PDA

View Full Version : I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.


funfly
18th Jan 2015, 14:39
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.

Although I don't have a faith myself, I suggest that ridiculing those who do is a form of abuse. Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance. We all have the 'right' to question others about what they believe in and try to understand their reasoning but mocking is abuse, it's stuff of the playground.

When done using a public platform it represents an attempt to provoke a reaction. Against people who have extreme views this is irresponsible.

If we live in a society where some people have views that we consider unacceptable, mocking only helps to isolate them with predictable results.

Support for a magazine that has catalysed reaction from extremists is not the way for any of us to indicate our distaste for the murderous extremists and not the way for our society to tackle the problem.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Jan 2015, 14:47
Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance.

Dozens of Christians 'including women and children' are arrested in Saudi Arabia after tip-off to state's Islamist police force | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756134/Dozens-Christians-including-women-children-arrested-Saudi-Arabia-tip-state-s-Islamist-police-force.html)

There's your problem with Islam for a start...

deptrai
18th Jan 2015, 14:49
Even if I don't agree that mocking the beliefs of others is a good idea, I will defend their right to do so. While freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute rights - they need to be balanced against other rights and freedoms - it's a slippery slope if we limit them too much. I'd rather err on the side of caution, and allow "too much", than "too little" freedom of speech. (and obviously, physical violence as a response to verbal provocations is never acceptable, I'm not buying the wife-beater's defence). If people are offended by Charlie Hebdo, they are free not to buy it, not to look at it, and they are free to believe what they want, and exercise their religion as they wish.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 14:51
Fox.

I am in full agreement with you, it's disgusting and inhuman.

My point is that mockery will not help this problem or contribute to solving it.

Making a hero of a magazine that abuses religious beliefs is not the way to illustrate our contempt for these peoples or these practices.

FF

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 14:56
Deptral,

I, like you, defend the right to free speech. However I might not want to stand in the streets abusing the prophet Mohammed even if I have a right to.

We all know that the UK newspapers have not printed the cartoons from Charlie and we all know that this seems to be a sensible decision even if they have the 'right' to print them.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Jan 2015, 15:00
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.
Does that include not mocking such "beliefs" as "political party X has all the answers, and the rest are spouting nonsense"?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Jan 2015, 15:02
Your reason for not making fun of Islam (religious freedom not being allowed in Islam) is precisely why cartoons are made about Islam. Satire is a means of social chastisment, with the intention of provoking improvement.

All religious satire is aimed at removing the supposed authority of any one church. We now live in a secular society. All of the equalities we enjoy would be removed by Islam (or Catholicism, or fundamental Christianity, or......).

Thus, satire aims to achieve what you want, which is complete religious freedom. Islam (not just Islamists) does not agree with religious freedom.
Read the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html)

Now, if Islam can't take a joke, frankly, that's their problem. If they want a fight about it, then we might as well get it over with sooner rather than later.

Tolerance of Intolerance is Cowardice
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

oldchina
18th Jan 2015, 15:03
"question others about what they believe in and try to understand their reasoning"

If I went round proclaiming that the universe was created and continues to be controlled
by a pink mouse living on a methane cloud on Venus I'd expect to be mocked.
Today's major religions have the same level of credibility.
Mock thee on, everyone, and let the believers take their offence as they wish.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 15:04
Does that include not mocking such "beliefs" as "political party X has all the answers, and the rest are spouting nonsense"?

That's my belief also, are you mocking me?

However…..if you seriously thought that saying that to me could result in me coming round and chopping off your head you may have though it more sensible not to post it.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Jan 2015, 15:06
Today's major religions have the same level of credibility.

Not all of them..
http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/Buddhism-quote-352296.jpeg

And they don't all react to humour violently;
which is why, in general, you can't find a cruel buddhist joke.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1347647531806_3273151.png

http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/buddha.png

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 15:10
Fox,

The dilemma as I see it is that most of Islam have accepted comments made about them and will not react adversely.

We are talking about some maniacs who are shielding behind Islam using it as an excuse for murder and terrorism.

Of course you can be sarcastic about them, of course you can taunt them as much as you like. But I am suggesting that that is not the most constructive way of dealing with this problem - in fact, with the individuals concerned, it is counter productive.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 15:14
Oldchina

If I went round proclaiming that the universe was created and continues to be controlled by a pink mouse living on a methane cloud on Venus I'd expect to be mocked.

You bet I would mock you, however if I thought that mocking you would drive you to murderous acts then mocking you might not be considered a constructive move and you might question my wisdom in doing so.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Jan 2015, 15:18
Radical Islam declared war on the West in 1996

Bin Laden's Fatwa | PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/)

Cartoons aren't mentioned as a reason.

It is not just my freedom of expression they want to remove. It's also equality, and a host of other freedoms. So, I'm not budging one inch.
Publish the cartoons.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 15:21
Fox,

Are you suggesting that the mocking cartoons are the best way to deal with the Islamic terrorists?

Would you be prepared to park your car in Manchester with a copy of the cartoons in the window. It might be your right but maybe not a wise thing to contemplate.

deptrai
18th Jan 2015, 15:25
funfly, you are a level-headed and calm person, you think before you speak, and consider the effect it will have on others. You're very rational, something I strive to be.

Yet, here's a thought, the root causes for terrorism and meaningless violence may be hard to grasp completely for a rational mind. I think we agree that the caricatures and provocations are not the actual root cause for violence and terrorism. The provocations may at best be holes in the cheese, a contributing factor, but not the cause. If we take away the caricatures, these rootless, disturbed extremist individuals will no doubt find other excuses for their violence. The violence, the terror isn't caused by caricatures, it's not caused by religions, it's caused by a few individuals who have certain issues that are beyond our understanding.

Sop_Monkey
18th Jan 2015, 15:27
Funfly

Depends which country we are talking about. A lot of countries where Islam is mocked, are Christian countries. Now if the Muslims don't like that, then they can p:mad:s off to where they came from or shut up.

You cannot turn the other cheek with Islam. It is a religion built on fear, violence and total intolerance. Try getting caught with a Bible in KSA for e.g., then you'll get my drift.

6000PIC
18th Jan 2015, 15:29
If the populace of this planet were educated , informed , literate and possessed objective and sound minds , perhaps we could do away with religion and this whole problem of fearing to offend anyone's beliefs , as mixed up and silly as they are. Sadly that's not the case. Someday it will be , but until then , we must continue making a mockery of any religion that seeks to control the will of free men and women. Unequivocally.
Talking to your imaginary friend who tells you to conduct criminal acts based on a book of fairy tales is no defence. Without the ability to call these belief systems out , to call them to account , to laugh at them in all their foolishness , we become prisoners to harmful , destructive and dangerous ideologies. Christianity and Islam both have a lot of blood on their hands. Stop denying and enabling them.
As women throughout the world have become educated , it is proven that they have less children. Equally , as the populace becomes more educated , informed via the Internet , and literate , they will discard , by a large majority , religious belief systems. Too bad it's going to take 100 years.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 15:30
funfly, you are a level-headed and calm person, you think before you speak, and consider the effect it will have on others. You're very rational, something I strive to be.

