The Pope as head of a cult can decide on the rules he wants to impose on his followers. After all he has been infallible since the 1890’s so one as flawed as I could not muster the temerity to smite such a figure in deeds or words. Property had a lot to do with the marginalisation of women in the Christian and later Catholic church so I wouldn’t read too much into the scriptures on it. The bible is hardly a consistent document. The bible is one of the most heavily edited bits of reportage that you would get and in many cases the existence of original scriptures that went into the Guttenberg and later King James bibles have never been properly verified. There are also the Coptic and Dead Sea Scrolls which have been excluded from Christian dogma for one reason or another so goodness knows what kind of guidance they contain. Likely, it is the obverse of current practice.

All that said, at least women are allowed into the same area of the church and do not have to stay away when menstruating as is the case with many sects in Islam. There was a flawed but interesting book written a few years ago called Sacred Causes which explores Nationalism, Fascism, Communism, Patriotism and Religion and how they have impacted the world since the rise of the nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia.

I think by any definition liberal secularism is a cause like libertariansim before it and yes on many front it shares features with the -ologies and -isms that have wrought so much damage on this simple precious planet and her plants, animals and people. I don’t think his point is neutral as he is peddling a view from a specific angle so one would assume he likely sits in the liberal secular camp.

An interesting researcher who has looked at different societies and their key traits is a chap by the name of Fons Trompenaars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_Trompenaars). He developed a continuum which like many sociological prisms is deeply flawed but it does point to some very interesting trends and differences between ethnicities, nations and regions. For instance, why does Japan have a conviction rate in excess of 99% in its Justice system and still get to be considered and advanced democracy. Well it is off the scale in terms of its position as a patriarchal, rules-based society so the one may point toward the other.

So all club rules whether they are moral (religious) or ethical (laws) change eventually to suit the times we live in. Man likes to believe he is right and so we alter the facts to suit ourselves as we uncomfortable with the truth that very little of any of it really matters. The most widely selected picture of success in an extensive survey across the world a few years was not fame, money or power but a picture of a family holding hands walking down a beach. Where do you think Aviva got the idea for their current TV advertisement from – this exact survey!

Interesting arguement Brian, and although I think its perfectly logical, the problem is that religions like Catholicism have made many other changes over the course of their history. Female priests are not allowed according to scripture, but then again eating shellfish is also not allowed according to scripture, but the church seems to be ok with it now. Its the same for many, many other issues, the church used to have one position, based upon scripture, and now they have another. They could make a similar change with regard to female priests, if they wanted, but of course they don’t. People have beliefs/prejudices, and they choose an ideology to fit, not the other way round…

Interesting foray, Bryan.

I think that adding an -ism to something makes for discord.

And I think the Kristoffs of the world often just make it easier for the absurd to persist–not only by cleaning up the worst of the public images of absurdities, but by holding out the prospect that they may be reformable.

Where the limits of “live and let live” are will go on being redefined from time to time, but I think it is a better guiding motto than much of that gibberish penned by grubby old men in the desert. Problem is, mixed in with the gibberish is much wisdom, which accounts for the acceptance of the awful stuff as scripture. Who shall we stone to death today?

And patriarchy is a bad word today. Why am I to be responsible for solving all the ills of the world?

Pointing out the immutable heart of the problem in religions is a good service. But Jays man, your Irish readers are masters of avoiding the truth. Too much practice, you see.

Bryan- An interesting article. I suspect that the degree to which a religion is patrarchically organized depends upon the age of that religion, and is inevitably intertwined with tradition, whether useful or not.

Kristof’s column reminded me of a book by Dr. Mary Daly, “The Church and the Second Sex.”

Does liberal secularism count as a religion in its own right?

No, there is no superhuman agency involved in it, so no it´s not a religion.

