onegoodmove

Just a quick note, religion has almost never been a cause of conflict, it's usually just an excuse. It's sometimes used as a recruitment tool. But the route causes tend to be simple matters of power and greed.

Also, it's worth nothing that the proposed law doesn't want people to respect religion, it wants people to respect one another and be civil to one another (something you seem willing to accept).

The aim is basically to prevent racist abuse for people who aren't of any actual race. Jewish and Sikh people are currently protected because they're recognised as being ethnically different as well as having a different religion. There is no such protection for Muslims (who come in all shapes, sizes and colours). Given the terror frenzy that's been whipped up by various governments, tabloids and Muslim extremists, a lot of Muslims are suffering an awful lot of abuse: the law has been proposed to protect them from that.

It's important to note that under this law, it would still be legal for a UK newspaper to publish those Danish cartoons. It would not however be legal for them to state that all Muslims are degenerates, or should be deported, or are a bunch of towel-headed barbarians.

Of course, curbing free speech is always dangerous. Arguably those examples above could be equally covered by laws covering incitement to hatred or slander. Fortunately the UK has a reasonably independent judiciary to preside over this, but I still think the wording could be refined a bit more.

It seems naive to think that religion isn't about power and control from which greed inevitably follows.

No it's not, it's perfectly reasonable. How many Buddhists have you met that were driven for World Domination, hell the Dalai Lama is still convinced he can ask China to hand Tibet back to the Tibettans if everyone asks nicely enough.

Here's a definition of religion from dictionary.com

religion, n. 1. (a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1. (b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Only 1(b) has even the potential to result in power-grabs, and even then I would distinguish behind organisations built around religions, and religions themselves. For example, here are plenty of committed Catholics who don't like the Catholic church's stand on certain issues, but still believe in its core principles, just as there are plenty of US citizens who don't approve of the current administration, but still believe in their country, its citizens, and its troops.

I'm not particularly religious myself, I've too many questions (and even a few answers) to utterly devote myself to it. However I have met deeply, genuinely religious people in my life, and they've been decent people who have sought to do decent things; and while we might disagree on certain items (e.g the morning after pill), I can accept that someone may disagree with me. After all, enlightened civilisation is all about people debating things (which implies a disagreement) without personal rancour. And while you may consider them to be brain-washed, most religious people's views are based on solid principles (in the case of the morning after pill, it's very hard to draw a line in the sand between human and not human, and the safest bet is simply to assume one is human from conception. The fact that 60% of embryos get accidentally washed out at the end of the month is why I think the pill is morally safe enough).

I don't think you need to come up with any bogey man to explain greed. It's a simple part of the human condition (i.e. the rise of rational thought over bas instincts). Watch three and four year-old children fight over toys in the playground to see what I mean.

As for power it's just a particularly strong form of greed. Religion is just an tool the power-greedy use to manipulate people to their ends. Other tools are latent racism (Aryan versus gypsy for example), frustration (Weimar), even patriotism (manifested through facism). That they can use religon for this purpose demonstrates the need for one to be able to discuss the merits and demerits of various forms of belief and thought in the open, and for such discussions to be widely disseminated and taught.

However to say that religion is the root cause of conflicts (or even all evil) is fundamentally wrong. Further, genuinely religious people almost never seek power: generally it's people seeking power who build organisations around religion, not the other way round.

I find the term genuinely religious people terribly annoying. When analyzing religion cherry-picking those things you find good and discarding those things that reflect poorly, and then concluding that religion is good is just so much bull. If you have to say good religious people then the implication is that there are also bad religious people. Whose to say which group represent the religion. Isn't it more honest just to view it as a whole warts and all.

Who is claiming that religion is the root of all evil?

I don't understand what principal makes it verboten to have person A dress in such a way that -may- cause persons B&C to feel pressure to dress in a manner that B&C would not otherwise choose. But it is OK to force person A to dress in such a way that -is- a manner that person A would otherwise not choose.

I dunno, seems like unnecessary censorship to me.

How about I turn it around:

"When analysing religion cherry-picking those things you find bad and discarding those things that reflect well, and then concluding that religion is bad is just so much bull"

People are fallible. Some will do better than others. Some will use religion to further their own ends, regardless of that religion's teachings. If you want to consider the benefits of religion, surely it is best to consider those examples that best reflect the teachings of that religion: genuinely religious people.

