Tribune – Comment, news and reviews from Britain's democratic left

“No to Vatican. Stop Pope’s bigotry.” Is this what you call freedom of practicing ones faith? So, from now on, we will have to “kow-tow” the secularist agenda? Out with Christian religion, long live the secularist religion? Do we have to address Terry Sanderson, Bob Churchill, Marco Tranchino and Peter Tatchel as the new apostles of this wonderful new religion? Yes, and nobody else should have privileged status other than Secularism and secularists? What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites…

“No to Vatican. Stop Pope’s bigotry.” Is this what you call freedom of practicing ones faith? So, from now on, we will have to “kow-tow” the secularist agenda? Out with Christian religion, long live the secularist religion? Do we have to address Terry Sanderson, Bob Churchill, Marco Tranchino and Peter Tatchel as the new apostles of this wonderful new religion? Yes, and nobody else should have privileged status other than Secularism and secularists? What a bunch of self-serving hypocrites…

No, Newsreader. You are completely wrong.

What the Pope does (along with other religions) is to use their unearned and undemocratic privileges to try to force others to accept their views. The Vatican has ‘concordats’ with several European countries in which their views get priority over that country’s citizens. It is that undemocratic influence that we were protesting about.

Secularism is not about forcing anyone to comply with a set of beliefs: it is about ensuring that everyone has a right to believe what they like and providing a State where no one religion has favour or privilege over another: something that doesn’t happen at the moment, even in the UK, with unelected, unrepresentative Bishops in the House of Lords, state-funding of religious discrimination in schools, etc.

No, Newsreader. You are completely wrong.

What the Pope does (along with other religions) is to use their unearned and undemocratic privileges to try to force others to accept their views. The Vatican has ‘concordats’ with several European countries in which their views get priority over that country’s citizens. It is that undemocratic influence that we were protesting about.

Secularism is not about forcing anyone to comply with a set of beliefs: it is about ensuring that everyone has a right to believe what they like and providing a State where no one religion has favour or privilege over another: something that doesn’t happen at the moment, even in the UK, with unelected, unrepresentative Bishops in the House of Lords, state-funding of religious discrimination in schools, etc.

Zeno: About concordats: They are agreements, more like collective bargaining agreements, which are designed to guarantee the freedom of religion by eliminating existing or preventing possible future disagreements between church and state (which are separate). A lack of such concordats would mean exactly the opposite: The state has unbridled meddling privileges in the life of a faith community. This would of course mean no separation between church and state. What is exactly undemocratic or wrong about this? Unions, and other institutions can enter into such agreements, and the church cannot? Catholics are taxpaying citizens of your country, and every country where they live. Why do they have to submit to secularist oppression and not be allowed to receive Catholic education? Should they withhold their taxes and pay for the education of their children, or should they be penalized, by forcing them to pay twice? This is the hypocritical secularist agenda: “We want equality, but some (We) are more equal than others,” so our agenda should become the sate agenda/religion and everybody else should keep their religion out of the public forum and private, or they have to pay for its public implementations/use (if they are allowed to do so at all).

What is exactly unearned about what the Pope does? Is it unearned to speak up for people’s right to express their faith, even if it is not a faith in secularism? Is it unearned to speak up for a right to receive an education in one’s faith? Is it unearned to speak to those to whom he is bound by duty to speak regarding faith and morals? Or you would like only secularism to be publicly discussed and only secularist should have the right to demand silencing the Pope and faith leaders disagreeing with their agenda (including social agenda)? Amazing level of hierocracy!

Your logic is completely failing: how can you negate something and implicitly not stating something else?

Zeno: About concordats: They are agreements, more like collective bargaining agreements, which are designed to guarantee the freedom of religion by eliminating existing or preventing possible future disagreements between church and state (which are separate). A lack of such concordats would mean exactly the opposite: The state has unbridled meddling privileges in the life of a faith community. This would of course mean no separation between church and state. What is exactly undemocratic or wrong about this? Unions, and other institutions can enter into such agreements, and the church cannot? Catholics are taxpaying citizens of your country, and every country where they live. Why do they have to submit to secularist oppression and not be allowed to receive Catholic education? Should they withhold their taxes and pay for the education of their children, or should they be penalized, by forcing them to pay twice? This is the hypocritical secularist agenda: “We want equality, but some (We) are more equal than others,” so our agenda should become the sate agenda/religion and everybody else should keep their religion out of the public forum and private, or they have to pay for its public implementations/use (if they are allowed to do so at all).

