again, it wouldn't be my choice - they might give good PR, but their beliefs are sexually repressive, anti-gay (believing as they do in faith-based "cures" of this "abnormality"), and not in favour of repro rights). Anglican, Uniting Church, Catholic seem the commonest faiths taught. I've heard of JW classes, and the occasional Islam one. Never heard of a UU course in Australia.

The general teaching _about_ Christianity falls under GRE, General Religious Education. Obviously, I have no problem with that, and we're teaching it at home same as we do every other cultural feature.

I've also had local Church advertising sent home in the schoolbag from time to time, in State kindergarten, which either means that our teachers are spending time distributing it, or some random outside person is being given access to the kids' belongings on-site during class time.

[alias_sqbr]

I just have notification for all replies to comments I make on by default and tend not to subscribe to much else. Is there a way to set "notify me of any replies in threads I've started" by default?

Huh. Did not know that about the Bahai.