Wow, you are so right :ooh:

P.S. I intend removing "old, stubborn and opinionated" from my profile and replacing it with this.

Sop Monkey;

Now if the Muslims don't like that, then they can ps off to where they came from or shut up.

But they don't do they?

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Jan 2015, 15:32
However…..if you seriously thought that saying that to me could result in me coming round and chopping off your head
Well, there is the occasional death threat, which we're told to report to the police as SOP (just in case there's a serious risk that needs investigating).

The response is usually along the lines of "oh, him again" and no more is heard. One poor sod did end up in prison for a month (it wasn't me who reported this one, I knew he was harmless and ignored the occasional b*ll*cks he spouted) - not really a helpful response, better engagement with the mental health services would have been more helpful all round. But you could argue that "I'm going to burn your house down in the middle of the night when your children are asleep in their beds" is rather difficult to ignore.

Capot
18th Jan 2015, 15:41
Quote:
Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance.

Dozens of Christians 'including women and children' are arrested in Saudi Arabia after tip-off to state's Islamist police force | Daily Mail Online

There's your problem with Islam for a start...

No it isn't, it's your problem with Saudi Arabia and its cruel, autocratic, greedy regime, scared witless of any form of protest..

deptrai
18th Jan 2015, 15:42
if I was alone on a remote island with someone like Bin Laden, I might not be principled enough to stand up for my right to mock his religion, in the end it's not a right that is particularly dear to me, my self-preservation instinct is probably stronger.

Stéphane Charbonnier, one of the caricaturists who died, said in 2012 to French newspaper Le Monde, "I would rather die standing than live on my knees"...and while I'm a coward myself, and somewhat proud to be a coward, I can't help admiring him a bit, however irrational he was.

I can empathize with the people who defend him.

Sop_Monkey
18th Jan 2015, 15:49
funfly

No they don't shutup or go, let's put our efforts into assisting them on that score! :}

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 16:01
My stance is that I would welcome anyone to this country as long as they respect our ways and obey our laws - simple as that.

respect our ways and obey our laws - as 99% of our immigrants actually do and that's a fact.

FF

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 16:12
Funfly:I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.
I mock your belief that you think it is wrong to mock other's beliefs. Ha ha ... points finger and laughs at Funfly.

deptrai
18th Jan 2015, 16:22
respect our ways and obey our laws

The economy of most "developed", "industrialized" countries would break down without immigrants. 99% or more are peaceful, law-abiding citizens, who contribute immensely to society. And...1 one the 2 policemen who gave their life defending Charlie Hebdo, was a muslim, son of Algerian immigrants.

Even if you don't speak French, his brother's eulogy for him is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDgPVLi9_4

The "House of Windsor" was renamed from "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", and Battenberg became Mountbatten, due to anti-German sentiments...yet the fact remains, heads of state of the UK were immigrants at some point.

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 16:48
Funfly:I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.

Although I don't have a faith myself, I suggest that ridiculing those who do is a form of abuse. Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance.
Whilst trivially true in that nobody can read anothers mind and so we don't KNOW what other people really beieve, when someone actually states what they believe then I absolutely disagree that mocking all stated beliefs is "abuse"

Is it abuse to mock the belief that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of a persons skin colour? Is it abuse to mock the beliff that it is OK to have sex with children?
Which beleifs are mockable and which aren't?
We all have the 'right' to question others about what they believe in and try to understand their reasoning but mocking is abuse, it's stuff of the playground.
It is not abuse, it is making fun - nobody has the RIGHT not to be offended or to have their beliefs ridiculed, it is part of the human condition. I often mock others of different political belisfs, as they do me... are you seriously suggesting that we are abusing each other?

When done using a public platform it represents an attempt to provoke a reaction. Against people who have extreme views this is irresponsible.
.... and this seems to be the nub of your argument - do not mock those who have extreme views because they may hurt you. If I mock someone who is (say) an extreme Islamist for their belief that women should be sold into marriage against their will and the Islamist beats me up for this, then you suggest that I am the abuser. I think you have your standards the wrong way round.

Someone may not like being mocked, it may be very unfair in their eyes, it may cause offence but to stop because they threaten you with violence is simply submitting to the bully. NO belief is inherently above mockery.
I am sick and tired of the concept that being killed for causing offence is somehow excusable, it is NOT excusable and in my eyes never will be.
No person or group of persons have special rights not to be mocked but we ALL have the right not to be murdered for ANY reason - including mockery.

oldchina
18th Jan 2015, 16:59
My local football team is not doing very well. They concede way too many goals.
One observer remarked that our goalkeeper must have more holes in his hands than Jesus Christ.
I chuckled.

racedo
18th Jan 2015, 17:04
As someone who is a practising Catholic I care little whether you mock my beliefs on not.

My beliefs don't rely on whether you approve them mock them or not, frankly if they did they would be very weak to begin with.

Doesn't mean as Pope Francis said that if you abuse my mother i wouldn't punch you.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 17:16
If I mock someone who is (say) an extreme Islamist for their belief that women should be sold into marriage against their will and the Islamist beats me up for this, then you suggest that I am the abuser

Of course you are not an abuser in this case and you have the 'right' do do this. However I would honestly suggest that your actions would be unwise and not constructive.

Don't confuse mocking with disagreeing with. I am prepared to mock anyone but I am here trying to make the point that mocking or ridiculing this particular section of the community where it seems to take little to trigger murderous outrages is not perhaps the most constructive way to tackle what is becoming a very serious global problem.

I would go farther in suggesting that whereas mocking you or I is par for the course and we take it in our stride, any form of mockery towards this small and dangerous group of people seems to do nothing but stimulate then and give then additional excused to carry out their subhuman activities.

For this reason I am advocating that supporting cartoons that seem to 'upset' them is not the most constructive thing we can do to tackle the problem indeed it seems to aggravate the problem.

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 17:25
Funfly:
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.

Although I don't have a faith myself, I suggest that ridiculing those who do is a form of abuse. Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance.
It seems you have significantly moved the goal posts from your initial post.

So which is it? is mocking any belief "abuse"? or merely "unwise" in some circumstances? (namely that those mocked may hurt you)

ShyTorque
18th Jan 2015, 17:29
Funfly,

I agree totally with your original post.

I hold no religious beliefs in the conventional sense due to what I see as a lack of convincing evidence, so I suppose I'm agnostic. However, I go with the principles of live and let live and have come to learn that moderation in all parts of life generally works for most people. But there will always be fanatical extremists. Deliberately offending others, especially about their religious beliefs, is never to be recommended, in my experience.

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 17:36
It seems you have significantly moved the goal posts from your initial post.

You're probably right, surely that's the point of a good discussion, it make one evaluate your thoughts and polarise your ideas.

You will notice that the constructive posters on here always seem to be prepared to accept points made and modify their views, 'go with the flow' so to speak. That's when these threads come into their own and some very interesting comments have been made here.

There are some very wise people on JB and I hope that I will always be in a position to gain from their observations.

JFZ90
18th Jan 2015, 17:44
I think you raise a valid concern Funfly.

Whilst the Charlie murders were totally unacceptable, and there is no excuse for any violence - AND it is totally unacceptable for the e.g. pope to imply they were "asking for it" (see his statements about "expecting a punch"), there is also a valid point of view that it is a bit distasteful to deliberately insult someone.