What is exactly unearned about what the Pope does? Is it unearned to speak up for people’s right to express their faith, even if it is not a faith in secularism? Is it unearned to speak up for a right to receive an education in one’s faith? Is it unearned to speak to those to whom he is bound by duty to speak regarding faith and morals? Or you would like only secularism to be publicly discussed and only secularist should have the right to demand silencing the Pope and faith leaders disagreeing with their agenda (including social agenda)? Amazing level of hierocracy!

Your logic is completely failing: how can you negate something and implicitly not stating something else?

Newsreader, the Pope cherry picks which parts of the bible to live his life by, and then tries to ensure that everybody else lives by his chosen rules.
A few things in the bible, which the Pope rejects.
Mathew 23:9 Don’t call a Priest father.

Exodus 35:2 Kill anyone who works on Sunday.

He wears clothes of mixed fibres, an abomination.

I’ll bet he’s eaten shellfish, an abomination.

Eye of a needle, camel, rich man,

That one is especialy galling, when talking about the head of the richest organization on Earth.

There are of course lots more bible stuff he disregards, I wonder how he decides which bible verses to follow and which to ignore?

Newsreader, the Pope cherry picks which parts of the bible to live his life by, and then tries to ensure that everybody else lives by his chosen rules.
A few things in the bible, which the Pope rejects.
Mathew 23:9 Don’t call a Priest father.

Exodus 35:2 Kill anyone who works on Sunday.

He wears clothes of mixed fibres, an abomination.

I’ll bet he’s eaten shellfish, an abomination.

Eye of a needle, camel, rich man,

That one is especialy galling, when talking about the head of the richest organization on Earth.

There are of course lots more bible stuff he disregards, I wonder how he decides which bible verses to follow and which to ignore?

Alan C.: Yoour comments have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor with what I said. You are simply airing your hatefilled, sectarian theological or secularist (hard to tell) biases. One suggestion: Before you criticise something make sure you know what you are talking about. I can tell you, you have absulutely no clue what you are commenting on. What you write is good for low-level insults but has nothing to do with conversations, let alone respctful conversation. Is this the best you can do?

Alan C.: Yoour comments have nothing to do with the content of the article, nor with what I said. You are simply airing your hatefilled, sectarian theological or secularist (hard to tell) biases. One suggestion: Before you criticise something make sure you know what you are talking about. I can tell you, you have absulutely no clue what you are commenting on. What you write is good for low-level insults but has nothing to do with conversations, let alone respctful conversation. Is this the best you can do?

One man, one vote
Not, it seems, if you’re the Pope.

One man, one vote
Not, it seems, if you’re the Pope.

Newsreader said: “About concordats: They are agreements, more like collective bargaining agreements, which are designed to guarantee the freedom of religion by eliminating existing or preventing possible future disagreements between church and state (which are separate).”

There are several things wrong with this. Freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as enacted in the UK by the Human Rights Act. Are you saying that this is inadequate to protect individuals’ beliefs or just that you want more rights for Catholics or others?

You also say that these concordats are there to prevent possible future disagreements. How and why should they do this? Disagreeing with the Vatican isn’t always the wrong thing to do and anything that ties a Government’s hands in the future to the will of a non-EU State cannot be good for democracy and must be opposed.

“A lack of such concordats would mean exactly the opposite: The state has unbridled meddling privileges in the life of a faith community.”

No. Can you give any examples of the State interfering in the ‘life of the faith community’? People are entirely free to believe whatever they want, whether that be in one god, many gods or no god. The State does not, rightly, interfere in that. If it did, there would be uproar by the churches and non-believers alike.

“This would of course mean no separation between church and state. What is exactly undemocratic or wrong about this? Unions, and other institutions can enter into such agreements, and the church cannot? Catholics are taxpaying citizens of your country, and every country where they live. Why do they have to submit to secularist oppression and not be allowed to receive Catholic education?”

What ‘secularist oppression’ are you talking about? Please give examples. As I said, religions already have many privileges. It seems to me that they both want to maintain these privileges and to try to gain further privileges. Do I really need to explain what is fundamentally wrong with that?