With such a volume of people nowadays like Jerry Fallwell using religion as a shield and a flag, despite stating things that are clearly contrary to the teaching of their chosen religion, this is especially important.

For example, if one were to consider democracy, should you consider ostensible democracies like Zimbabwe as being equally representative of the faults and benefits of democracy as Britain or Ireland? Of course, not, because Zimbabwe is not truly democratic.

Therefore to correctly analyse something, you have to pick the example that best illustrates its faults and virtues. This is why I think its important to differentiate between genuinely religious people, people who claim to be religious but revert to form when it suits them (Christains who support the death penalty spring to mind[1]), and those who have no genuine interest in religion, but use it to further their own ends (from Iranian mullahs seeking power to US evangelicals seeking money)

Simply because there are people who abuse the belief of their peers in religious organisations to further their own ends does not necessarily mean that religion itself is bad.

Incidentally the "root of all evil" aside was a reference to Dr. Dawkin's recent documentary. While he shied away from the title afterwards, it was clearly chosen to attract an audience who wanted to hear how he'd make such an argument. I added it because there are an increasing number of people who tend to be anti-religion instead of pro-atheist.

To a certain extent, this is understandable: from the mullahs in the Middle East to the antics of evangelicals in the US, there are plenty of bad examples out there. However I think this only shows that religion is susceptible to abuse, rather than being bad in and of itself. I certainly don't think that religion is all about power and greed: the vast majority of religions explicitly prohibit such things.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalpunishment&diff=38937534&oldid=38937504#Christianityandcapitalpunishment

I must say that, even though I am myself an atheist, and I agree in particular with the "no protection from skepticism" clause, I am uncomfortable with the rationale used for banning head scarves. Freedom is the right to be wrong (in someone else's eyes), and sectarian differences should be no more a civil concern than interfaith ones.

Even taking the most overt, charitable interpretation of this rationale, if daughters of liberal Muslim homes feel pressured by the mere presence of Islamic orthodoxy, then that's their own issue. I suggest this is parallel to the homophobe's argument that to fail to outlaw homosexuality is to abusively force homophobes to "accept their lifestyle." In both cases an inversion of responsibility for one's own mental state has taken place. You're welcome to be offended by someone's existence, but they are not obligated to stop existing in response.

If, on the other hand, the orthodox girls are harrassing the liberal ones beyond simply being there, then that's a specific behavior to be dealt with on its own merits.

Unfortunately, the fact that the officials in this case seem to be concerned specifically about orthodox pressure on liberal peers, and not the other way around, seems to me to belie a less pure motive: an ad hoc rationalization for simply banning public observance of a locally unpopular religion.

Dawkins certainly did not shy away from Root of all Evil?l title. Many chose to overlook the question mark. How could anyone believe he meant religion was the root of ALL evil, it's absurd on its face. You're turning the cherry-picking question demonstrates the point. It is not enough to simply point out their good works you have to provide evidence that it is the religion that is the causative factor. The non-religious also do good works you don't attribute that to their lack of religion without evidence that it is that which leads to their good works. On to the issue of the jilbab. The issue is not liberal daughters whose families don't insist on the jilbab it is giving the orthodox father a reason to insist on his perhaps liberal daughter that she conform to his religious teachings.

Just a quick note, religion has almost never been a cause of conflict, it's usually just an excuse. It's sometimes used as a recruitment tool. But the route causes tend to be simple matters of power and greed.

The problems of belief do not come from Bibles, Jesus, or Satan but rather from human gullibility. We have a tendency to believe that ideas and words equal great truths. But words cannot convey ultimate truths anymore than a map can serve as the territory. Our beliefs play out a dangerous aspect of humanity and the responsibility for them must lie with ourselves. Megalomaniacs like Hitler could not have gotten into power without the faith of millions of people. So also, the beliefs in the Biblical Jesus can influence the trigger of the greatest destruction of all: the self-fulfilling prophesy of the end of the world. Let us hope that we gain the ability to use our reasoning ability instead of naive unexamined belief for such flaws in a book.