Thanks for writing this
@9-10ths_Penguin
The only thing that got me scratching my head was the questions about so-called "atheist propaganda". My guess is this is a thinly veiled swipe against teaching the Theory of Evolution in our schools.
Almost all people kind of misinterpreted what I meant by atheist propaganda. Propaganda, at least in my language (same word) is different than proselytism. It deals with speaking about a particular ideology with enthusiasm and applauding it, without trying to persuade your listener.
The example of evolution is not that appropriate, since that is something related to science. But it can be used as example.
I am thinking of when a philosophy teacher speaks of rationalism very positively...underlining that a particular philosopher is an atheist and a rationalist.
If I am a teacher and I say "Atheism induces people to use reason" , I am not trying to persuade my students, but I am making an objective statement in the context of philosophy.
Another example in history: if I say, the French revolution,with its deistic ideas contributed to the modernization of the French state. etc...
I think it is. Unless I misunderstand 'Secular' and it actually means totally absolutely no religion whatsoever, in which case it is an impossible system. That's moving into Communist territory.
It is clear that the beauty of the several European state is the diversity of their juridic and cultural traditions. All the Italian peninsula was influenced by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic juridic systems, so we have certainly another concept of secularism.
If you ask me, (an Italian) what I think about the British legal system, I will be forced to say that the UK is hardly secular according to my vision of
laicité, because of the Common law system and the presence of the Monarch as head both of the state and of the Anglican Church.
This doesn't mean that the British culture, the British legislation isn't
de facto very secular and modern, but the presence of Common law will allow juridic particularism, that is, some religions will be allowed to apply their religious laws in their courts.
In the mindset of an Italian or a French jurist this is anti-secular. The weird thing is that in Rome, the symbol of the secular republic, there is also the Vatican, which is almost perceived as intruder, and a negative reminder of a theocratic oppression the Romans got rid of only in 1870.
That's a rather loaded question and would depend on what you define as 'atheist propaganda'.
Another loaded question which again would depend on what you define as 'atheistic propaganda'.
Well...I should have clarified the concept, I admit that. I am sorry if it hasn't been that clear to most of you guys. It's just that I was thinking o my personal experience as high school student in Italy. Nowadays education in Italy is strongly secular, and openly sympathizing for rationalism. This implies that teachers (especially philosophy and history teachers, but also literature teachers) are encouraged to speak about ideologies like atheism, agnosticism and deism, in a enthusiastic and positive way, but without the intentional purpose of persuading the students to embrace those ideologies. This implies that students are disposed to listen to any rationalist speech with interest and receptivity, but they will protest if the teachers speak of religions positively, with the intent of influencing students.
So it is clear that the
de facto, Italian public education sympathizes for atheism and reject any kind of religious propaganda. Which I find a really positive thing, since this doesn't prevent people from practicing their religions, which are a private thing. And not supposed to be discussed in a public place, like school.
