Scottish Independence: Role of religion 'should be recognised'

[hrmjustin]

BBC

Churches and faith groups are calling for the role of religion to be recognised in any written constitution for Scotland.

They plan to hold an interfaith conference on the subject in Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, in July.

The call follows an interfaith meeting convened by the Church of Scotland.

The Scottish government said it did not plan to change the legal status of any religion or Scotland's churches.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26903855

[immoderate]

1. Human animal tricks.

I hope they can determine who has it right.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

2. Lol I doubt they can.

[immoderate]

3. I would root for the one that looks like a Shao Lin master.

--imm

[hrmjustin]

4. Has a kind face.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. What is the role of religion? The opium of the people? The heart of a heartless world?

"the contribution of faith to Scottish society should be properly recognised whatever the future holds" - is a constitution there to recognise groups? I recognise the contribution of the Scottish Mountaineering Council to Scottish society, but I don't think that means it should be mentioned in a constitution.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. Hume is rolling over in his grave right now.

[rurallib]

6. I agree - it should say something like:

"Religion has so fucked up mankind that it will be kept out of government totally. They will pay taxes and abide by the rukles and laws like every other citizen or face consequences"

[pokerfan]

7. or as a great philosopher once said...

[hrmjustin]

18. My favorite comedian.

[skepticscott]

9. What a phonied-up piece of

diversity bullshit that photo is. Totally staged and totally fake. Anyone claiming that photo is truly reflective of the important influences in Scottish history ought to be flogged.

And why does the role of religion (or anything else, for that matter) has to be recognized in a constitution? A constitution is a set of rules and instructions for how a government is supposed to function. It is not a vehicle for paying homage to every group that exists or ever has existed in Scotland, or that may have played a role in its history.

[TM99]

12. Issues of subjective interpretations of photos aside,

the American constitution mentions religion in order to ensure the separation of church and state. That allows for a secular government and the freedom to practice or not practice religion as an individual without fear of government intervention.

I think that would be a very important aspect of the drafting of any modern democratic government's constitution, don't you?

[skepticscott]

14. That's not the kind of "mention"

that's being sought here, not remotely, and you know it as well as I do. Are you really reduced to such lame hand-waving to try to score points?

As far as "subjective interpretation" of the photo, I submit that it is staged and phony. It does not reflect a typical cross section of religious believers in Scotland, or of the general population, now or at any time in history.

[TM99]

15. What an exquisite example of 'tone'!

Seriously, must all of your replies be snarky and insulting?

Hand-waving? Trying to score points?

The specifics are rather sparse in the posted article. Do you have insider information or another link with specifics to share?

Aren't all formal group photos staged? You know, like the high school class photo (you were probably too cool & blew yours off!) or the incoming group of freshman senators? The organization in question would kind of fit the rubric.

So in your estimation it doesn't reflect a typical cross section of religious believers in Scotland? Really, and again you know this how? Are you Scottish? Have you lived in Scotland for a period of time? Are you a member of an interfaith group that somehow looks markedly different?

Or are you just trying to score points with your group by stating opinion as fact and making an insulting post?

[skepticscott]

19. Yes, hand-waving

You tried to pretend that the mention of separation of church and state in a constitution was what the group in this article will be looking for, something you, me and everyone else reading this knows is patently ridiculous.

And yes, all formal photos are staged. The purpose for which they are staged is the issue, something you apparently didn't bother to consider in your deep wisdom.

As far as my "estimation" and "opinion" of what a typical cross-section of religious believers in Scotland is…um…no. I looked it up. On the Internet. In 15 seconds. That you would imply something so idiotic as that I would need to be Scottish or to have lived in Scotland to have that information is why you get insulted. And will continue to be. I don't suffer fools gladly, and see no reason to make an exception in your case.

Here are the religious population numbers, from the 2011 Scottish census (I do hope you won't make yourself look even more foolish by calling that my "opinion" too):

Church of Scotland: 32.4%
Roman Catholic: 15.9%
Other Christian: 5.5%
Islam: 1.4%
Hinduism: 0.3%
Buddhism: 0.2%
Sikhism: 0.2%
Judaism: 0.1%
No religion: 36.7%
Religion not stated: 7.0%

If you'd like to argue now that the photo reflects a typical cross-section of religious believers in Scotland, feel free. I'd be happy to insult you for that response too.

