So much for separating church and state

[William Wallace]

I rarely complain about moderation, but let's stay on topic. Start another thread to discuss the extremist nature of atheism.

[Nigerius Rex]

Its not an extreme world view in itself, but compared to the lifestyles of religious people and agnostic or neutrals, it is, especially when the government that everyone pays taxes into gets involved.

It might help future debate if you avoided such hyperbole, since it seems a good amount of time was just spent discussing it.



But, how is atheism an extreme world view compared to the lifestyles of religious people, agnostics or neutrals? Unless all of those are extreme world views, in which case; in relation to one another, none of them would be extreme.

Holy hell with the wording again. I'm not saying anything about atheism or its advocates. Governments don't regulate or encourage one world view over another, for them to do so is extreme and wrong.

[GuineaPig]

But this isn't the case of a government encouraging a specific world view.  This is the case of a government encouraging tourism.

[William Wallace]

But this isn't the case of a government encouraging a specific world view.  This is the case of a government encouraging tourism.

A reminder: It's never been "encouraging tourism" when religious groups get state support. It's always been a violation of the law, government overstepping in limits etc, etc. A little consistency is all I'm asking for.

[Adami]

But this isn't the case of a government encouraging a specific world view.  This is the case of a government encouraging tourism.

A reminder: It's never been "encouraging tourism" when religious groups get state support. It's always been a violation of the law, government overstepping in limits etc, etc. A little consistency is all I'm asking for.

Then why not get upset when religious groups get funded?

[ehra]

Consistency is what they're getting; their government isn't refusing to support an atheist group while also supporting a religious group. Supporting neither would be preferable, but if that's not going to happen then this is the next best thing. I also wouldn't hold it against a Libertarian that chose to put their kid through public schooling instead of going to a private school, because this is the system we've/they've got right now and your only choice is to do the best with how things are now.

Refusing the aid wouldn't be helping their cause or improve the chances of religious groups losing government funding; they'd just be refusing aid.

[William Wallace]

But this isn't the case of a government encouraging a specific world view.  This is the case of a government encouraging tourism.

A reminder: It's never been "encouraging tourism" when religious groups get state support. It's always been a violation of the law, government overstepping in limits etc, etc. A little consistency is all I'm asking for.

Then why not get upset when religious groups get funded?

I don't like that either. But it's not new.

EDIT:

Consistency is what they're getting; their government isn't refusing to support an atheist group while also supporting a religious group. Supporting neither would be preferable, but if that's not going to happen then this is the next best thing. I also wouldn't hold it against a Libertarian that chose to put their kid through public schooling instead of going to a private school, because this is the system we've/they've got right now and your only choice is to do the best with how things are now.

Refusing the aid wouldn't be helping their cause or improve the chances of religious groups losing government funding; they'd just be refusing aid.

Yes, that's been pointed out already. And I'd be fine with that explanation if the various atheists groups hadn't spent so much effort denouncing state funding for religious activities.

[rumborak]

I frankly find this discussion a bit moot. This is Australia we're talking about, and none of us know a) how much Australian atheist groups have been criticizing state support of religious groups and b) how Australians view this usage of public money for these kinds of activities.
I surely hope nobody suggests we judge Australia by the American Constitution and what it says about the separation of state and church.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I frankly find this discussion a bit moot. This is Australia we're talking about, and none of us know a) how much Australian atheist groups have been criticizing state support of religious groups and b) how Australians view this usage of public money for these kinds of activities.
I surely hope nobody suggests we judge Australia by the American Constitution and what it says about the separation of state and church.

rumborak

This is what I'm not understanding either.

Does Australia have a policy of separation?

[Riceball]

As far as I know, we don't have any specific policy seperating Church and State. I do know that our Federal and State governments provide some funding to independent schools, of which catholic and christian are a large part of.

Also, Australian's don't think on the kind of level shown in this thread. The Government spends ANYTHING here and some group gets pissed.

Also, Australian's don't think.

WW, it's Australia.  Who cares how they do things down there other than Australians?

As much as I should be enraged at this comment and violently oppose it, I agree lol. Australia is so far removed from the Western world and particularly the North Atlantic that you guys shouldn't worry about us...thats just what we want you to think...

[Rathma]

Daniel Dennett is awesome and so is his beard.

[William Wallace]

I frankly find this discussion a bit moot. This is Australia we're talking about, and none of us know a) how much Australian atheist groups have been criticizing state support of religious groups and b) how Australians view this usage of public money for these kinds of activities.
I surely hope nobody suggests we judge Australia by the American Constitution and what it says about the separation of state and church.

rumborak

Adami summed up my point well, and it has nothing to do, really, with any specific law.

So, it's not so much the lack of separation between church and state that bugs you, but that Atheists are accepting a specific kind of treatment that they have fought against others having. Interesting.

[rumborak]

I'm ambivalent about it. On one hand, of course it sucks to spend public money on these things. On the other hand, I think it is laudable that atheism is making inroad into the public psyche as a normal and viable alternative to being religious. I think the public needs to be exposed more to the plain reality of being atheist/agnostic, that there's nothing special about it and that, just like with homosexuality, a lot of people who are in fact agnostic/atheist have been paying lip service that they are religious in order to not be ostracized.

rumborak