In reply to Offwidth:
> It's not whataboutery to challenge your universal attacks on the criminality of the religious where criminality is just as common outside religion. The problem is human criminal behaviour much more than religion, away from extremists.
I acknowledge this, but the difference is that organized religion enjoys unique and undeserved protections. Also, child abuse, while common elsewhere, is clearly more common and selected for in the catholic church, not surprising given its bizarre relation with sexuality. However, we were not talking about that but about flouting Covid rules.
> Enlightenment is just a european label, the churches controlled discourse long after that. Compared to a few hundred years ago, Cordoba arguably had a higher level of freedom of thinking and belief around a milenium ago, under Islam.
I agree with both these points.
> Yes the fact the church of England is part of the state (with Bishops in the Lords and blasphemy laws) is a historical oddity that I hope will change soon.
Then argue for that, and help achieving that change! How many more Charlie Hebdos do we need before we decide that free speech must always trump religious feelings?
Apart from that, Christian history underlies most of the fabric of our societies. I am actually supportive of these traditions (even if you may not believe this). People shoul know what is celebrated on a given holiday rather than simply enjoying another Thursday off. Sundays without church bells would be wrong, same as I do structure my year along Christian traditions such as listening to Christmas oratories and Bach passions at Easter. I would also not wear a hat or shorts when visiting a cathredral to admire the religious art. The important bit for me is that I know that this is merely cultural and does not contain truth about the world.
> The idea that an atheist or agnostic would be insulted by a religious fool calling them immoral is laughable. They could just calmly explain their moral framework (or ignore or lampoon them).
Calm explanation is a waste of effort, and lampooning falls foul of blasphemy. Anyway, I am not complaining about being called immoral, but about an ingrained assumption that any ethics discussion must include church representatives because that is what they do professionally. To hear this from (or about) an organzation that supported and still supports child abusers is rather galling.
> As our state allows freedom of belief then religious treatment of meat production must be allowed, under legal controls.
No, it is the religious freedom that must be curtailed. Rules governing animal welfare or antidiscrimination laws must apply without exception, otherwise why bother at all.
> Now Coel has gone I suppose someone had to play the Ian Paisley of atheism, but I'd wish you would stop. My religious friends are good law abiding people and don't deserve such bigoted labelling.
I have plenty of good religious friends as well, but I disagree with the privileges of organized religion and the feeling of entitlement quite a few religious people often have.
I think this feeling of entitlement from an organization that historically grew rich and powerful by using "fake news" to indoctrinate and then exploit the gullible is what annoys me most. Individually, I support everyones right to believe whatever they want, but that certainly does not necessarily include a right to act on these beliefs, e.g. hold a large wedding or Sunday service in Covid times just because religious traditions or rules demand it.
CB