[rug]

20. I must interrupt your flow of venom to ask: Exactly who dou think is missing?

[TM99]

21. So another typical SkepticScott reply I see.

You can look up the stats online. Good for you. That probably explains a lot about your true level of knowledge about most topics. My questions were about real experiential knowledge. In other words, do you have any fucking experience in or around interfaith organizations such that you know how they are run, what they look like, and how they represent the various religious laypeople that make up the body of the organization.

And once more, let's actually counter your ignorance. Do you know who the leadership is in interfaith organizations? Do you who know who actually serves on the board and are the guiding voices in said organizations. They are the clergy. They are rabbis, priests, ministers, monks, etc. So just because over 50% of the population is Christian in Scotland, it does not mean that 50% of the leadership is Christian. Can you not get that? There will be a Catholic priest who serves. There will be a Protestant minister who serves. And just because Buddhist may be less than 1% of the population, there will still be a Buddhist monk or priest serving in a leadership role in order to support that voice of inclusion, no matter how small it is.

So, yes, looking at that picture, I see a normal staged photo like any group photo, and yes, I see a normal interfaith organization with Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindi, etc. represented by their various clergy members.

I asked if you had more specifics and all you have is conjecture. Why is your conjecture valid and mine is not?

The bottom line is always your bottom line. Because it is a religious group, it must have a negative agenda. Period. The article does not give all of the details of the conference or their agenda. I am interested to learn more. Having ancestral roots to the Highlands of Scotland, issues of independence are of personal interest for me. But right now, I do not know but I do not presume that it will be bad.

I will use quotes from the article to actually back up my original viewpoint and comment to you based on the story.

"It is intended the conference will help inform their responses to both the constitutional consultation and the wider political debate beyond the referendum.

"The conference will transcend political differences and any statements agreed will make no endorsement of either side in the referendum campaign."

Yup, nothing nefarious there that I can see. The interfaith conference is apolitical even to a point of not endorsing either side in the referendum campaign. The conference will discuss not only the constitution but also any wider political debates beyond that referendum. I suspect that business leaders will do the same as they will be interested to see how the new constitution will address issues of commerce and banking. So again, I see nothing overtly manipulative or nefarious in their agenda or their 'staged' photo op.

A Scottish government spokesman said: "We propose no change to the legal status of any religion or Scotland's churches.

"The interim constitution will, however, give full legal force to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion.

And here is a preliminary government response. They have no intention of changing the current legal status of any religion currently in Scotland after the independence measure passes (of course if it does is still to be decided). The next sentence discusses the ECHR which is very much modeled after the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. It will allow for secular government with guarantees of full religious freedom of expression.

So I can agree with another poster that including in the spectrum of human psychology, the non-believers with the believers would be ideal. Perhaps the Scottish Humanist Society is already involved.

In any case, my reading of the article is backed up with actual information from the article. Yours does not appear to be. Perhaps you either have new or different information you would kindly share with us. Or maybe you are again just too busy being an insulting snark to actually discuss this rationally.

[skepticscott]

22. Please don't flatter yourself

that debunking your nonsense requires any intellectual exertion on my part. A flick of my finger is all it took and all you're worth.

My assertions were that a national constitution is not an appropriate place to pay homage to the contributions of religious believers (or any other group), and that the photo shown is staged and does not reflect a typical cross section of religious believers in Scotland. Rather than try to discuss what I actually said in a rational way, you've babbled endlessly about things I never asserted or even brought up, as if that scores you points. You've vanquished all of your straw men, but that's about it.

[LostOne4Ever]

10. Is this another one of those cases where interfaith

Means all groups other than nonbelievers?

[hrmjustin]

11. Looks like it.

I always think the imput of non-believers is very important.

[TM99]

13. I think that there are going to be issues

with atheists joining interfaith groups at this time. The semantics are going to be difficult to resolve. If I am someone without faith in a religious system, how can I expect to be a part of a group whose members are all with faith in a religious system. One of these things is not like the other.

As I said above to SkepticScott, I think it is important for a separation of church and state clause to be added to any modern democratic constitution. If atheists wish to become a group unto themselves that could then petition for inclusion within interfaith groups, I support that even if I personally would not be interested. It is illogical to me. I am not a person of faith.