This is the reason atheists don't tend to talk about religion at work - not so much for fear of how their views may offend - but just to avoid any offense full stop (if the difference makes sense). Live and let live is an important moral standard (perhaps lacking in some religions, to their detriment). It is commendable that many theists - just as many atheists - decide to just not discuss religion (e.g. in the work place) as they know they may cause offence either way.

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 17:50
FF - fair enough we are all entitled to change our views when presented with other ideas.

I am still very "uncomfortable" with the concept of, effectively, restricting one's freedom of expression because of the threat of violence from a minority group. By "voluntarily" using self-censorship one is submitting to the bully - NEVER a good move as the bully's demands will just increase. Today no printed images of "the prophet" or we kiill you, tomorrow only Halal slaughter or we will kill you, the next day ... well you get the picture.

At some point you have to say "no", we will follow OUR laws, customs and rights without intimidation.

Flying Lawyer
18th Jan 2015, 17:56
funflyI am advocating that supporting cartoons that seem to 'upset' them is not the most constructive thing we can do to tackle the problem indeed it seems to aggravate the problem.

I agree.

As deptrai said: 1 one the 2 policemen who gave their life defending Charlie Hebdo, was a muslim, son of Algerian immigrants.
Even if you don't speak French, his brother's eulogy for him is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDgPVLi9_4

“My brother was Muslim and he was killed by two terrorists, by two false Muslims. They are terrorists, that's it.
Islam is a religion of peace and love. As far as my brother’s death is concerned it was a waste. He was very proud of the name Ahmed Merabet, proud to represent the police and of defending the values of the Republic – liberty, equality, fraternity.

“I address myself now to all the racists, Islamophobes and antisemites. One must not confuse extremists with Muslims. Mad people have neither colour or religion.

“I want to make another point: don’t tar everybody with the same brush, don’t burn mosques – or synagogues. You are attacking people. It will not bring back our loved ones and it will not bring peace to the families.”



Je suis Ahmed would have been a more appropriate and more constructive slogan.

FL


(Edit)

I also agree with what you said in post 33.
(BTW, I think you meant crystallize rather than polarise but your meaning was clear from the context.)

deptrai
18th Jan 2015, 17:59
As someone who is a practising Catholic I care little whether you mock my beliefs on not.

My beliefs don't rely on whether you approve them mock them or not, frankly if they did they would be very weak to begin with.

well put, racedo. I always - bluntly - believed if someone's faith gets shattered by provocations, they have no faith.

ShyTorque
18th Jan 2015, 17:59
I am still very "uncomfortable" with the concept of, effectively, restricting one's freedom of expression because of the threat of violence from a minority group. By "voluntarily" using self-censorship one is submitting to the bully - NEVER a good move as the bully's demands will just increase. Today no printed images of "the prophet" or we kiill you, tomorrow only Halal slaughter or we will kill you, the next day ... well you get the picture.

But you need to realise the difference between standing up to a bully as opposed to doing something to deliberately inflame him.

Walk / speak quietly whilst carrying a big stick is a good way to live a more peaceful life, for all concerned.

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 18:09
But you need to realise the difference between standing up to a bully as opposed to doing something to deliberately inflame him.
I can assure you I do realise the difference. So tell me how do you stand up to the bully in this particulart instance, what do you do (or not do) to show that you are "standing up" to someone who threatens to kill you for exercising your right of free speech?

Is self-censorship "standing up" to the threat? France is a liberal western democracy, like the UK, US and many other countries, they have fought and spilled blood to allow their citizens to have freedom of expression, who the heck are others that they say if you exercise this right we will kill you, what have they done to deserve this privilege?

JFZ90
18th Jan 2015, 18:22
You can stand up to the bully by mocking the bully specifically - AK47 toting idiots who decided to kill - and end their own life rather pointlessly - for the sake of their own interpretation of a religion.

It may have been more powerful to mock them directly and contrast their action with that of the religion of peace that is islam - and reinforce the fact they weren't even doing 'their religion' properly. What muppets etc.!

The cartoon they chose instead possibly offended otherwise meek and non-violent muslims - normally they would not notice CH/them, but with massive exposure they will have been difficult to miss - which is not really a good thing for them, they become victims too.

Of course personally, I don't understand how an image of you-know-who could possibly be offensive - especially when many images of effectively the same prophet (Jesus) in many christian texts do not seem to offend in the same way. But a parallel can be drawn with a picture of a pair of naked breasts - not something I typically find in any way offensive, but I fully understand and can respect why others might find them offensive in certain contexts - and indeed I would not want them pinned to the wall in any workplace I was a part of as a result.

Live and let live is an important moral principle here that we should also defend as much as free speech. For me that includes starting to think of ways to no longer tolerate the intolerance displayed by some religionists - with the law if required. Zero tolerance of intolerance could be a vote winner, and rather more attractive to me than the fundamentally unpleasant immigration scape goat policies of e.g. UKIP.

ShyTorque
18th Jan 2015, 18:31
Is self-censorship "standing up" to the threat?

You don't need self censorship if you have no desire to publish stuff which you know to be inflammatory in the first place.

I wouldn't poke a lion with a stick because I have no desire to
A) Upset the lion or
B) To get attacked by a lion.

aKovQRzIQwI

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 18:33
You can stand up to the bully by mocking the bully specifically - AK47 toting idiots who decided to kill - and end their own life rather pointlessly - for the sake of their own interpretation of a religion.

It may have been more powerful to mock them directly and contrast their action with that of the religion of peace that is islam - in reinforce the fact they weren't even doing 'their religion' properly.
I see what you mean but it is circular, you don't know who the AK47 toting idiots ARE to mock them until after they have killed someone. I repeat, nobody has an inalienable right not to be offended. The tolerance of intolerance is very, very dangerous.

I really do not want to get into the whole "doing your religion properly" as there is no such thing as the one correct interpretation of any religious text. The "AK47 toting idiots" are no more wrong or right in THEIR interpretation than anybody else. Classic "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

I think I have made my opinion quite clear and don't think I have anything further to add to this discussion.

If within the establisehd laws of the country, freedom of speech is not subject to the permission of anybody else, implicitly or explicitly.

ehwatezedoing
18th Jan 2015, 18:57
You don't need self censorship if you have no desire to publish stuff which you know to be inflammatory in the first place.

I wouldn't poke a lion with a stick because I have no desire to
A) Upset the lion or
B) To get attacked by a lion

What if this lion is lurking around your house and family, its pack waiting in retreat ready to jump in ?

A stick will look pale in regard of what is realy needed, but it's a start.

Choxolate
18th Jan 2015, 19:07
Quote:
There are 85 Sharia Law courts operating in Britain.

No there are not.

There are about 85 Sharia TRIBUNALS that have to operate within the current established Laws of the UK and are there ONLY to resolve civil disputes if BOTH parties agree to be bound by the rulings AND those rulings are not contrary to any UK Laws.
They are no different, in principle, from the Jewish Tribunals that have been active in the UK for well over 100 years.
Red Herring

JFZ90
18th Jan 2015, 19:30
There are about 85 Sharia TRIBUNALS that have to operate within the current established Laws of the UK and are there ONLY to resolve civil disputes if BOTH parties agree to be bound by the rulings AND those rulings are not contrary to any UK Laws.