Look Bryan, the Goddess Tiamat was killed by the God Marduk. The Great Nurturer was killed by the Great Provider, if we’re to ascribe traditional gender roles to sky deities. So, from the Beginning, from the Ur God(desses), we have sought to ascribe human/animal gender and gender traits to what I call the WAN. It’s a power struggle, plain and simple. The gender ascribed to the current SkyPilot whatever S/He/It happens to be at any given moment determines the dominant gender of S/He/Its adherents. Not rocket science mate.

Bryan that is the whole point, there is not such thing as a pure truth. Even the four gospels which proclaim to be Christian Witness of the truth differ quite dramatically.

Truth does not exist. Religious claims that truth can be outwardly claimed or professed are nonsense. At least Buddists and Sikhs look for such truths internally and find the strength to do go from this inner reflection and sense of community.

The reason why acquisitive, destructive religions have resisted such change is often because they had crossed over into power politics and the extension of empires. Challenges to the authority and interests of the church were crushed – it happened in the Caliphate when Yazid and Hussein fought and Sunni and Shia split, it happened when the Christians invaded the middle east, it happened by the GodKing Emperor of Japan invaded Manchuria.

The dismissal of Gallileo happened because it did not suit the dogma of the time. Remember the Catholic church is run by Canon law and catetics which frequently have little or nothing to do with the word of God – should such a thing exist.

Steve K – Isn’t there? There are superhuman institutions though. The market, the corporation, the EU…

Being glib doesn’t buck logic.

Fundamentalist thinking applies to everything from politics to which video game console is best, should we turn all of them into religions too?

Being part of a religion means an unquestioning belief in God. You can be a liberal secularist and also be a socialist and euro-sceptic – a good chunk of Scandanavian society comes to mind.

Bryan – you ask where we draw the line, in allowing religous “nutters” to live as they choose even if their choices are inconsistant with our values. That line is very easily drawn Bryan. Our values and our laws are not the same. People have different values and belief systems even within the same culture. But if I believe in human sacrifice do my religious beliefs give me the right engage in human sacrifice. Of course not.- The point is that ideas and beliefs are not the same as actions. Secular democracies do not deny anyone’s right to believe in what ever they want. They can pray in whatever way they want. The reason I bring up Islam is because some of the cultural practices that have essentially been sown in to the fabric of islam by way of the hadiths are completely at odds with not just our value system which is acceptable but also our legal system which is not acceptable. I speak of honour killings, FGM, forced marriage, the Burka, multiple wives, the threats of violence or death against apostates and of course the barbaric sharia code of justice all of which to a greater of lesser degree are infused into the various sects of Islam and are lightening rods for the testing of the limits of secular democracies or the “clash of civilisations”

Robespierre – …that is the whole point, there is not such thing as a pure truth.
I disagree. Can a finite mind completely grasp that Truth, I don’t think so. So I am weary of truth claims that don’t recognise their own fallibility. But on the question of whether or not there is an absolute truth, I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

The reason why acquisitive, destructive religions have resisted such change is often because they had crossed over into power politics and the extension of empires.
I agree.

Declan – You’re right in that the real contention between and within religions has to do with how scriptures are interpreted. And like you, I think the state should keep some distance.

Steve – I’m really not trying to be glib. I accept that the faith that a Christian, Muslin or Hindu have in a deity is different from that a shopper has in the institution of money or most of us have in the market, but I wonder if it isn’t a matter of degrees.

Patrick – all of those are valid points. But even if we grant that for many, going to church is an exercise in sleepwalking, even if many don’t know what they believe or why, how is that any less valid than ‘faith’ in secular liberalism? How many have a clue about how that works? About how power is structured and decisions made? How many understand how the electoral system works to the benefit of some and not others? If legitimacy is derived from the conscious acceptance and understanding of the participants, modern secular society would be no more legitimate than most religions.

