Thread: The Myth of Militant Secularism

Last Monday 13th Feburary an unelected minister of the Conservative party, Baroness Warsi led a ministerial delegation in visiting the Pope in Vatican city in reciprocation for his state sponsored visit in 2010. The following day the same minister unleashed an attack on those she dubbed as "militant secularists" in which she said

"one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes."

Her main gripe and what she sees as a new totalitarian assault, she says can be seen "in any number of things’", such as "when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools". Religion, she insists, has been "marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere’"

Her inflammatory language has since been ignorantly co-opted by many religious people in the UK and used to attack those who do not deem it necessary to identify themselves with a religious label. It is remarkable that after going on such a trip, that a minister from the ruling parties government should be so ill-informed to Lie about the laws and conditions of her own country. A liberal country that not only does fund faith schools, but also does not forbid the display of religious symbols in government buildings. All this religious propaganda too, after the state sponsored nature of both her visit to the Pope and his visit here in 2010?

Religion's role in the Public sphere may well be downgraded but that does not excuse the bandying about of terms like Militant, Atheists are not the militant faction that is dividing British society. Atheists do not use violence to attack and incarcerate Christians, Muslims or Jews. This is not China. Atheists are not aiming to remove the rights of religious believers to worship freely. The separation of Church and state is something Jesus vehemently believed in and the rights of unbelieving democratic citizens to challenge laws should not be met so readily with clumsy, false, insecure rants about militancy.

Cognitive dissonance in action.

Didn't bother to read it all.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Cognitive dissonance in action.

Didn't bother to read it all.

Grow up, show some manners, have some conviction in your beliefs and grow some balls.





Cognitive dissonance is the mental conflict that people experience when they are presented with evidence that their beliefs or assumptions are wrong. I wish I could say I am sorry to make you uncomfortable but not everything in the world is about you. When you grow up hopefully you will realise this and finally be happy.


Peace and Love

Actually that is not what cognitive dissonance is. It is the discomfort an individual feels when holding conflicting opinions. The two ideas wrestle with each other in the unconscious mind and one will force the other out, often quite violently.

This is clearly what you are suffering from. You have an unnatural aggression towards Christianity and a need to prove to yourself that the new atheism you have embraced is the truth.

Personally I do not care what you or anybody else believes, but you seem bent on explaining to us your worldview, hoping to gain acceptance for it, the act of which highlights and exposes the cognitive dissonance you are feeling inside.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Actually that is not what cognitive dissonance is. It is the discomfort an individual feels when holding conflicting opinions. The two ideas wrestle with each other in the unconscious mind and one will force the other out, often quite violently.

This is clearly what you are suffering from. You have an unnatural aggression towards Christianity and a need to prove to yourself that the new atheism you have embraced is the truth.

Personally I do not care what you or anybody else believes, but you seem bent on explaining to us your worldview, hoping to gain acceptance for it, the act of which highlights and exposes the cognitive dissonance you are feeling inside.

Actually the inverse is true your hostility towards atheism is clear in your ready adoption of the term Militant secularism. I have no aggressive attitudes towards Christianity, nor need to prove anything to myself. I simply do not wish my children and grandchildren to grow up in a world dominated by religious bigotry. It is a peculiar selfish brand of religion that does not care what anyone else believes. The point of a forum is to express a viewpoint, I will not apologize for airing mine or for your primary level understanding of Psychology. I do not presume to guess at your psychological state of mind despite your copious weird posts revealing your wish for cathartic release and impersonal therapy.

May I suggest a trip to the synagogue, Judaism has a long history of being able to question God and could well answer more questions for you than an impersonal confession box.

Peace and Love

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Actually that is not what cognitive dissonance is. It is the discomfort an individual feels when holding conflicting opinions. The two ideas wrestle with each other in the unconscious mind and one will force the other out, often quite violently.

This is clearly what you are suffering from. You have an unnatural aggression towards Christianity and a need to prove to yourself that the new atheism you have embraced is the truth.

Personally I do not care what you or anybody else believes, but you seem bent on explaining to us your worldview, hoping to gain acceptance for it, the act of which highlights and exposes the cognitive dissonance you are feeling inside.

Actually the inverse is true your hostility towards atheism is clear in your ready adoption of the term Militant secularism. I have no aggressive attitudes towards Christianity, nor need to prove anything to myself. I simply do not wish my children and grandchildren to grow up in a world dominated by religious bigotry. It is a peculiar selfish brand of religion that does not care what anyone else believes. The point of a forum is to express a viewpoint, I will not apologize for airing mine or for your primary level understanding of Psychology. I do not presume to guess at your psychological state of mind despite your copious weird posts revealing your wish for cathartic release and impersonal therapy.

May I suggest a trip to the synagogue, Judaism has a long history of being able to question God and could well answer more questions for you than an impersonal confession box.

Peace and Love

Sorry but I couldn't be bothered to read this.

cognitive dissonance.

I missed this thread, but I agree with Greenbeanz OP.

I see no reason for the state to have any connection with religion at all and don't even believe in the state funding faith schools as I believe that all they do is enhance division in what is seemingly an increasingly fractured society. Study the subjects and be made aware of religions, but to teach a syllabus around adhering to a set faith? I find that untenable.