That seems more reasonable. What sort of things to they do/proclaim on? Anything impacting 'our' values?

It would also limit the activities of arbitration tribunals and explicitly require them to uphold equality laws including women’s rights.

Baroness Cox told the House of cases she had encountered including a woman who had been admitted to hospital by her violent husband who had left her for another woman but still denied her a religious divorce so she could remarry.

Another woman was forced to travel to Jordan to seek permission to remarry from a seven-year-old boy whom she had never met because she had no other male relatives, she said.

A third who came to see her was so scared of being seen going in that she hid behind a tree whole another told her: “I feel betrayed by Britain, I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin."

Baroness Cox said: “These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help.”

Meanwhile Baroness Donaghy added: “The definition of mutuality is sometimes being stretched to such limits that a women is said to consent to a process when in practice, because of a language barrier, huge cultural or family pressure, ignorance of the law, a misplaced faith in the system or a threat of complete isolation, that mutuality is as consensual as rape.”

Lord Carlile, the legal expert, was among those backing the bill but the Bishop of Manchester urged caution arguing that it could end up “stigmatising those individuals in communities it is aiming to help”.

And Baroness Uddin, the first female Muslim peer, said it would be viewed as “another assault on Muslims”.

Lord Kalms, the businessman, claimed that self-styled Sharia courts had already reached far beyond mediation to areas such as criminal law.

“To my knowledge, none of these cases has ever received police attention or investigation, and this is a scandal for which the police, among other authorities, must be held responsible,” he said.



One thing that to consider is whether religion should be allowed to continue to interfere with is basic principles such a equality between sexes and orientation.

I was quite shocked the other day to see the "official CoE rep for the Govt" spouting on some TV show (big questions I think it was) about how marriage was "only for the church between M/F" and she was quite happy to block any attempt to extend it between F/F and M/M. This kind of religious interference with peoples basic rights in 2015 is surely well past its sell by date. It is effectively CoE intolerance of same sex relationships. Why should it be tolerated any more?

bnt
18th Jan 2015, 19:43
Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish without hindrance.
Sure, everyone has the right to believe what they want. No-one here is suggesting that that right is taken away - which is more than can be said about "authorities" in Saudi Arabia & other countries.

The difference is that Western societies have (mostly) grown out of the religious persecution phase. Catholic France was at times so hostile to Protestants that many Huguenots emigrated en masse to the Americas and South Africa, for example. Need I drop the C-word* about England vs. Ireland? Those days should be gone by now. When will we have an Islamic Enlightenment? Probably never. :ugh:

Personally, I respect people, but reserve the right to disrespect their beliefs. My mere existence as a non-believer is offensive to some, and in some countries that would get me flogged or killed - and I'm not supposed to lampoon the beliefs behind such naked religious bigotry?

* Cromwell

Flying Lawyer
18th Jan 2015, 19:51
Choxolate is absolutely right.

Parties to disputes often elect to resolve matters by arbitration.
It is generally quicker and cheaper than court action.

Commercial contracts increasingly frequently specify that disputes between the parties must be resolved by arbitration.
Insurance contracts frequently specify that disputes between insurer and insured must be resolved by arbitration.

Sharia 'courts' are relatively recent (since 2007 approx) but Jewish Beth Din 'courts' have operated in this country for centuries. As Choxolate says, they are tribunals.

JFZ90Why should it be tolerated any more?

Should what be tolerated?

Should Christians (or other religions) not be permitted to express an opinion on same sex marriage?

Should the CoE (or any other religion) be forced to conduct same sex marriages?


.

Keef
18th Jan 2015, 19:52
The point is that humour (humor) and religion are mutually exclusive.

You are joking, aren't you?!

Some of the best jokes I've heard anywhere have been by Jews about Judaism.

Just a spotter
18th Jan 2015, 20:42
IMHO, if someone's faith is so easily rocked that some questioning of their beliefs, slight mocking or, in extremis 'extracting of the proverbial' is sufficient to cause offence (any or all of which may be considered heresy by some religions), then perhaps they should reevaulate the strength of the doctrine they have bought into. If it's so fragile and precious that it can't stand up to scrutiny and/or a little humour then it may be that "it's hiding something". (And I say that as former avid practitioner of a religious doctrine.)

Additional, there is no ground to assume that an individual who is not a member of a particular group/organisation/religion should be bound by the rules, direction or diktats of that body. I'm not a member or any religion so why should I be bound by the rules associated with someone else's life choices? If I conduct myself in a decent way, one that's consistent with norms, values, mores and laws of my society, where I haven't set out to hurt, incite others or offend someone, but a third party happens to take offence to my actions, then tough, that's their problem; they have made a lifestyle choice, chosen a set of beliefs to follow, chosen to interpret my actions in a certain way and then chosen to be offended.

But that's just my 2c.

;)

JAS

Fox3WheresMyBanana
18th Jan 2015, 21:01
There is a fundamental problem with the muslims in western countries, and that is that every muslim country has signed up to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which I (and the UN) find unacceptable. I do not believe that homosexuals, apostates and adulterers deserve to be punished, let alone be put to death. Should women be second-class citizens again?

You expect me to believe that the muslims in western countries are somehow all fundamentally different from those in muslim countries, and wouldn't have sharia law given half a chance?

B*llocks.

Is homosexuality illegal in Israel? No
In the UK, home of the Church of England? No
It's practically compulsory in Vatican City
The Dalai Lama? "all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable"

But in Saudi -"One must be stoned to death"

There's only one inhuman religion.

JFZ90
18th Jan 2015, 21:12
Should what be tolerated?

Should Christians (or other religions) not be permitted to express an opinion on same sex marriage?

Should the CoE (or any other religion) be forced to conduct same sex marriages?


I'm beginning to wonder if the tolerance shown to the CoE on issues such as sexual equality or preference isn't now untenable in today's society.

Issues such a female bishops etc. - on the one hand you can say its up to the religion etc., but on the other hand what example are they setting, and why make an exception that is now considered illegal in other arenas? Are they covertly saying it is OK for some jobs to be male only? How can it be excused? That is arguably not really acceptable anymore when set against current moral standards.

On marriage - whether the CoE conducts single sex marriages is one thing, but as recently as 2 weeks ago I saw a church representative (Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the speaker of the House of Commons) stating how she would choose to block the availability of "marriage" to same sex couples, as it should be reserved for the church. I'm not clear on how her post enables her to influence the HoC, but it leaves me uncomfortable that this is still an official position, despite it now being legal in England, Wales etc. It is almost as if the church consider gays to be 2nd class citizens! Shocking in this day and age really.

Marriage is not a concept exclusive to the church - otherwise you could be saying that you want to say that atheists should not be allowed to be married and enter into the social & legal implications. Should we tolerate any church saying who can and can't be married? In my view, absolutely not. Institutions that promote such exclusion or prejudice should not really tolerated - or at least their exclusive or prejudicial policies should not be tolerated.

obgraham
18th Jan 2015, 21:44
JFZ:

Would you go so far as to say that every church MUST marry anyone who shows up and requests it, and provide the building and the officiant for said marriage?