Margaret – Secular democracies do not deny anyone’s right to believe in what ever they want … I speak of honour killings, FGM, forced marriage, the Burka, multiple wives, the threats of violence or death against apostates and of course the barbaric sharia code of justice…

To be clear, I’m pretty standard evangelical Christian. If I lived in the US, I’d probably be classed as a member of the ‘religious right’, (that, or a socialist!). I respect in principle the right of people to hold religious views of their choosing, but my interpretation of the Bible is that a strict understanding of Christian doctrine is incommensurable with other religious beliefs. That is, if you are a Christian, that by definition, by my understanding, means that you think other religions (like Islam or secular atheism) are wrong. A bit arrogant maybe, but let’s face it, if we’re honest, few religious positions allow for others to also be right.

Be that as it may, I don’t see how in one breadth you can say that secular democracies don’t deny anyone’s rights to believe in what they want, and then in the other express the view that FGM, honor killings and Sharia are not permissible in secular democracies. Like most other things, secular democracies have to curb some rights. We only allow people to believe what they want to a point. If it diverges too far from liberal secular norms, we forbid those practices.

The heart of this particular thread is this: given that liberal secularism won’t in fact tolerate every religious practice, and given that religious practices are based on the idea that something has been ordained by a greater authority than societal consensus or even government, what do we do when secularism and religion butt heads? Do our modern secular values trump religious practice?

Bryan, the history of the gospels, and the bible are very interesting of who, when, where they where written , translated dates & locations, and why they made the bible and who had the final say of what gospels where in and out. Many good Christians know very little of the history of their beliefs. The old testment is full of story book stories from ADAM & EVE , the tower of bable , etc. How many out there know why it took so long for the bible to be translated in to a different language from latin? It was more than moveable type even though Roma did not like it. Wonder what they think of the computer?

I would argue that yes, secular values should trump religious practice. If we take the example of marriage, in my opinion, the state has no business in differentiating between the rights of its citizens to a state marriage. Should that be man/woman, man/man or woman/woman so be it. To do otherwise is to create second class citizenship and to cast citizens of a republic into shadow.

Most world religions turn their face against homosexual practice and that is their business to reflect on this. It is the state’s business to act as the anchor and guarantor for the rights of its citizens.

A religious person may not like this scenario but they can easily co-exist with it. Contrarywise, imposing, as we are, civil partnership rather than marriage is forcing second class citizenship onto people that were born to citizens of this state and are meant to be protected by it.

I can marry a woman and love her but friends of mine cannot marry each other, ever. I want no part of a state that discriminates against its people is such a manner.

Margaret – Thanks Margaret, I really appreciate that.

I mostly agree with you. Secular liberalism is the most plural system that’s out there. But going forward, I wonder the degree to which values that are seen as basic and common sense from that secular liberal perspective will cross those held by people who adhere to traditional interpretations of various religions or cultures.

Patrick – You’re absolutely right. Though there is less at stake, I feel a similar frustration with believers who don’t really know what and why they believe as I do when confronted with citizens who don’t know the first thing about how their political communities are organised and how they work.

Patrick Hennessy – That was my mistake. I should have made it explicit. By Truth, I meant claims to an absolute Truth, mine, yours or anybody else’s’. All religions make claims to an absolute Truth. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kant said that we cannot, by reason alone, falsify or verify that kind of Truth claim. But how that Truth is interpreted and referred to as truth, by human beings, that’s debatable.

Put differently, Truth was meant to designate an Absolute, over which we can disagree and differ. Small t ‘truth’. my claims or yours as to what big T ‘Truth’ is.

Another point: The argument goes that since a finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite, “it” (the infinite) must exist.
No. My argument would be that for reasons rational and irrational I hold to the existence of Truth that finite mind cannot disprove because finite mind could grasp that infinite Truth, which is again a version of Kant’s argument if I’m not mistaken.

But you’re right Patrick. Once we remove the bounds of reason from our discussions, it becomes impossible to engage in the kind of debate we enjoy here.

