I have some thoughts about religion in the public space, not about religions itself, that bothers me. I get that the moderators here complains about the extra work with monitoring flamethreads in the religion section, and a overall hostile mood on their site, and that's ok with me as a reason.
The problem is that it's a choice between cohlera and pest to me. Slicing out religion is oppresive to the religious part of the human nature, where some are more religious than others. I now see AD as a playground for atheists and agnostics who are free to mock religious beliefs, and questions that policy on AD. If I try to question the world views atheists and agnostics got, I'm defined as a religious person, even if I'm not. What AD simply have done, is to remove religious worldviews, and letting the secular views stay. That's a way of saying that secular views are superior to religious views, and that's not a rational thought, to me. I am not even allowed to comment the religious nature and history behind some of the secular arguments in the politics section. My point, is that if AD want to be fair, they have to put down atheistic and agnostics world views as well.
If this post is against the rules of religious discussions on AD, then sorry, and feel free to close/remove this thread.
Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem is that it's a choice between cohlera and pest to me. Slicing out religion is oppresive to the religious part of the human nature, where some are more religious than others. I now see AD as a playground for atheists and agnostics who are free to mock religious beliefs, and questions that policy on AD. If I try to question the world views atheists and agnostics got, I'm defined as a religious person, even if I'm not. What AD simply have done, is to remove religious worldviews, and letting the secular views stay. That's a way of saying that secular views are superior to religious views, and that's not a rational thought, to me. I am not even allowed to comment the religious nature and history behind some of the secular arguments in the politics section. My point, is that if AD want to be fair, they have to put down atheistic and agnostics world views as well.
If this post is against the rules of religious discussions on AD, then sorry, and feel free to close/remove this thread.
Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In an interview in 1999 Habermas stated that,
"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.".
The statement was later misquoted in a number of American newspapers and magazines as: "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization," which Habermas did not say.
Habermas now talks about the emergence of "post-secular societies" and argues that tolerance is a two-way street: secular people need to tolerate the role of religious people in the public square and vice versa.