Should a religion be allowed to actually, you know, practice their religion?

Flying Lawyer
18th Jan 2015, 21:53
JFZ90
Marriage is not a concept exclusive to the churchAgreed, obviously.

It is almost as if the church consider gays to be 2nd class citizens!
That is certainly not the church's stance.

Should we tolerate any church saying who can and can't be married?
Be married or be married in a church?

People of the same gender are free to get married.
Are you suggesting that there is some 'human right' to be married in a church?

ORAC
18th Jan 2015, 22:26
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone. Although I don't have a faith myself, I suggest that ridiculing those who do is a form of abuse.

Written at a time when it was catholic against Protestant carnage, but as applcable today...

J. S Mill - On Liberty (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/).

.....Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme;” not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

In the present age — which has been described as “destitute of faith, but terrified at scepticism,"— in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them — the claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society. There are, it is alleged, certain beliefs, so useful, not to say indispensable to well-being, that it is as much the duty of governments to uphold those beliefs, as to protect any other of the interests of society. In a case of such necessity, and so directly in the line of their duty, something less than infallibility may, it is maintained, warrant, and even bind, governments, to act on their own opinion, confirmed by the general opinion of mankind. It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what only such men would wish to practise.

This mode of thinking makes the justification of restraints on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness; and flatters itself by that means to escape the responsibility of claiming to be an infallible judge of opinions. But those who thus satisfy themselves, do not perceive that the assumption of infallibility is merely shifted from one point to another. The usefulness of an opinion is itself matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself. There is the same need of an infallible judge of opinions to decide an opinion to be noxious, as to decide it to be false, unless the opinion condemned has full opportunity of defending itself. And it will not do to say that the heretic may be allowed to maintain the utility or harmlessness of his opinion, though forbidden to maintain its truth. The truth of an opinion is part of its utility.

If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it is true? In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful: and can you prevent such men from urging that plea, when they are charged with culpability for denying some doctrine which they are told is useful, but which they believe to be false? Those who are on the side of received opinions, never fail to take all possible advantage of this plea; you do not find them handling the question of utility as if it could be completely abstracted from that of truth: on the contrary, it is, above all, because their doctrine is “the truth,” that the knowledge or the belief of it is held to be so indispensable. There can be no fair discussion of the question of usefulness, when an argument so vital may be employed on one side, but not on the other. And in point of fact, when law or public feeling do not permit the truth of an opinion to be disputed, they are just as little tolerant of a denial of its usefulness. The utmost they allow is an extenuation of its absolute necessity or of the positive guilt of rejecting it........

Those in whose eyes this reticence on the part of heretics is no evil, should consider in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be prevented from spreading, do not disappear. But it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy. Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral? Among them we may occasionally see some man of deep conscientiousness, and subtile and refined understanding, who spends a life in sophisticating with an intellect which he cannot silence, and exhausts the resources of ingenuity in attempting to reconcile the promptings of his conscience and reason with orthodoxy, which yet he does not, perhaps, to the end succeed in doing.

No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think. Not that it is solely, or chiefly, to form great thinkers, that freedom of thinking is required. On the contrary, it is as much, and even more indispensable, to enable average human beings to attain the mental stature which they are capable of. There have been, and may again be, great individual thinkers, in a general atmosphere of mental slavery. But there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere, an intellectually active people. Where any people has made a temporary approach to such a character, it has been because the dread of heterodox speculation was for a time suspended.

Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to be disputed; where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, we cannot hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable. Never when controversy avoided the subjects which are large and important enough to kindle enthusiasm, was the mind of a people stirred up from its foundations, and the impulse given which raised even persons of the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking beings.

Of such we have had an example in the condition of Europe during the times immediately following the Reformation; another, though limited to the Continent and to a more cultivated class, in the speculative movement of the latter half of the eighteenth century; and a third, of still briefer duration, in the intellectual fermentation of Germany during the Goethian and Fichtean period. These periods differed widely in the particular opinions which they developed; but were alike in this, that during all three the yoke of authority was broken. In each, an old mental despotism had been thrown off, and no new one had yet taken its place. The impulse given at these three periods has made Europe what it now is. Every single improvement which has taken place either in the human mind or in institutions, may be traced distinctly to one or other of them. Appearances have for some time indicated that all three impulses are well-nigh spent; and we can expect no fresh start, until we again assert our mental freedom......

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion.

Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection.

Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct.

With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interest in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause.

In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion.

It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candor, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves, but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own; and giving merited honor to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favor.

This is the real morality of public discussion; and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.......

As a first instance, consider the antipathies which men cherish on no better grounds than that persons whose religious opinions are different from theirs, do not practise their religious observances, especially their religious abstinences. To cite a rather trivial example, nothing in the creed or practice of Christians does more to envenom the hatred of Mahomedans against them, than the fact of their eating pork. There are few acts which Christians and Europeans regard with more unaffected disgust, than Mussulmans regard this particular mode of satisfying hunger. It is, in the first place, an offence against their religion; but this circumstance by no means explains either the degree or the kind of their repugnance; for wine also is forbidden by their religion, and to partake of it is by all Mussulmans accounted wrong, but not disgusting. Their aversion to the flesh of the “unclean beast” is, on the contrary, of that peculiar character, resembling an instinctive antipathy, which the idea of uncleanness, when once it thoroughly sinks into the feelings, seems always to excite even in those whose personal habits are anything but scrupulously cleanly and of which the sentiment of religious impurity, so intense in the Hindoos, is a remarkable example. Suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country. This would be nothing new in Mahomedan countries.1 Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion? and if not, why not? The practice is really revolting to such a public. They also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the Deity. Neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution. It might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody’s religion makes it a duty to eat pork. The only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self-regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.

To come somewhat nearer home: the majority of Spaniards consider it a gross impiety, offensive in the highest degree to the Supreme Being, to worship him in any other manner than the Roman Catholic; and no other public worship is lawful on Spanish soil. The people of all Southern Europe look upon a married clergy as not only irreligious, but unchaste, indecent, gross, disgusting. What do Protestants think of these perfectly sincere feelings, and of the attempt to enforce them against non-Catholics? Yet, if mankind are justified in interfering with each other’s liberty in things which do not concern the interests of others, on what principle is it possible consistently to exclude these cases? or who can blame people for desiring to suppress what they regard as a scandal in the sight of God and man?

No stronger case can be shown for prohibiting anything which is regarded as a personal immorality, than is made out for suppressing these practices in the eyes of those who regard them as impieties; and unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves......

No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty. Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law.

But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom....

funfly
18th Jan 2015, 22:59
I am hoping that this thread steers itself into a discussion between the great minds that inhabit pPrune about how the problem of Extreme Islam can be tackled by us who, on the whole, agree that the practices are intolerable in a modern society.

We may agree that poking sticks at them may not be the best actions to take. But the question is do we live with this unacceptable practice within our world - shut our eyes, or is there anything we can do to tackle it?

