Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

I also agree that there may be a good case for removing some books.

OK. Chalk one up for at least one secular humanist that is in favor of the position Florida has taken to remove pornography from the schools. Correct me if this is NOT what you’re saying or if this is NOT your position.

Do you still maintain that schools just up and usurp parents' rights by teaching sex ed?

I’m not in disfavor of sex ed in schools. When I was teaching we did a sex ed unit for fifth graders each year. Parents were able, well they were EXPECTED, to attend this afternoon session of instruction with their child. Boys and girls were separated into two groups with different instructors. The state curriculum was followed strictly. So if a state curriculum is approved by the parents and parents are not only invited but expected to attend sex ed instruction, I’m totally on board.

What I am not in favor of is schools and/or teachers going ‘behind the backs’ of parents and providing books and/or instruction that are inappropriate. That is what the fight in Florida, Virginia, and other states is about.

If you’re on board with that fight, even if in spirit, then great.

And, by the way, I believe that we already have a world without god.

No we don’t. But there are those such as yourself that would prefer that. I think that is why there is very little agreement and/or support for the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

If you want to see societies dominated by religion, there are plenty to choose from in this world. Are they your ideal?

No. As I’ve already said, I am in agreement with founding principles of division between church and state.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps it's people (both religious and secular) in the US who should worry - and think about how much more civil a society we have here in Canada, closest neighbour to the US.

74% or thereabouts of Canadians are religious and/or have a spiritual belief system.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11- ... 79-eng.htm

Religious belief does matter.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Perhaps it's people (both religious and secular) in the US who should worry - and think about how much more civil a society we have here in Canada, closest neighbour to the US.

74% or thereabouts of Canadians are religious and/or have a spiritual belief system.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11- ... 79-eng.htm

Religious belief does matter.

Regards,
MG

Sure.

By most measures that I've seen we are still less "religious" than the US. And still a more civil society.

I don't equate having a religious affiliation with being religious - I assume that that's where you get the 74% from. And having a spiritual beliefe system may have little or nothing to do with any organised religion. I know people, as you may do, who are "spiritual but not religious". Also, as we know from, for example, Mormon activity rates, one may have a religious affiliation and still not be enough of a believer to actually attend church, never mind follow the teachings.

Depending on the form of the question, and the context, I may report my religious affiliation as LDS, since I'm still a member. If asked, though, I will also say that the religion is not important in my life.

[MG 2.0]

By most measures that I've seen we are still less "religious" than the US. And still a more civil society.

Again, 74% or so of Canadians profess religious affiliation and/or belief. The principles taught by Jesus and other wise sages are written in their hearts.

Canadian have a different view of what freedom and liberty mean. And in some ways this might contribute to a more structured/controlled society than that which we have in the USA.

https://theconversation.com/canada-has- ... ics-177208

A secular government with its tentacles spreading throughout society.

America has always been more ‘free spirited’.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I am a science guy.

If you were a 'science guy,' you wouldn't write this:

But a study that is strictly science based (language and meaning) in its formulation and presented by a secular organization (at least to my knowledge) is going to run the risk of implicit bias.

What on earth does that even mean? or is this a throwback to your 'bias' argument of several years ago, where you admitted that when you referred to the 'bias' of one side, you actually meant 'everyone is biased' on all sides ?

[malkie]

...

And, by the way, I believe that we already have a world without god.

No we don’t. But there are those such as yourself that would prefer that. I think that is why there is very little agreement and/or support for the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

...

I assume that by "those such as yourself" you mean atheists - right?

As has been pointed out many, many times, in general, it is not that atheists "prefer" a world without god - it is simply what we find when we look around us. I understand that you feel differently.

But there is reason to think that - again, in general - life is better in places where religious beliefs are less strong.

[Res Ipsa]

The fundamental error that lies at the foundation of MG 2.0’s bigoted view of those who don’t share his faith is his assumption that there a near perfect symmetry between those who believe in God (however defined) and those who don’t. It’s a completely false assumption.

My main hobby is playing board games. It’s the main focus of my social life. Board games are important to me.

Ms. Ipsa is not a board gamer. She enjoys playing only one or two, but would rather spend her leisure time doing things other than playing board games.

