[sizeThis thread will not go the way of previous discussions. The validity or truth of certain world views should not be debated here. This is about religious freedom. I pray the Mods agree with this.[/size What role should religion play in public life? www.christian.org.uk/news/christ ... ic-square/ Should Christians be allowed to espouse their views in a public forum? Should expression of biblical views be criminalised? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-sin.html

[sizeThis thread will not go the way of previous discussions. The validity or truth of certain world views should not be debated here. This is about religious freedom. I pray the Mods agree with this.[/size What role should religion play in public life? www.christian.org.uk/news/christ ... ic-square/ Should Christians be allowed to espouse their views in a public forum? Should expression of biblical views be criminalised? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-sin.html

Whether it does or not is up to you and you alone, if you want to debate the topic of whether or not you should be allowed to express your religious views then the discussion is going to be a very short one, the answer is Yes.

The answer is also Yes to everyone else who wishes to express their religious views too - what you have to do is to accept that you, and everyone else, are not necessarily correct in your view, but its your view none the less.

To answer your question on whether religion should play a part in public life I would answer No, and if I asked you whether or not a person with a religious view that you opposed should be allowed to maintain a position in public life where his/her religion affected their public decisions, then you would probably agree with me.

Of course all religions should be allowed to air their views, but those views should not be above criticism nor be above the law.



You mean the same way that atheist views were constantly harangued and called heretics?

See if you want views to be heard you should do some listening yourself.

You can't debate with bigots.

Absolutely no way whatsoever that religion should have any sort of platform/influence in government or education. There should be complete separation of church and state - no exceptions. Aside from that, I don't give a toss what they do.

religion should have no influence above any other source of influence, on anything, and should be open to as much criticism and cross examination as any opinion. But that doesn't happen, a lot of the time, as the religious discrimination card gets played as soon as 'reliable sources' is mentioned.

I do, they have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

Off to church kirkstaller?

Not had enough martyrdom this week?

People can say what they like, but if you climb up a ladder and start shouting out hateful bigoted mumbo jumbo thinking that you're justified to do that because Barry Sandals has esoterically granted you a licence for such activities from two thousand years ago, don't be surprised if you are quite correctly arrested.

Barry Sandals

That was covered in my first statement. No influence in matters of the state includes no exemptions from following rules/laws the rest of us have to follow.

As an atheist but believer in free speech I have no objection to people preaching to those who wish to listen. They can say homosexuality is a sin, drinking is a sin, adultery is a sin or eating pork is a sin. It would be evident to all free thinking individuals that they are talking rubbish. The same would apply to a far right organisation campaigning for repatriation of immigrants. Where the line would be crossed would be if they urged violence to be used against sinners or immigrants.

As for people in politics making decisions based on their religious beliefs, I think this would be a very dangerous idea.

People should be able to hold whatever beliefs they want.

But there is no logical reason that any personal views should gain a particular influence in society on the basis of those views alone.

If someone stands as a political candidate on a clear manifesto based on such views, and wins, then fair enough. But otherwise, no.

In the US, the separation of church and state is inherent to the constitution, as it should be in the UK. The thought of POTUS or the UKPM making decisions based on a conversation with a voice in their head is appalling.

This separation appears to have passed by many US voters who continue to hold some remarkable predjudices - it appears you can believe almost what you like as long as you aren't a 'non believer', would you vote for that person?[/size[/i
[code2012 Jun 7-10 Yes No
Black 96 4
A woman 95 5
Catholic 94 5
Hispanic 92 7
Jewish 91 6
Mormon 80 18
Gay/lesbian 68 30
Muslim 58 40
An atheist 54 43[/code

The great workings of the churches/mosques, changing the meaning of words.

^ All the above.

To reverse the question, what grounds are there for suggesting ANY religious organisation should have a voice in governance, education or any other aspect of day to day life?