It seems to me that there are three main areas of concern;

1. Youths mainly from the underprivileged communities in Europe who feel disillusioned by the society they live in and are influenced by the teachings of extreme Islam. Their views are enhanced by the doctrines and promises of the Islamic cults which use their vulnerability to recruit them. These are the immature youths who inhabit areas of the Middle East using murder and torture to control certain Middle East areas and who carry out atrocities in Europe.

2. Countries where Islam is the controlling force, e.g. Saudi and Pakistan, and where communities are controlled by a regime of terror from lashings to beheading.

3. Groups of indigenous man, fired by extremism, mainly in Africa who rampage whole areas using their religion as an excuse for rape and pillage.

Suggestions might include;

1. Tackle the problem with unemployed underprivileged, disillusioned and underutilised youth in this country? Apprentice schemes? National Service?

2. Put economic pressure on Saudi and Pakistan to persuade them to reduce extreme punishments. Educate their peoples that women have rights?

3. Military help into Nigeria to eradicate the scum in the North?

Apart from shaking their fingers and saying what naughty people they are (and increasing security), I see no positive action from our politicians with any efforts to tackle the roots, the causes of the problem, rather that the end results.

JFZ90
18th Jan 2015, 23:04
obgraham, FL

I'm not saying a specific church should marry anyone, but I got the impression from this episode (I think its this episode) that the Rev was trying to claim marriage for the church alone. I can't get iplayer to work at the moment (might be my PC), and I can't check and can't recall the details so I may have misheard what she said. I think it is towards the end of the programme, again not 100% sure.

I just remember thinking at the time :
- "why is she claiming marriage for the church exclusively and wanting to deny it to certain sectors of society?"
- "And why is such a person linked to the House of Commons? What is their influence?
It didn't feel quite right to me.

See if iplayer works for you. I'll be quite happy to find out I've misunderstood/heard it and perhaps she only meant in her church which as you say would be a different thing.


BBC iPlayer - The Big Questions - Series 8: Episode 1 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04ykfzk/the-big-questions-series-8-episode-1)

EDIT: It was covered a year ago - clear views from some to deny marriage to some sectors in society - irrespective of whether it is in a church or not. Looks a bit like thinly veiled - but in the name religion - bigotry and homophobia.
yZn6vC-Zdqg


Funfly:
I had wondered earlier whether clamping down on intolerance might be an answer. Perhaps a bit like the laws against holocaust denial in Austria - maybe we should have a law (and rigorously enforce it) against preaching that "infidels should be killed" etc. It really is not healthy, is it? Perhaps we have reached a tipping point with public opinion on the matter. If it had been suggested 10 years ago I would have thought it objectionable on free speech grounds, but it seems less black and white now. It seems possible a solution could be found that did not conflict inappropriately with free speech.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Jan 2015, 00:03
Suggestions might include;

1. Tackle the problem with unemployed underprivileged, disillusioned and underutilised youth in this country? Apprentice schemes? National Service?

It isn't just the unemployed, etc who are disillusioned

A large and increasing proportion of British citizens emigrating from the UK are those from professional or managerial occupations and this may have implications for the availability of skills in the UK. In 2010 almost one-half (48%) of British emigrants were previously in professional or managerial roles.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116025/horr68-report.pdf
The UK Government is currently offering £20,000 cash golden hello's for people to replace me (and that's at entry level, not with my experience/expertise), and getting no takers.


2. Put economic pressure on Saudi and Pakistan to persuade them to reduce extreme punishments. Educate their peoples that women have rights?

Read the Cairo Declaration. Women are are not entitled to equal rights in Islam.

And you are going to apply economic pressure by the near-basket case that is Europe (ECB QE in the next 6 months) on a country which has just forced the price of oil down by over half how, exactly?

3. Military help into Nigeria to eradicate the scum in the North?

The Nigerian Armed Forces have all the resources they need, but are not the slightest bit interested. Fighting Boko Haram does not enhance the value of the Nigerian Generals overseas assets one bit.

Apart from shaking their fingers and saying what naughty people they are (and increasing security), I see no positive action from our politicians with any efforts to tackle the roots, the causes of the problem, rather that the end results.

Agreed. Change your politicians now whilst you still have some semblance of a democracy.

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Jan 2015, 00:07
People of the same gender are free to get married.
Are you suggesting that there is some 'human right' to be married in a church?


Massive massive massive round of applause for pointing out the 'facts' of it all, I am not sure why some folk find that concept difficult to grasp.


In simplistic terms same sex folk CAN get married but NO ONE is compelled to carry out that service.


Often not even considered in this stupid feckin argument is that opposite sex couples can also get married but NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO CARRY OUT THAT SERVICE either :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Jan 2015, 00:18
Suggestions might include;

1. Tackle the problem with unemployed underprivileged, disillusioned and underutilised youth in this country? Apprentice schemes? National Service?


National Service? Have you any idea of the scale down the military are currently going through? Apprentice Schemes, WTF are you even considering there.........

2. Put economic pressure on Saudi and Pakistan to persuade them to reduce extreme punishments. Educate their peoples that women have rights? GW 1 and GW2 and the Afghan conflict have effectively changed **** all, what sort of pressure are you talking about.........

3. Military help into Nigeria to eradicate the scum in the north

Apart from shaking their fingers and saying what naughty people they are (and increasing security), I see no positive action from our politicians with any efforts to tackle the roots, the causes of the problem, rather that the end results.



Think Guantanamo, if every country had a similar facility where you simply locked these bad bastards up.....................


If France had rounded up the 2 brothers and locked them up would the Charlie thing have happened?

Capot
19th Jan 2015, 00:24
...

But in Saudi -"One must be stoned to death"

There's only one inhuman religion.At the risk of being repetitive, the problem in Saudi Arabia is not Islam, it's the Saudi Arabian Government's interpretation and application of it.

Just as the problem with Isis is not Islam, it's the ridiculous interpretation that those kill-crazed lunatics, in their ignorance and stupidity, choose to place on it to justify their love of killing and exerting control over other human beings.

Your comment is like saying that the problem with Christianity is the Inquisition, or Catholic priests abusing small boys.

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims living peaceful, largely "Westernised" lives in every country in the world, who abhor the fanatics, Saudi Arabia, Isis, and all such aberrations much more than you do, because they disgrace their religion.

In painting the whole of Islam with the same brush you merely show how little you understand what is happening. As a tiny illustration; what do you imagine that Jordanian pilot was doing over Isis territory? Navigational exercise?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Jan 2015, 00:31
At the risk of being repetitive, kindly read the Cairo Declaration. Saudi Arabia is only one of 57 signatories.
Same-sex intercourse is punishable by death in 8 muslim countries, and illegal in 27 more.
Only two majority muslim countries have supported LGBT rights at the UN, Albania and Sierra Leone.

Your comment is like saying that the problem with Christianity is the Inquisition
Not at all. I made the point that in Vatican City, homosexuality is legal. As it is in the majority countries of all other mainstream religions.
All other religions have moved on; Islam hasn't, and more importantly shows no intention of doing so.

or Catholic priests abusing small boys.
Well,they're still covering that up*, and refusing to co-operate fully with jurisdictions where it occurs,or paying compensation, so I am strongly opposed to Catholicism on those grounds.
*e.g. UN Slams Vatican Over Child Sex Abuse Scandal (http://time.com/4481/u-n-slams-vatican-over-child-abuse-cover-up/)

Just because muslim countries are bombing ISIS does not make them in any way less inhuman for their attitude to human rights.