Robespierre – I would argue that yes, secular values should trump religious practice.
You might be interested to know that I had this conversation with a friend yesterday, who also happens to be a church minister (he’s going to hate being called that), and neither of us were prepared to come to a definitive conclusion on the issue. I think secular liberalism is a religion in is own right which is incommensurable with aspects of other religions. But it is probably more accommodating of other religions. The greatest weakness of a Christian theocracy is that I don’t know how different it would be to Iran in that if you believe as the people in charge – great! If not, or if other people take over, then what?

Where there are irreconcilable differences should secular values trump religious practice? Personally, I would prioritise my religious convictions over societal values. But I can’t say that the state should necessarily do likewise.

Can anything be absolutely true when absolutely anything is possible in a Universe this big? It is possible, remote, but a possibility, that every 1 trillionth of a second I turn into a …small tasteful lampshade in the 1920’s Tiffany style. I can make this assertion and there is nobody able to refute it. Nor am I able to prove it. It is highly probable that I do not turn into a Tiffany lampshade every billionth of a second, but not absolutely true. All the great religions, Christianity and Buddhism in particular as far as I ‘ve observed, speak of an underlying Reality that is not generally perceived because of our attachments, our grasping at the gross material world (rupa) of the senses. Until we put down the burden of attachment we are constrained and bounded by the mind itself, limited to the extent that the body and it are inseparable so long as we grasp at attachments. I suppose Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle also proves that there is no such thing as absolute truth, at least not while we’re limited to consciousness in this brane. Take Zeno’s Arrow. If at every point in its progression, a flying arrow is in fact at rest, then can it be said to move at all? When a fly hits a windscreen, both fly and vehicle stop momentarily. Two synchronised clocks, one on terra firma and one on a warp-drive enabled starship, will end up telling different times. In fact, even if nothing else changed, even if you were to put a body into “absolute” zero degrees Kelviin, quantum fluctuations would still mean that given enough time the body you took out of cold storage would not be the same body you put into storage. How then can we talk of absolute Truth? We can’t even talk of absolute reality. Our brains are hardwired not to perceive either, while we’re hardwired into our spacesuits. It isn’t even, at least if you believe in Christianity, an absolute truth to say that when you’re dead yer dead.

Are kidnapping and torture absolute evils? I always thought so. Torture most definitely. But is it an absolute truth to say that they’re absolute evils? Is there even one case in which to kidnap an innocent person and subject them and/or their loved ones to the torture of being “disappeared” if nothing else is not an absolute evil? Delete the “innocent” there. Is it an absolute evil?

Taylor’s core statement is that we should start from an affirmation (sorry if something else book’s not with me here) of the universal respect for human life and use that as the portal when discussing ontology. The matter of being. The energy tooo. The thing is I’m not as sure as Mr Taylor and Lt. Col. Grossman about this systemic this innate aversion among humans towards killing other members of our species. It may be from a Euro-centric and Western perspective generally, but there are stone age tribes who engage in cannibalism, undisturbed peoples, in the South Pacific today. History is rife with hideous cruelty being lauded as a virtue. Two of the aggressors in the last Big War both had their histories. Three. No. Four. But perhaps that’s where brutalisation comes in. The shattering of the self-worth, the destruction of dignity that rends the ordinary life when jobs are lost, homes are lost, marriages are lost, savings are lost, and tragically, often, families are lost. Mr Taylor refers to the effect this can have on the being. Lt. Col. Grossman (I don’t have his book right now either lent it to a bloke in O’Malley’s one night guy never gave it back how it goes) would be referring I’d suspect to the process of brutalisation that militaries have used with increasing effect since WW2 in terms of training their soldiers. Parris Island is notable. There’s a load of families in Ireland where the same effect takes place. Drugs alcohol the usual suspects poverty stress. Kids get whacked and beaten and Raped. The very essence of their dignity their sense of self-worth destroyed. Brutalisation. The process of tearing a person’s soul apart. Any inbuilt nausea about taking human life doesn’t last long against that.