Board games are important to me. But “Not boardgames” Is not important to her in the slightest. There is no symmetry.

God is existentially important to MG 2.0. “Not God” Is of little to no importance to me. There is no symmetry between how MG 2.0 feels about God and how I feel about “not God.”

But MG needs an enemy for his God, so he simply invent one: “secularists.” I doubt he can actually define “secularism” in a coherent way that most of the people he is describing would agree with. But, because his belief in God comes with a set of rules, purposes and goals, he simply assumes that’s true of secularists. But it’s not for me and for the many people I’ve known who are not people of faith. People of not faith are an incredibly diverse group of people who can and do disagree about almost anything. The only thing they have in common is not being one thing. To try and treat people of not faith as an ideology or -ism is as silly as me inventing a word for people who don’t like board games and then treating them as having a uniform ideology that is in some significant way important to my own.

Yes, you can find people whose belief in “not God” Is comparable to MG 2.0’s belief “God.” But to automatically assume that all, or even most, people of not faith are like them is pure bigotry. It’s the equivalent of claiming that all people of faith are radical Christian dominionists.

MG 2.0 goes through elaborate mental gymnastics to turn me into his existential enemy. MG 2.0 is not my enemy. The fact that he is a person of faith is no threat to me, let alone an existential threat. It is his bigotry and divisiveness that I see as a threat to civil society.

[MG 2.0]

MG 2.0 goes through elaborate mental gymnastics to turn me into his existential enemy. MG 2.0 is not my enemy. The fact that he is a person of faith is no threat to me, let alone an existential threat. It is his bigotry and divisiveness that I see as a threat to civil society.

As I think I’ve already said, but if not clearly…here goes again, I do not see YOU as a person as an existential threat. I have little doubt that you as a person are a decent and good human being. It is the secular humanist anti/non theistic school of thought that I believe poses a danger to civil society over the long haul.

As I mentioned to malkie, Canadians, even if their society has become more secularized, in practice, as a result of governmental control and its historically entrenched views/inclinations towards less liberty and freedom in comparison to what our founding fathers envisioned (those that carried the day anyway), still carry the principles and ideas taught in the religious teachings of their forefathers in their hearts/consciousness.

Generationally, this may not last forever as the whispers of those principles and teachings taught within a religious system of thought and action gradually disappear from the collective consciousness.

It is GenZ’s somewhat radical departure from the faith of their fathers that is causing some degree of consternation for many as to where this may lead as we look to the future. For reasons I’ve already laid out in this thread.

We see some of those unfortunate inclinations expressed in recent history as we are observing the cultural divide as to what is and isn’t appropriate for young innocent children to be exposed to in regards to sexuality. Apparently there are those that seem to have little or no difficulty accepting pornography in the school system of America’s schools. Secularism at its best/worst?

Of course, there are other areas also where secular humanist anti theists are also trying to work themselves into the very fabric of traditional morality and ethical behavior (relativism). It is a war of sorts as you have alluded to. Two diametrically opposed schools of thought have a difficult time coexisting, even though people that may consider themselves to belong to one or the other of these schools of thought CAN and DO exist together as neighbors and often cosponsors of various charitable endeavors, etc.

The million dollar question is whether this civility would/will continue if secular non/anti theistic majorities were to gain the upper hand. Religious folks, generationally, have been the ‘glue’ that hold things together. Not religiously powerful governments, mind you…but individuals and churches.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The fundamental error that lies at the foundation of MG 2.0’s bigoted view…

I don’t have a bigoted view.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...
No we don’t. But there are those such as yourself that would prefer that. I think that is why there is very little agreement and/or support for the article I linked to at the beginning of this thread.

...

I assume that by "those such as yourself" you mean atheists - right?

I suppose I should be more accurate for legalistic folks like Res Ipsa. I’m referring to secular humanist non and/or anti theistic folks. Now if they want to define and or reclassify themselves in order to make it more palatable, then fine.

It is interesting, nonetheless, that there has been almost zero support for the Deseret News article on this board.

It does NOT support the worldview that many would like to see play out.

Regards,
MG