Radix
19th Jan 2015, 05:31
Why do Christians get arrested/persecuted in Muslim countries?
- convert from Islam to Christianity
- sharing beliefs with others
- worshiping
- having a church
- not having a mosque next door to the church
- not agreeing to a forced conversion to Islam
- defending human rights
- refusing to wear a hijab
- not declaring Bibles when crossing the border
- etc.
- etc.

Why do Muslim extremists get arrested in Western countries
- because they have killed/plotted to kill citizens

Quite a difference in attitude there, and the common denominator is Islam.

Christianity (even so-called fundamentalist Christianity) has come a long way since the Middle Ages and so have our countries with a Christian heritage (most Western countries).

But it seems we're heading right back into the Middle Ages with Islam.

Flying Lawyer
19th Jan 2015, 08:31
JFZ90EDIT: It was covered a year ago - clear views from some to deny marriage to some sectors in society - irrespective of whether it is in a church or not.

That 'discussion' programme was broadcast during the period when a change in the law to allow people of the same gender to get married had been proposed and was to be decided by Parliament. (They have been able to enter into civil partnerships since 2004.)

The issue was being discussed widely at the time. Some people/groups argued in favour of the change and some against. Given Christian teaching on marriage, it was entirely understandable and entirely reasonable IMHO that the church argued against. (So did many atheists.) The church and others opposed to the proposal for a variety of reasons tried to persuade and failed. The law was changed.
Looks a bit like thinly veiled - but in the name religion - bigotry and homophobia.
homophobia?
Have you looked into the reasons for the church's opposition? You might still disagree, but that's a different matter. Some Christians disagreed with the church's stance; some for personal reasons. (Predictably, the media gave them very wide coverage.)
bigotry?
People who hold strong views about a topic frequently accuse those who hold equally strong opposing views of bigotry - without appreciating the irony of the accusation.

It happens quite frequently in this forum.

Jetblast Online Dictionary

• bigot - noun
1 a person whose intolerance of the opinions of others does not coincide with one’s own intolerance of the opinions of others.
2 a person whose opinions are as strongly held as one's own, but different.
3 a person who remains unpersuaded by one's argument, often because he/she has failed to 'understand'.
— Derivatives bigoted adjective, bigotry noun.


Jetblast Online Thesaurus

— anti-semitic, bigot, Fascist, huggy-fluff, intolerant, irrational, kumbaya-singer, Nazi, old-fashioned, out-of-touch, religionist, tree-hugger.



FL

Capot
19th Jan 2015, 09:51
Why do Christians get arrested/persecuted in Muslim countries?I know, it happens.

But on the other hand, my children were christened in a church in the UAE, and I have been to services in Christian churches (simply out of interest in the Arabic versions of the liturgy, I don't practise Christianity) in Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq and Egypt. There are others elsewhere, I just haven't been to them.

Please don't believe all you hear, see or read when it comes to propaganda for or against any religion. Proponents and opponents supply wild exaggerations in equal measure, usually from ignorance or fear.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Jan 2015, 12:25
That's true Capot, but I quote from the UN and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation:

For instance:
Article 6(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
Women are second-class citizens

Article 19.(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'ah
So wife-beating is OK, but homosexuality, adultery and apostasy are punishable by death

The organization of Islamic Confernce (http://www.oic-oci.org/english/article/human.htm)

Wingswinger
19th Jan 2015, 12:36
I'm with Fox3 on this. It's all so 7th century.

Capot
19th Jan 2015, 13:06
Fox, yes, I know, and I'm sure those quotations are accurate, although I am puzzled by the UN reference.

But neither the UN nor the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation actually make the law in any country, any more than the law in any "Christian" country is made by the Vatican, or General Synod, or any other religious HQ.

That is not to say that some of these laws, and the penalties for breaking them, are not in the laws of some Muslim countries. But not all the Koranic code, and not all Muslim countries, and that will not change as the result of the fanatical bestiality of a tiny number of Muslims, relative to them all.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Jan 2015, 13:24
The OIC's members are the Governments of muslim majority countries. So, their signing of the Cairo Declaration does represent the lawmakers of said countries.

The Law in Vatican City is made by the Vatican. The Pope delegates lawmaking to the Pontificia Commissione per lo Stato della Città del Vaticano, which consists of 7 Cardinals appointed by the Pope, who must approve any legal changes.

The 23 countries which make Apostasy a criminal offence, of which at least 8 have the Death Penalty (arguably 13), are all muslim. Not one country anywhere else in the World, of any religion or none, even make it an offence.
And that doesn't include Pakistan, which has Death for Blasphemy and whose police look the other way whilst people are beaten to death in the street.

You are trying to water down the issue with vague "some" and "not all"s, and you are factually wrong in several cases even then.

As for how non-muslims are actually treated in muslim countries, try this for size
http://freethoughtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FOTReport2013.pdf

Capot
19th Jan 2015, 13:49
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous here.

However you like to spin it, representatives from Governments sitting round a conference table are NOT enacting laws in their own countries; at most they are agreeing a generalised statement of what they believe in. Take a look at all such Councils, not least the European one.

That will be why only 8 countries have a death penalty for apostasy (I'll take your word for it), although not all enforce it, out of all the members of that Organisation.

And I hope that your comment about the Vatican making the law in Vatican City, as though that disproves that neither the Vatican nor any other religious HQ make the law in Christian countries, was intended to be funny!

If it pleases you, I'll amend my words to add "except the Vatican City" to "Christian countries".

Better now?

But hang on....... is the Vatican City a Christian country? Hmm....tough one, that.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
19th Jan 2015, 14:00
The UN regards the Holy See as a State.

I wasn't being funny. I wished to reinforce the point I made earlier that a religious majority, or a Religion in power, has not made laws which are against the UNDHR except in Islam. Roman Catholics are strongly opposed to homosexuality, but it has not been made illegal in Vatican City despite the Pope having complete authority to do so.

bcgallacher
19th Jan 2015, 14:16
The present situation of the Islamic world can be compared to the time of the Reformation of the Christian church. Over the past 20 years or so the conflict between Shia and Sunni has become more and more violent - the attacks in Europe and the US etc are merely sideshows. The civil wars in Iraq and Syria have become less political and more sectarian. For years the attacks on rival mosques etc in Pakistan have received little publicity but the attacks - mainly by Sunni on Shia and other minority groups have claimed many lives.
I think we over dramatise attacks in our societies but in truth not many deaths have resulted. The attacks are indeed savage atrocities but they do not affect the way we live to any great extent - more people are killed and injured in accidents and car crashes but we do not get hysterical about it. Terrorism is something that with the best will in the world cannot be totally eradicated,we can take what precautions and measures that we can but we must not let it become a dominant factor in our lives. If we do the bastards are winning.

JFZ90
19th Jan 2015, 16:04
FL,

I can see where you are coming from in dismissing the phrases bigotry and homophobia in relation to the church objection to same sex marriage. The phrases imply an intent to offend, which I could concede is not really what is driving the church.

