Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Proxima Centauri · 11-08-2002, 11:32 AM

I'm liable to get into trouble if I say too many bad things about you in the United States.
I think you need to encourage more teaching of the Scientific Method in United States schools.
From what I've read on secular American web sites I think that's part of the problem.

Gurdur · 11-08-2002, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by B.Shack:

I'm liable to get into trouble if I say too many bad things about you in the United States.

This is why I exist.

BTW, please note I carefully said "North America(n)", not "USA" or American"; there are reasons for that.

Albion · 11-08-2002, 11:56 AM

Quote:

To compound the irony, the spiritual head of the Anglican Church is the monarch, who can be of any religion (and the next in line, Charles, does not appear to be a Christian).

The monarch is the Supreme Governor of the CofE; that isn't the same as being the spiritual leader. As far as I know, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual leader. The monarch probably could be any religion (except Catholic), but the coronation ceremony, which is a religious Christian ceremony from start to finish, includes an oath to uphold the Protestant religion.

Quote:

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of [The Bible to be brought.] all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.

[And a Silver Standish.]Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

When the Queen is again seated, the Archbishop shall go to her Chair; and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, receiving the Bible from the Dean of Westminster, shall bring it to the Queen and present it to her, the Archbishop saying these words:

Our gracious Queen:
to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God
as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes,
we present you with this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world affords.

And the Moderator shall continue:
Here is Wisdom;
This is the royal Law;
These are the lively Oracles of God.

Then shall the Queen deliver back the Bible to the Moderator, who shall bring it to the Dean of Westminster, to be reverently placed upon the Altar. This done, the Archbishop shall return to the Altar

All that is then followed by Holy Communion. Hard to see a Rastafarian or a Moslem monarch going through with it.

Abacus · 11-08-2002, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
North American atheists and agnostics should really take a long, hard look at themselves, their beliefs, goals and tactics.
Up till now they've been very puritanical, not just arguing for rigorous C/S seperation, which is an attainable goal, and <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa102202a.htm?terms=n437" target="_blank">with which they could actually gain a fair few theist allies</a>, naaaaaw,

, they go muchly for a maxi position whereby they attack all theists and theisms (often blindly), and demand an end to theism itself - a maxi position doomed to failure, and a failure very likely to harm C/S seperation badly, i.e. not only an impossible goal, but one in which seeking its attainment also destroys otherwise attainable goals.

Every last one of us does this, huh?

Gurdur · 11-08-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie:
.... The C of E is the established church of England. Scotland has it's own established Church that, unlike it's neighbour, is separate from the state. It has supreme authority within it's own sphere and, as far as I can remember, is about the only body in the land unanswerable to parliament.

However the British constitution is so tortuous that I don't know if anyone knows for sure.

The Brit constitution doesn't exist, or maybe it exists in the same way that unicorns and Objectivist morality do, though unicorns are certainly more elegant and functional.

The Scots Kirk is unanswerable to Parliament because the Prodo Scots won that in the English Civil War, and blackmailed Charles II while he was whiling away the time till Cromwell died - i.e. it's incorporated in treaties between England and Scotland.

Don't forget the Church of Wales and the Church of Ireland !

Gurdur · 11-08-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abacus:

Every last one of us does this, huh?

Did I say that ?

It is common to speak of a significant group as though it was the parent group, or IOW to define a group by some of its more vocal members.

Or, IOW, perhaps certain bad SecWeb poster habits are rubbing off on me.

Abacus · 11-08-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:


Did I say that ?

Yes, you did.

Slex · 11-08-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:


North American atheists and agnostics should really take a long, hard look at themselves, their beliefs, goals and tactics.
Up till now they've been very puritanical, not just arguing for rigorous C/S seperation, which is an attainable goal, and <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa102202a.htm?terms=n437" target="_blank">with which they could actually gain a fair few theist allies</a>, naaaaaw,

, they go muchly for a maxi position whereby they attack all theists and theisms (often blindly), and demand an end to theism itself - a maxi position doomed to failure, and a failure very likely to harm C/S seperation badly, i.e. not only an impossible goal, but one in which seeking its attainment also destroys otherwise attainable goals.

Gurdur, maybe the reason for this is that N.Am. atheists have very oppresive backgrounds. I personally am a 4 generation (agnostic, non-believer of some kind, pantheist maybe - I am not sure that I am exactly an atheist, although I'll adopt this term for the post for my own convinience) atheist from my mother's side. My parents took me to be baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church when I was 12, I've gone to church on Easter (a couple of times I think) but I didn't put any religious context into this. It was something like a cultural phenomenon. I wasn't hostile to religion, at least not to its manifestation with which I was in direct contact. I thought that there was no problem with the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, etc., and supposed that all the shit that comes from religion is the result of misinterpretation and distortion of religious doctrines by the adherents. My point is that I wasn't hostile to religion (even though I wasn't a believer) until I had a brief interaction with fundamental Christianity (how this happened is another story). Thanks to II, but even more to ICR (that was too much for me to swallow), I got a grip of myself and came out as a rabid atheist, feeling used and abused and ashamed that I fell for all that crap, and for the fact that for the larger part it was fear (of eternal damnation - yeah, Pascal's wager worked for me in the beginning) that kept me in. It was one of the worst periods in my life. I came out as a psychological wreck. I wanted revenge and I was looking for a scapegoat. I just waited for somene to say something about Jesus or about the Bible or something like that and to jump upon him. Luckily, there were very few people that I know who could do such a thing and they were not around me while I was at the peak of my antireligious fervour. Now I seem to be calming down and without external teasers I am not likely to be vocal about my (dis)belief - people around me are apathetical about religion and are reluctant to speak about it, with which I am very comfortable.
I mean, the reason that atheists in N. America go to extremes is that they are very often put into extreme situations, IMO.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ]

11-08-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slex:


I mean, the reason that atheists in N. America go to extremes is that they are very often put into extreme situations, IMO.

Good point. If religion never really was part of your life it is hardly possible to be angry with religion. So maybe it can be said that atheists are recovering Chrsitians.

sullster · 11-09-2002, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by B.Shack:
I'm liable to get into trouble if I say too many bad things about you in the United States.
I think you need to encourage more teaching of the Scientific Method in United States schools.
From what I've read on secular American web sites I think that's part of the problem.

What you say here won't get you into any trouble with me, here in the USA. You are totally correct. We do a terrible job of teaching the Scientific Method and it is not soley the fault of fundamentalism and religious obscuritanism.

There are strong currents of anti-science in the ideologies of the humanities. Science is looked at as a Western way of describing reality and is relative to other descriptions.

There are a vast amount of graduates of college who know nothing about science and its methods. How can we expect the masses to know about science when it is ignored or rejected by some intellectual elites?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-08-2002, 11:32 AM	#31
Proxima Centauri Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: England, the EU. Posts: 2,403	I'm liable to get into trouble if I say too many bad things about you in the United States. I think you need to encourage more teaching of the Scientific Method in United States schools. From what I've read on secular American web sites I think that's part of the problem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.