Is there an atheist organization in Scotland? Is there a secular humanist group in Scotland that includes atheists? The article does not clearly state who everyone in the photo is or which group they are associated with. Is it possible there is one already included? Interfaith groups on college campuses are more and more including secular humanist groups as members and as defacto chaplains. Can atheists (secular humanists) see this as an opportunity to get involved instead of what often seems like sitting on the outside of things complaining about a lack of inclusion. I don't want to be a part of your club, but damn it I am pissed off that you won't include me in your club.

I suspect that as the number of non-believers grows that some form of structured social community will organically develop for atheists and agnostics. Why? Because one aspect of religion is social community with like minded people. That is a basic human psychological need.

Yes, yes, I know, groups of humans can and have done bad things in the name of God and religion. And equally, groups of humans can and have done good things in the name of God, Gods, and religion as well from civil rights to suffrage to resistance aid during war time to various charities supplying support to community members who need it.

[LostOne4Ever]

16. My problem here

Is that interfaith is often used to mean a group of people from across a wide spectrum of religious beliefs working together to accomplish a goal in an inclusive manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith#Criticism_of_interfaith_dialogue

In theory this is a very progressive and laudable goal. One that I think would appeal to many progressives regardless of whether they are believers or not. In practice, these groups often lack input from nonbelievers and present exclusionary ideas as being inclusive. This is not to say that all interfaith groups do this, but many do.

Thus my objection to the group in the article. I feel they are trying to project themselves as including input from nonbelievers by using the term interfaith, when they might not have any non-believers at all. I do not know for sure if this interfaith group included non-believers or not, but I highly suspect they didn't. Based on the article I highly doubt that they would be "united" behind such a pronouncement.



I feel that ANY mention of religion beyond stating a commitment to a separation of church and state (which I think includes an individual's right to believe in whatever religion they wish without being persecuted for said beliefs by the government) will inevitably be used to try and legislate a religious belief or tradition.

As to why, or if nonbelievers would want to belong to such a group is not my concern here in this thread. I do know from other articles posted both here and in AA that non-believers have wanted to join such movement and have been denied access. IIRC, that post was about a interfaith soup kitchen that refused to allow an atheist group to participate even though the group offered to remove their group shirts.

I am also not trying to say religion is good or bad. I am just concerned with how such a statement being added to the Scottish constitution could be abused by conservatives trying to legislate their religion like they try and do here. This is despite the fact that the US constitution being completely "godless." Just the thought of how conservatives would use such a statement if one existed in our constitution scares me a bit.



I agree with you on the semantics problem with interfaith groups. Even using the prefix "inter" an argument could be made that non-believers do not fit the definition (I like the word "spectrum" myself), but without having our input you can't really claim to be working toward a policy or goal common with people from all corners of the spectrum of belief.

I also STRONGLY agree with you that a separation of church and state clause to be added to any modern democratic constitution. I just oppose the idea of any government including any statement of role of religion in their constitution beyond separation of church and state and all associated issues (one's right to believe as they please, non-discrimination, etc.)

As for humanist groups in Scotland I found this after a quick search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Society_Scotland

[TM99]

17. So we are basically in agreement.

As I mentioned above, the specifics are not yet clear. I, too, would not want any formal sanction of a particular religion by any government. Given that it is an interfaith group, I do not suspect that will occur.

Unfortunately, extremists (I prefer not to use the word conservative) are a human phenomenon in any social and political construct. Even the US founding fathers could not anticipate all of the changes that would lay ahead for their fledgling republic. So where do we legitimately draw the line? That is a fruitful further discussion.

I can agree with you on the idea of a spectrum of spiritual/religious belief. I know that personally I don't even fit the concept or construct of atheist or agnostic so I fall somewhere different on that spectrum.

Change is coming, however, not as fast as I believe some desire. Interfaith will need to evolve. I don't even know semantically how that will look. Some groups like your stated example will handle it poorly. Others like Harvard University will handle it well. The other issue will be including a group of people who historically have always been outside of the norms and fiercely individualistic.

I know I had a hard time when I was young with that. I finally got some needs met by meditating with various Buddhist sangha's over the decades. Today, it is a lot easier. My wood is burned. My confidence in who I am and what I believe is well developed now at my age. I am quite comfortable getting group social religious needs met in a Santerian Ile here locally even though I am hardly a believer in 'deities'. And yet it fulfills some need personally in me to deeply connect with the traditional religion of a large group of my ancestors.

But that is how I dealt with the psychology of it all. What will it look like for others on that spectrum?