Unions officials are at least elected representatives of their members and are charged with the legal right to bargain on behalf of those members. The Pope is an unelected head of a non-EU State.

“Should they withhold their taxes and pay for the education of their children, or should they be penalized, by forcing them to pay twice?”

No, they don’t have to pay twice: religious parents can send their children to normal state-funded schools and receive an excellent education. If these parents want to inculcate a particular religion into their children they are entirely free (guaranteed by the Human Rights Act) to do so the rest of the time they are in their care. This gives ample opportunity to bring them up in whatever religion they want their offspring to be.

“This is the hypocritical secularist agenda: “We want equality, but some (We) are more equal than others,” so our agenda should become the sate agenda/religion and everybody else should keep their religion out of the public forum and private, or they have to pay for its public implementations/use (if they are allowed to do so at all).”

It appears you misunderstand what secularism means. It is certainly not another religion! It really is a simple concept: allow everyone to believe what they want and have a State that does not favour nor privilege any one religion over another: be fair to everyone, regardless of their individual beliefs. Is that difficult to understand? Now there are some who want to retain religious privileges (in fact, they are the ones who want to be ‘more equal’ than others), but this is always at the expense of someone else’s freedom. Secularism is certainly not atheism, although many mendacious religionists like to practice more than a bit of obfuscation by mixing them up. Someone who is religious can equally well be a secularist: anyone who recognises true religious freedom for all (not just those of the same religion or none) is not only important, but can only be guaranteed where the State is neutral on religion. Do you have a problem with that neutrality?

There is another misunderstanding: what public and private mean. Everyone is perfectly entitled to voice their opinions and if these opinions are informed by their holy book or priest or whatever, so be it. But what they are not entitled to is for that opinion to be in any way elevated above that of others, just because it is religion-based. All decisions must be based on merit of the arguments, not on where that argument came from. Like it or not, religious views cannot be allowed to supersede others’ views just because they are Catholic/Muslim/Hindu or whatever.

“What is exactly unearned about what the Pope does?”

What is unearned is that the Pope is not a democratically elected representative of the British people. Like any other person with a view, he is perfectly entitled to hold and express his opinion: what he is not entitled to is to expect that opinion to hold sway over the decisions of a democratically elected Government, just because they were given by a Pope. He may well have a valid argument on an issue, but that has to stand on its own, not on an elevated platform of religious privilege.

“Is it unearned to speak up for people’s right to express their faith”

Who is stopping people expressing their faith?

“…even if it is not a faith in secularism?”

As I said, secularism is not a faith position: it is a level playing field where all can believe what they want without interference from the State and without the State seeming to privilege one religion over another and thereby denigrate other religions.

So, no one is stopping anyone from believing whatever they want or saying what they want and it is mendacious to try to maintain otherwise.

Newsreader said: “About concordats: They are agreements, more like collective bargaining agreements, which are designed to guarantee the freedom of religion by eliminating existing or preventing possible future disagreements between church and state (which are separate).”

There are several things wrong with this. Freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as enacted in the UK by the Human Rights Act. Are you saying that this is inadequate to protect individuals’ beliefs or just that you want more rights for Catholics or others?

You also say that these concordats are there to prevent possible future disagreements. How and why should they do this? Disagreeing with the Vatican isn’t always the wrong thing to do and anything that ties a Government’s hands in the future to the will of a non-EU State cannot be good for democracy and must be opposed.

“A lack of such concordats would mean exactly the opposite: The state has unbridled meddling privileges in the life of a faith community.”

No. Can you give any examples of the State interfering in the ‘life of the faith community’? People are entirely free to believe whatever they want, whether that be in one god, many gods or no god. The State does not, rightly, interfere in that. If it did, there would be uproar by the churches and non-believers alike.

“This would of course mean no separation between church and state. What is exactly undemocratic or wrong about this? Unions, and other institutions can enter into such agreements, and the church cannot? Catholics are taxpaying citizens of your country, and every country where they live. Why do they have to submit to secularist oppression and not be allowed to receive Catholic education?”

