Do you feel it is important to share your views on faith or atheism?

[gingerdodger]

This is a genuine question, I am not asking to promote a faith vs atheism debate as we have plenty of those.

My question is whether people feel that it is part of their faith to share those beliefs with others? How far do you take this and how do you approach it? Similarly for those who are atheist, do you feel it is important to share your opinions and in what ways do you do this?

I know some faith groups see this as absaloutely fundamental to their faith whilst others are more relaxed. I also see that those who do not believe in God(s) also often wish to share their opinions widely. It interests me to think about what this achieves in terms of sharing opinions, understanding of each other etc.

From my point of view I strive to be open about my faith, I like to listen to other's perspectives as this makes me think (providing they are listening, I tend to bow out when it starts to feel adversarial and not inquisitorial). I don't feel compelled to actively knock on doors (metaphorically or otherwise) to share my faith but rather subscribe to the view that I hope my approach to life and openness about faith allows me to discuss my faith openly and honestly. I do believe actions speak louder than words and the best form of 'preaching' is to live Christian values of love (not saying I am good at this).

"I decide to act in love towards people, love them.

Are you saying you have no free will?"

Of course I have free will. deciding to act in a loving way towards others doesn't make you a christian though- you need to believe in god too.

Can you force yourself to believe in unicorns?

combust If I wanted. I don't disbelieve in them now.

combust I mentioned deciding to love people because you asked if you could decide to fall in love.

Regarding the House of Lords, I believe unelected Bishops are as appropriate as any other unelected member.

I think it is so dishonest and typically Christian to skip over the fact that the unelected Bishops are in addition to any other lords who just happen to be Christian. That they have the right to be there because of the political power of the church and their willingness to use it for their own ends.

You can't tell what goes in in someone's head, but if you meet someone who tries to hide or deny the unfair advantage to their church then you know not to trust them.

Not to hate them though, as Christians are victims too. The religion is to blame for the lack of moral fibre and the easy disregard for the truth.

Are the other lords Christians Back? I've not looked at any stats. They don't have to be, peer ship does not necessarily correlate with having Christian belief.

Not to hate them though, as Christians are victims too. The religion is to blame for the lack of moral fibre and the easy disregard for the truth.

Bit of a blatant, and I believe completely untrue, generalisation there. Why would a religion that preaches truth cause 'the easy disregard of truth?'

I obviously don't agree that Christianity is to blame for lack of moral fibre and a blatant disregard for truth! However I do believe that becoming a powerful leader with influence on society can be dangerous spiritually. One of the temptations of Christ was to become powerful in that way and he chose not to do so, so Christian leaders must emulate Jesus and decline power.

I'm not sure live. I can see it being valid for leaders to consult the church when law making. How far this should go, I'm not sure. In a way I'm pleased that there are people automatically representing Christian interests in the country's leadership - the general public will vote in MP's representing all kinds of views, UKIP being a recent example. Democracy does not really safeguard against this, it is a danger. I don't really know of the perfect solution.

Why should capsium care- as long as she is OK, then that's fine.

I just don't know of a perfect solution. You could be at the whim of the media, with the person who has the best spin doctors getting in....

I do acknowledge things are not perfect now but cannot envisage a flawless system.

But I don't have to because I'm not the person deciding. I can just about manage to vote, although is feel it's Hobson's choice a lot of the time.

Can I just ask,capsicum, how you would feel if there were 25 atheists automatically in the house of lords for no reason other than their atheism, and able to amend and contribute to legislation and policy. Would you be happy with that?

It depends the decisions they made as to whether I was happy with their work. It is difficult to generalise on an atheist stand point. Some atheist beliefs /views would be the same as Christian ones. It's the beliefs and decisions arising from them that really go against Christian beliefs that I would be concerned over.

However my Faith gives me hope and I have been in situations before when I have had to challenge the decision making processes of organisations and won.

"It's the beliefs and decisions arising from them that really go against Christian beliefs that I would be concerned over."

Right. E're getting somewhere. Now do you understand why I don't like the fact that there are 25 Christian bishops automatically having an input into legislation and policy? I know not all Christians are th same, but it's safe to say that none of the are going to vote for liberalisation of the abortion law, for example, or for easier stem cell research.

Hak I understand but I suspect our beliefs differ somewhat in these matters which is why your concerns with the make up of the House of Lords are different from mine.

Let me ask you if there were 25 automatic seats for atheists would you be happier?

