Richard Bridge wrote: that men are in charge of most of the main organised religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) and use thme to subjugate women. Perhaps, but in that case I'm more surprised that these religions do not require women to parade around in bikins. Demanding that they do would still be an effective form of control (if women had little or no say in the issue) while most gratifying for the men in said religions! ;-)

Tunesmith writes that religion should be kept inside mosques, churches etc, and one should not even be allowed to express one's religious affinity in public. That'd include the veil, minarets and church bells and perhaps even blessing oneself in public passing a church etc.,
I disgaree strongly.

People are allowed to express their sporting preference (Club T-shirts, singing football songs in public etc.,) their politics (leafleting, protest marches etc.,) and their sexual orientation (e.g gay men dressing or acting in a camp manner that makes their gayness obvious). If I were to suggest that these things are all 'fine as long as they are done indoors in private where they don't disturb anyone' I wouldn't be able to hear for all the screams of 'intolerant pig!' So people are allowed to express many of their beliefs and opinions in public, and act on those beliefs and opinions to demand changes in society. Why should religion be the only belief system barred from this scheme of things? If people wanted a more overtly 'religious' society (and I'm not saying that they do) then wouldn't that be an expression of democracy in action? Ellen McCormack put it very well in her book "Cuomo V.O'Connnor" when she described society where the general opinion was that 'the Church should know its place at the back of the pluralistic bus'.

Most people I've met and spoken to who are opposed to the concept of public expression of religion also generally do not believe in any God (that is, God as a personality as opposed to a nebulous concept of God as some kind of positive energy: it is possible to form a relationship with a personality, but not with mere energy, any more than you can with the power coming from the socket in the wall). As a disclaimer, may I add that I don't know if that is your case, Tunesmith, but I'd be delighted to hear if you do believe in God or not. People who don't believe there is a God are also expressing a belief system (after all, they don't actually KNOW there ISN'T a God, it is an opinion strong enough to become a belief) - one generally called Atheism. This belief, like any belief we hold dear, will inform our behaviour and actions in public and private. An atheist will say religion is a waste of time and ask that it be a completely private affair, an indoor hobby that doesn't cause an unsightly nuisance to people trying to live in the 'real' world. They will say that religions tend to impose on other people, step on their toes. They will vote, or write to the paper (or forum) or march to try and see that this is accomplished, if they feel strongly enough about it. Insofar as they succeed, their atheistic beliefs will have an impact on those around them who may not hold them. Thus they are doing the very thing they believe religions to be doing, and for which they demand they be a priavte affair. And that is the crux of the conundrum!

I myself have never believed in trying to convert anyone who didn't want it. Jesus never put a gun to anyone's head. It would be self defeating anyway. But he never hid what he was, or his ideas or beliefs and indeed went everywhere he could telling whoever would listen. Some people did listen and it changed their lives. Others found him a nusiance, so much so they killed him. But he never tried to force anyone to do what he said, which makes you wonder why they felt they had to kill him, sweep him under the carpet as it were!

If you are religious, your beliefs have to inform your actions, or else there would be no point in believing it. For example, say my religion tells me that God has said it's wrong to kill. Now this should mean that I try not to kill anyone myself (!) but furthermore I should do my best to try and stop other killing. Now it makes no sense if I kill people to do this, that would be contradictory. But it might mean that I should vote for politicians who don';t support war, that I should argue against war, murder or abortion if the issue comes up, etc., etc., so of course our beliefs are part of our everyday lives and influence our actions - atheist and montheist alike. So what if my religion tells me that I should express my religion publicy that 'no-one lights a lamp and sticks it under a pot where its light cannot be seen'? (e.g see Mark 4:21-23) Tunesmith says that wearing a veil (or presumably, blessing yourself etc.,) makes a religious statement and intrudes into the lives of others. Well, if that's all it takes to intrude...! I don't see how anyone can feel so threatened or intruded on by someone wearing a veil. Some have made the comparison with balaclavas etc., - these have no religious or cultural significance (unless one thinks of bank robberies and paramilitarism as some form of culture - though the word starts to lose meaning at that point) so I don't think it's comparing like with like. Nor does it work to try and raise the old prejudice that 'all Muslims are terrorists' since, as has been pointed out here, anyone wishing to carry out an attack is more likely to dress in a way that would attract the least attention to themselves, say as a BIg Issues Vendor (only joking, I was one myself once - a vendor, that is!). If wearing a veil intrudes, then so do headphones, mobile phones, Sepeltura or Tupac T-Shirts (if you are offended by metal or rap etc.,), punk mohicans, camp clothes and mannerisms, swearing, the list could be endless - all of these things make statements about who we are and what we think and believe.

I must admit I hate swearing and blasphemies. It grates on my ears when I hear them. There's little I can do about it except put up with it, and I realise that most people who curse don't even think about what they are saying, it's just a habit and often not even meant maliciously.

Some on the forum were mystified by my comments on Jack Straw, that debating the veil is a preclude to banning it. What I meant was, that when people / politicians want to enforce a change that they know will be highly unpopular or resisted at first, they don't just go in and make a law. They first of all get the topic diuscussed in public, and get everybody talking about what's wrong with the veil (for example). They firts of all say that they have no intention of legislating, only to discuss it. By the time they actually move to get rid of it, it is in a context where the public mind has already come to see it as a fait accompli, simply requiring the ink from the pen. We need only think of the war on Iraq. Before Iraq was invaded - a decision made in the US at any rate long before 9-11 - Iraq was all anyone was talimg about: its WMD, it's supposed links with terror etc., By the time the invasion came there was little public opposition - at first. As people realised how they'd been engineered into going along with a hidden agenda, they were furious. But too late! The dice were cast, and now the official line was changed to 'ok, maybe we got it wrong, but it can't be helped and now we must support the soliders (as opposed to putting on the brakes to think about why they are in that mess, who put them there and why)"
Stephen Lukes (sociologist) has summed up the approach in his booklet on "Power" which describes how the most effective way of exercising power is to get people to believe that what YOU want them to do is what they want to do themselves, in other words, shaping their wishes. C.S Lewis described much the same thing in his book "The Screwtape Letters"

Finally

Well, I guess I'm ready to be doubly, triply bashed now!