What ‘secularist oppression’ are you talking about? Please give examples. As I said, religions already have many privileges. It seems to me that they both want to maintain these privileges and to try to gain further privileges. Do I really need to explain what is fundamentally wrong with that?

Unions officials are at least elected representatives of their members and are charged with the legal right to bargain on behalf of those members. The Pope is an unelected head of a non-EU State.

“Should they withhold their taxes and pay for the education of their children, or should they be penalized, by forcing them to pay twice?”

No, they don’t have to pay twice: religious parents can send their children to normal state-funded schools and receive an excellent education. If these parents want to inculcate a particular religion into their children they are entirely free (guaranteed by the Human Rights Act) to do so the rest of the time they are in their care. This gives ample opportunity to bring them up in whatever religion they want their offspring to be.

“This is the hypocritical secularist agenda: “We want equality, but some (We) are more equal than others,” so our agenda should become the sate agenda/religion and everybody else should keep their religion out of the public forum and private, or they have to pay for its public implementations/use (if they are allowed to do so at all).”

It appears you misunderstand what secularism means. It is certainly not another religion! It really is a simple concept: allow everyone to believe what they want and have a State that does not favour nor privilege any one religion over another: be fair to everyone, regardless of their individual beliefs. Is that difficult to understand? Now there are some who want to retain religious privileges (in fact, they are the ones who want to be ‘more equal’ than others), but this is always at the expense of someone else’s freedom. Secularism is certainly not atheism, although many mendacious religionists like to practice more than a bit of obfuscation by mixing them up. Someone who is religious can equally well be a secularist: anyone who recognises true religious freedom for all (not just those of the same religion or none) is not only important, but can only be guaranteed where the State is neutral on religion. Do you have a problem with that neutrality?

There is another misunderstanding: what public and private mean. Everyone is perfectly entitled to voice their opinions and if these opinions are informed by their holy book or priest or whatever, so be it. But what they are not entitled to is for that opinion to be in any way elevated above that of others, just because it is religion-based. All decisions must be based on merit of the arguments, not on where that argument came from. Like it or not, religious views cannot be allowed to supersede others’ views just because they are Catholic/Muslim/Hindu or whatever.

“What is exactly unearned about what the Pope does?”

What is unearned is that the Pope is not a democratically elected representative of the British people. Like any other person with a view, he is perfectly entitled to hold and express his opinion: what he is not entitled to is to expect that opinion to hold sway over the decisions of a democratically elected Government, just because they were given by a Pope. He may well have a valid argument on an issue, but that has to stand on its own, not on an elevated platform of religious privilege.

“Is it unearned to speak up for people’s right to express their faith”

Who is stopping people expressing their faith?

“…even if it is not a faith in secularism?”

As I said, secularism is not a faith position: it is a level playing field where all can believe what they want without interference from the State and without the State seeming to privilege one religion over another and thereby denigrate other religions.

So, no one is stopping anyone from believing whatever they want or saying what they want and it is mendacious to try to maintain otherwise.

Zeno: It appears that you either cannot or do not want to see the self-contradiction in what you say. The fact is that if Secularists would really believe in religious freedom, this article would not have been written, and this conversation would never have happened.

Secularism as every other ‘ism’ is a specific ideology with coherent agenda/doctrine, with goals and objectives, and when it is trying to dictate, set limits to what religion can or cannot do or say regarding faith and morals within a democratic country, it functions as another religion. This is the hypocritical attitude of Secularism I am pointing out to you. If you have views about “x”,”y” or “z” that are different from a religious point of view, bring your argument to the table, but you are not talking about “x”, “y” or “z”, you attack religion itself by setting limits to what it can or cannot say and do regarding faith and morals. Again, if this would not be the case, this article and conversation would never have happened.

Zeno: It appears that you either cannot or do not want to see the self-contradiction in what you say. The fact is that if Secularists would really believe in religious freedom, this article would not have been written, and this conversation would never have happened.

Secularism as every other ‘ism’ is a specific ideology with coherent agenda/doctrine, with goals and objectives, and when it is trying to dictate, set limits to what religion can or cannot do or say regarding faith and morals within a democratic country, it functions as another religion. This is the hypocritical attitude of Secularism I am pointing out to you. If you have views about “x”,”y” or “z” that are different from a religious point of view, bring your argument to the table, but you are not talking about “x”, “y” or “z”, you attack religion itself by setting limits to what it can or cannot say and do regarding faith and morals. Again, if this would not be the case, this article and conversation would never have happened.

