"My fear is that, today, militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in a number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings, and where religion is sidelined and downgraded in the public sphere."
Don't be afraid, it's just fairness.
"For me one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant."
Well, intolerant of having your religious views shoved in down our throats and often having to pay for it, YES.
"It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."
Oh STFU. We aren't denying you your religious identity. We just rankle at you forcing us into your religious indentity.
2/19/2012 12:39:00 PM
I for one would be horrified if Frothy the Wonder Douche (aka Santorum) won the nomination. Sure, he has a much slimmer chance of winning the general election than Mittens, but consider this:
The very concept is terrifying. If there was even the slightest
chance that Santorum will win the nomination, that's not a chance worth taking, or even wishing for.
He is SO AWFUL it's easier to list the people that would be worse presidents than would be better. Here are the people I would like less than Frothy:
• Ann Coulter
2/19/2012 12:47:10 PM
at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. ... – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.
So I'm guessing Lady Warsi would have no objections to having a huge mosque erected on that empty lot next door to St Paul's Cathedral.
No, of course not. Don't want to be "frightened of the concept of multiple identities", now do we.
2/19/2012 1:06:07 PM
She's a Muslim, so no, she probably wouldn't.
2/19/2012 1:17:58 PM
She's a Muslim, so no, she probably wouldn't.
Oops, I missed that. So:
I guess she wouldn't have any objections to having a new synagogue erected in the courtyard on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Plenty of room there.
2/19/2012 1:26:58 PM
You mean Christianity, not religion.
2/19/2012 1:39:54 PM
Ya know what is really distressing about Baroness Warsi's screed is that the whole idea of bringing faith to the fore of British society is a view espoused at many levels of government and that she was on a state visit to The Vatican for an audience with the Pope during which she told him that Britain would work towards making faith important again. Not something I want my taxes funding to be perfectly honest.
The fact that she is deliberately mischaracterising secularism as antitheistic is just pandering to the ever-growing religious right. Funny though that the Christian religious right here is growing in part as a backlash to the perceived (tabloid fuelled) threat of "Islamisation". Don't throw secularism under the bus, Baroness. You might just need it one day.
2/19/2012 3:00:00 PM
He Who Doubts
This dumb cunt doesn't know the first thing about what she's saying. Fucking idiot.
2/19/2012 4:57:22 PM
And yet, when it really comes to "being frightened of the concept of multiple identities", look no further than the militant fringe of... Christianity and Islam.
2/19/2012 7:08:41 PM
Keeping religion out of government buildings because the constitution says that the government shall not endorse any religion is not totalitarian it's the law!
2/19/2012 7:35:07 PM
That's because you see there's this thing in the 1st Amendment called the establishment clause and it says that the government can't establish any religion. That means the government can't use its resources to advance one religion over the other. If the government is going to put religious paraphernalia on public grounds it has to do it with an all or nothing attitude. And since putting paraphernalia of every religion in every government institution is a ridiculous waste of resources, the government instead chooses to say that no religion can be placed on government and public property. This is not militant secularism, this is how our government is supposed to function.
2/19/2012 7:57:29 PM
I haven't considered that there is a chance he would be president (shudder).
If you read comments I posted months ago, you would see that I thought (at the time, I "knew") Romney would be nominated, because I didn't think the GOP would be stupid enough to nominate Santorum.
But I learned Einstein was right once again: human stupidity is infinite.
2/19/2012 9:22:30 PM
Oh yes, we are very intolerant of intolerance.
Signs of religion belongs in religious buildings, not in government buildings. Can signs of government be displayed in religious buildings?
Sweden is one of the most secular and non-religious countries in the world. We still have a large church in the center of almost every village. Sure, some have been turned into living spaces or dance-halls, but most are still religious buildings. Plus, a majority of Swedes are still members of the Swedish Church, out of habit - that is how strongly we are denied a religious identity.
2/20/2012 1:15:49 AM
A liar that meets with the prince of child abusers, the Pope. Gosh, that's a coincidence, she's religious too. Who would have thought it.
Proof positive that religious numptyness = outrageous lying and opposite dayism.
2/20/2012 1:37:03 AM
The concept of a member of what is a tiny (<5% of the population of the UK) religious group being opposed to secularism is funny.
2/20/2012 3:06:23 AM
Tell me why your opinion in this is even relevant?
2/20/2012 5:13:09 AM
Fuck off, Warsi. You aren't welcome in Britain.
2/20/2012 11:02:28 AM
Considering it all started out as secular TO BEGIN WITH.
2/20/2012 11:30:12 AM
Yeah, because the Scandinavian countries are fucking hellholes. *eyeroll*
2/20/2012 4:41:20 PM
yeah, it is "deeply intolerant". Got it. Yup. Oh...did you ever think of how "tolerant" religion has been in your neck of the woods? Inquisitions, crusades, Henry starting his own church to separate from catholicism, the malleus malefaricum? Yeah, the history of xianity is VERY tolerant....[/sarcasm]
2/20/2012 5:29:34 PM
No, just afraid of society breaking into tribes, each with it's own laws, courts and privileges.
I like one race-blind, religion-blind law for all instead.
2/20/2012 6:50:36 PM
That's your only fear? You must live such a carefree life.
Or not, I mean, being afraid of imaginary things is probably stressful. I'm afraid of societal collapse and personal poverty and being crippled and nuclear holocaust and the hypothetical decline of free speech and ontological despair and a lot of other stuff, and I know the things that are harder to pin down and say 'there is the scary thing' are a lot scarier.
Also, no fair stealing our true arguments and carving them up to look like they're your arguments just so you can have our buzzwords. No one is demanding you be secular in your private life, or even your non-official communal life. You just can't use government resources to articulate said religious identity. We like multiple identities. We want all the identities to be equal, just like the people they belong to. If the law supports one, then it cannot support them all equally because that would a) consume incredible amounts of resources and b) put the government in a position to decide what is and is not a religion.
And while that may sound fine to you as long as the government is a democratic one full of Christians, what happens if it's taken over by nasty bad people who don't like you and they use the religion-defining pen to un-define you and take your prayers off the wall while leaving everyone else's on? Won't that feel bad?
So stop lying. Lying is bad.
2/28/2012 5:36:11 PM