Since when have atheists ever been militant anyway? It was Blair and his faith that lurched Britain towards what was a war in Iraq totally at odds with the interests of the general public and it is no secret how faith dominates the political sphere in the US. Santorum last week was ranting on about how God made America a great country etc etc. Tell that to the Natives who were wiped out to genocidal proportions.

Also the idea of militancy even on the micro level is absurd. How many atheists knock on your door encouraging you not to believe in God? I get Christians at least twice a week. That is localised militancy.

Religion is the problem. Atheists are relatively open minded and benign types.

And you two are a funny bunch of bastards.

I am sure they are one of the same person, split personality disorder.

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Last Monday 13th Feburary an unelected minister of the Conservative party, Baroness Warsi led a ministerial delegation in visiting the Pope in Vatican city in reciprocation for his state sponsored visit in 2010. The following day the same minister unleashed an attack on those she dubbed as "militant secularists" in which she said

"one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes."

Her main gripe and what she sees as a new totalitarian assault, she says can be seen "in any number of things’", such as "when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools". Religion, she insists, has been "marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere’"

Her inflammatory language has since been ignorantly co-opted by many religious people in the UK and used to attack those who do not deem it necessary to identify themselves with a religious label. It is remarkable that after going on such a trip, that a minister from the ruling parties government should be so ill-informed to Lie about the laws and conditions of her own country. A liberal country that not only does fund faith schools, but also does not forbid the display of religious symbols in government buildings. All this religious propaganda too, after the state sponsored nature of both her visit to the Pope and his visit here in 2010?

Religion's role in the Public sphere may well be downgraded but that does not excuse the bandying about of terms like Militant, Atheists are not the militant faction that is dividing British society. Atheists do not use violence to attack and incarcerate Christians, Muslims or Jews. This is not China. Atheists are not aiming to remove the rights of religious believers to worship freely. The separation of Church and state is something Jesus vehemently believed in and the rights of unbelieving democratic citizens to challenge laws should not be met so readily with clumsy, false, insecure rants about militancy.

Wait a minute...I thought he wasn't a real person??

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Last Monday 13th Feburary an unelected minister of the Conservative party, Baroness Warsi led a ministerial delegation in visiting the Pope in Vatican city in reciprocation for his state sponsored visit in 2010. The following day the same minister unleashed an attack on those she dubbed as "militant secularists" in which she said

"one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes."

Her main gripe and what she sees as a new totalitarian assault, she says can be seen "in any number of things’", such as "when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools". Religion, she insists, has been "marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere’"

Her inflammatory language has since been ignorantly co-opted by many religious people in the UK and used to attack those who do not deem it necessary to identify themselves with a religious label. It is remarkable that after going on such a trip, that a minister from the ruling parties government should be so ill-informed to Lie about the laws and conditions of her own country. A liberal country that not only does fund faith schools, but also does not forbid the display of religious symbols in government buildings. All this religious propaganda too, after the state sponsored nature of both her visit to the Pope and his visit here in 2010?

Religion's role in the Public sphere may well be downgraded but that does not excuse the bandying about of terms like Militant, Atheists are not the militant faction that is dividing British society. Atheists do not use violence to attack and incarcerate Christians, Muslims or Jews. This is not China. Atheists are not aiming to remove the rights of religious believers to worship freely. The separation of Church and state is something Jesus vehemently believed in and the rights of unbelieving democratic citizens to challenge laws should not be met so readily with clumsy, false, insecure rants about militancy.

Wait a minute...I thought he wasn't a real person??

Thanks for that brilliant contribution. It would have been interesting to hear the views of an American, as religion and politics seem to be much more closely aligned in the states. I have also always found it weird how Christians around the world seem to see no conflict in following a man who preached neutrality, pacifism and peace with taking up arms. As an atheist I can see the need for state armies to protect a countries freedom, but can not understand things like army chaplains and the churches relationship with the armed forces.

Hasn't the entire concept of Jesus been sucked up and used by the church? It just seems to me that power interests have brewed up a whole myth of persona which in all likely hood bears little connection with his actual life. It's almost like they had to make his life a CGI infused blockbuster rather than just accept him as a moral man who urged people to act morally towards one another. Concepts like immaculate conception, miracles and this purer than thou charade just seem so over the top and it's astonishing how so many people have been taken in by it all. I don't understand it really, but I have nothing against Jesus himself who was probably a very nice man. It's the whole God and concentrations of power thing that I take issue with. Such a blatant manipulation of a dead man who couldn't defend his reputation. Very cynical IMO.

Aww come one Beanz you know I couldn't pass up a chance to bust your balls a bit. Army Chaplains serve more as a counselor role. They lead their respective religion's ceremonies and provide someone to talk to. Unless you go looking to interact with a chaplain you rarely see one. The military supports all of its member's needs to include spiritual ones, hence the numerous different military religious leaders. I think the US is slowly moving away from religious overtones in politics but there is still a large portion of the electorate that base much of their voting habits on the candidates faith. A lot of it is distraction so the candidate doesn't have to talk specifics on the real problems our nation faces. Whether you agree with some of Bilbo's posts or not there is a portion of America that feel their faith is constantly under attack. It is an easy political point to get by playing on these fears. This is another reason I like Ron Paul so much. He is a devout Christian but usually only brings it up when asked about it. My faith is a private matter that I rarely discuss in public. I wish more of my fellow American did the same.