No. I don't think there should be automatic seats for anyone. But anyway, it's no point expecting you to accept the inherent unfairness of Christian privilege because it suits you, and you don't appear to care that it doesn't suit other people. As I have said before, it's the "I'm all right Jack" attitude of many Christians that I find objectionable-the refusal to give up even an iota of privilege to make things fairer. "You can always opt out" "You can always become a Christian" A moment's honest thought would make you see that your position is unfair.

As I have said before it is not perfect. However complete Democracy is not either. Whole groups of people, societies can be corrupt and the way they vote can reflect this. At least with a two tier system, there is safeguards on both sides.

Capscium you have no shame do you? you say "Are the other lords Christians Back? I've not looked at any stats." and you know full well that I never said they all were, but you have to try and muddle it to get away from admitting that all you care about is your church having control.

Why would a religion that preaches truth cause 'the easy disregard of truth?'

Which religion is it that preaches truth? This may be one I have not encountered yet.

Oh but perhaps you are thinking of those preachers shouting about how everyone who is not in their club will burn in hell. The 'good news' and 'truth' of the gospels.

Faith is not about truth, but about accepting things without knowing or caring if they are true and religion is about scoring points with god so he will reward you over those inferior people in that other religion.

We have to generalise a little because there are a lot of religions. Nearly as many as there are religious people since you all make up rules that suit you.

But they do share common themes and selfishness is one of them.

Depending on which denomination you are you may even be allowed to stand in heaven and watch the sinners below burning. The ultimate reward really of knowing that you came out on top.

See? You just dodge and dodge and dodge. It's because you actually know in your heart of hearts it's not fair, but admitting it would mean giving up some of your privilege.

"...the laws that dictate that my children should worship."
The law doesn't dictate that your children should worship. They don't have to worship at all if you don't want them to. You chose to have your children worship Combust. You could have chosen differently, but you didn't.

As for objecting to institutional power and privilege, that's history for you. The future it may be different, but only if people make changes now. You, when presented with a real opportunity to change something and make your opinions known, didn't bother.

" You chose to have your children worship Combust. You could have chosen differently, but you didn't."

No I didn't. I naiively thought that by sending my children to a non faith school they would not be indoctrinated.

I have no wish for my children to be stigmatised by withdrawing them from assemblies, I have already outlined the format, it would be cruel for them to miss out on an otherwise important school community meeting.

Are you suggesting that the teacher should have led my child out of the room every time there was a bible parable, or blindfolded my child everytime she walked past the "Table of Creation" ( a nature table0 set up in the corner of the classroom for a term.

Tell be how I could have realistically "chosen" to avoid the indoctrination dione.

I am assuming that combust, like me, did/does continue to make their feelings about this know, to write to MPs, to support the a national Secular Society and the British Humanist Society, to talk as widely as possible to people who may not (as most people don't) that all state schools, not just faith ones, are basically Christiqn institutions.....in short, to do everything in her power to raise awareness of this issue. Short of making her own children unhappy by not allowing them to take a full part in the life of thir school. And we are slowly succeeding.
Don't be silly, Dione.

Absolutely dione, I have contacted my MP, written to the government, spoken to the humanist society,complained to the church, joined the board of governers of the school hoping to make changes.

But this is my issue, not my kids.

I don't want to stigmatise them and use them as pawns to further my cause. I volunteered at the school for many years and was acutely aware at how finely christian worship was woven into the fabric of school life.

Comments in the classroom about jesus being good, a few seconds of thanks to god before lunch while the plates were full and children were ready to tuck into their food.

It's naiive to theink that I could realistically ask my child to be removed from the dining hall and their plate of hot food for a 5 second period while grace was being said.
Similarly the school days were punctuated so finely and intimately with doctrine, often before teachers could have a chance to think about what they were about to say. A good morning circle sit around talking about the weather would have a throwaway comment about god blessing us with fine weather today, or a little reminder to children before break that god wants us to play nicely.

If a period of worship once a week for 30 minutes was the structure of the indoctrination that would be easier to avoid, but that isn't the way it happens in many schools.

Sorry, last post was in agreement with Hakluyt not dione.

Don't know what to say to make to make it better., combust. Here's a song instead,

m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOd7ftRLJY

(Not a hymn). We obviously believe differently, different things concern you. I would be absolutely useless attempting to argue against things that I think are right. However these are grounded absolutely in love and I would have been there to make sure your children had a fair option regarding opting out of collective worship, at the time you wanted this. I don't think your argument is actually with Jesus by the way, but there you go.

[cheers]