Newsreader said: “Zeno: It appears that you either cannot or do not want to see the self-contradiction in what you say.”

I’ll have to wait till you point it out.

“Secularism as every other ‘ism’ is a specific ideology with coherent agenda/doctrine, with goals and objectives, and when it is trying to dictate, set limits to what religion can or cannot do or say regarding faith and morals within a democratic country, it functions as another religion.”

I have already explained to you what secularism means (and whether or not the word ends with ‘ism’ is totally irrelevant): it does set limits on what religion can do. It does this in the name of allowing others to also believe what they want. Heaven help us if there were NO restrictions of what religions could DO. It’s not really a difficult concept to understand, is it?

“This is the hypocritical attitude of Secularism I am pointing out to you.”

Nope, you have singularly failed to do that with your intemperate rant.

“If you have views about “x”,”y” or “z” that are different from a religious point of view, bring your argument to the table, but you are not talking about “x”, “y” or “z”, you attack religion itself by setting limits to what it can or cannot say and do regarding faith and morals.”

You’re not listening, are you? I’ll repeat it again in the hope it’ll penetrate: people are free to think whatever they like; they are free to say whatever they like (with some limits we already have on free speech); and they are free to act however they feel (again, with limits necessary to safeguard others). But, if one religion has a privileged position in the State, others cannot freely think what they want: they will forever be influenced by a (biased) State.

Do you have a problem with people challenging what religions say? Do you want to keep religion privileged and unchallenged? Perhaps you seek a theocracy or caliphate?

Newsreader said: “Zeno: It appears that you either cannot or do not want to see the self-contradiction in what you say.”

I’ll have to wait till you point it out.

“Secularism as every other ‘ism’ is a specific ideology with coherent agenda/doctrine, with goals and objectives, and when it is trying to dictate, set limits to what religion can or cannot do or say regarding faith and morals within a democratic country, it functions as another religion.”

I have already explained to you what secularism means (and whether or not the word ends with ‘ism’ is totally irrelevant): it does set limits on what religion can do. It does this in the name of allowing others to also believe what they want. Heaven help us if there were NO restrictions of what religions could DO. It’s not really a difficult concept to understand, is it?

“This is the hypocritical attitude of Secularism I am pointing out to you.”

Nope, you have singularly failed to do that with your intemperate rant.

“If you have views about “x”,”y” or “z” that are different from a religious point of view, bring your argument to the table, but you are not talking about “x”, “y” or “z”, you attack religion itself by setting limits to what it can or cannot say and do regarding faith and morals.”

You’re not listening, are you? I’ll repeat it again in the hope it’ll penetrate: people are free to think whatever they like; they are free to say whatever they like (with some limits we already have on free speech); and they are free to act however they feel (again, with limits necessary to safeguard others). But, if one religion has a privileged position in the State, others cannot freely think what they want: they will forever be influenced by a (biased) State.

Do you have a problem with people challenging what religions say? Do you want to keep religion privileged and unchallenged? Perhaps you seek a theocracy or caliphate?

What I seek is commonly accessible logic and an unbiased desire to uncover the truth. Both of this are sadly missing from your reasoning. If you care to remedy the situation, perhaps you can start with Irwing M. Copy’s “Introduction to Logic,” it is a standard textbook. It may help.

What I seek is commonly accessible logic and an unbiased desire to uncover the truth. Both of this are sadly missing from your reasoning. If you care to remedy the situation, perhaps you can start with Irwing M. Copy’s “Introduction to Logic,” it is a standard textbook. It may help.

Newsreader:

Your rudeness and inability to address and understand the issues are noted here for all the see.

Newsreader:

Your rudeness and inability to address and understand the issues are noted here for all the see.

All I know we have had enough of the Roman catholic logic in the past it has caused more blood then it’s worth for god sake the pope backed Hitler for crying out loud. The UK needs no religion to rule, we have enough idiots to do this in New labour.

All I know we have had enough of the Roman catholic logic in the past it has caused more blood then it’s worth for god sake the pope backed Hitler for crying out loud. The UK needs no religion to rule, we have enough idiots to do this in New labour.