However, looking at the definition of bigotry;

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person (or entity) strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

I can see that you would argue that the church does not intend to 'dislike' those in same sex relationships, but that is the perception/end result for those affected. Those affected certainly won't feel loved/equally treated will they? They can certainly argue it is rather 'unfair' if you are the one being discriminated against - why single them out to be excluded?

If you were an employer and discriminated against them - e.g. in offering a job - you would not last long in the eyes of the law would you? What real justification does the church have to try and block equality for these people? Does it really stand scrutiny? And as per the videos, this is nothing to do with marriage in a church - this is blocking marriage full stop. One charming 'christian' suggests same sex marriage is not 'love under god' but 'love under satan'. That really is not very pleasant is it? It is a bit surprising that in this day and age those in power in the church don't seem to recognise the offence they are causing with such discrimination.

I concede that such matters seem minor aside the violence and intolerance displayed in Paris recently, but the principle of intolerance is surely similar.

It is therefore perhaps dangerous to tolerate any intolerance; it should apply equally to all religions - the UKs so called 'indigenous' or adopted religion should be no exception - indeed it should set a good example if it is to escape criticism. I have no issue with the comfort religion can bring those who find it suits them, but it should perhaps show respect for all and treat all as equals as a basic feature.

fitliker
19th Jan 2015, 16:32
Some people have earned the need to be mocked, ridiculed and spat on.


No apologies here. Some people are very deserving of our satire and ridicule.


Attempts to limit free speech because someone might get their "feelings" hurt are just a cowards way of appeasement.


Unintentional harm to innocent parties should be avoided, but some people have truly earned a kick in the nuts as well as being mocked, ridiculed and spat on.

foresight
19th Jan 2015, 17:20
JFZ90

As far as I understand it the position of the church re same sex Marriage is as follows:

Doctrinally the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman.
The church covers a huge range of opinion, some,no doubt, will be in favour, but the vast majority will be against any change in the status quo.
The Anglican Church is a worldwide organisation. It includes churches in Africa for instance, that are totally anti-gay and to whom even the thought would be totally unacceptable. All these different churches have to be kept on board, otherwise there is the probability of splits or schisms.
It took ages and horrendous argument to accept women priests and then again for those priests to become bishops. This was only arrived at last year. Priests and lay members have abandoned the C of E for the Catholic Church over the issue.
I would guess that the theological argument over same sex marriage would be just as, if not more, destructive.
There are many gay priests in the church, who are a well accepted. There is a fudge that says if they are in same sex relationships then they must be celibate (Oh yes! I hear you say). So the church in the UK is not homophobic - though there will be many individual members who are.
As far as I am aware the church is not subject to equal rights legislation. I guess there would be major constitutional issues should parliament try to dictate to the established church.
I am sure Keef could put me right on the above, but that is how I understand it with limited knowledge.
I think you will be waiting a long time for any change.

Keef
19th Jan 2015, 17:28
Accurate, from what I know, foresight.

There's a line between what's generally accepted, and what people must be forced to comply with. The case of the guest house proprietors who weren't free to say they wouldn't let a room to a gay couple is one example. I would say they were within their rights, the law said "No", so they had to close their business.

The Anglican church won't marry same-sex couples - but they can be married in registry offices and at stately homes and the like. I would be worried if the law said the church was obliged to marry them.

JFZ90
19th Jan 2015, 18:13
foresight, keef,

I can follow the rather convoluted excuses as to why it can't be accepted - but do you really think the excuses stand scrutiny in this day and age? The fact that the reasons are to do with fears of schisms in different parts of the world suggests that you know really that there is no moral reason to object - which in itself kind of makes it worse.

The argument that says "we must allow the church its religious(?) right to speak out against same sex marriage" is the same excuse that some in islam seem to use to say "we must be allowed to talk about killing infidels or similar".

Again, it is not about a church marrying people - it is the stance that the church takes against any same sex marriage, even when not carried out by them. Why object to something that is not even to be conducted by the church?

If I have to wait a long time for any change then that can only be to the detriment of the church itself, who will therefore appear more and more out of touch and continue to shed millions of followers.

Keef
19th Jan 2015, 18:37
No, JFZ.

I recognise that the law as it now stands will allow marriages that I would not "approve of". However, my approval is not required, and they are free to marry. I don't lobby to prevent such marriages.

I would object strongly to being told that the church MUST marry those people in church.

Some parts of the Anglican church have widely differing views, based on their local culture and so on. The consensus is "no".

racedo
19th Jan 2015, 18:44
Be married or be married in a church?

People of the same gender are free to get married.
Are you suggesting that there is some 'human right' to be married in a church?

As of yet not enshrined in Law but it will be......... eventually.

Establishment will indicate you are free to have beliefs provided it concurs to the ones they wish you to have today, which will be subject to change tomorrow.

racedo
19th Jan 2015, 18:48
The UN regards the Holy See as a State.

I wasn't being funny. I wished to reinforce the point I made earlier that a religious majority, or a Religion in power, has not made laws which are against the UNDHR except in Islam. Roman Catholics are strongly opposed to homosexuality, but it has not been made illegal in Vatican City despite the Pope having complete authority to do so.

Are you not aware that the Catholic church teaches that people have Free Will ?

con-pilot
19th Jan 2015, 18:52
As of yet not enshrined in Law but it will be......... eventually.


Churches being forced to marry same sex couples, by Law. Is that what you mean?

Can't see that ever happening in the US due to the First Amendment.

Gertrude the Wombat
19th Jan 2015, 20:33
I would object strongly to being told that the church MUST marry those people in church.
I can see no conceivable objection to the church taking that approach - it's their train set.

What I find a little odd is that the law says (IIUC) that the church IS NOT ALLOWED TO marry those people in church, even if the chucrh one day changes its mind and decides it's a good idea after all. I don't see why this special case law is necessary.

It's no doubt just some good old English fudge, the way we usually do things, and I just haven't troubled to track down the explanatory gossip from the corridors of power.

KenV
19th Jan 2015, 20:42
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.


But for some on this forum, that is their stock in trade, just as mocking is the stock in trade for a certain magazine. I think it sad and pathetic to resort to mocking, but some appear to enjoy wallowing in sad and pathetic.

Flying Lawyer
19th Jan 2015, 21:22
JFZ90
The church does not "dislike" those in same sex relationships, or anyone else. Christianity distinguishes between the person and the act. It is an important distinction. An analogy (intentionally far away from religion): Parents may loathe something their child does, and say so, and even punish the child, but that doesn't mean they don't love their child or love it any less. Indeed, it can sometimes be an indication of how deeply they care about the child.

In response to your questions to others:
I do not regard the church's reasons as "excuses." Yes, I think the reasons stand scrutiny.
Submissions were invited - from any individual or organisation. The church responded to the invitation, rightly in my view. It doesn't have power to impose its teaching except within the church, again rightly in my view.
The possibility of a schism is not a factor for me. I think I'd take the same view if I was an Anglican, but I can't be certain because I'm not.
The argument that says "we must allow the church its religious(?) right to speak out against same sex marriage" is the same excuse that some in islam seem to use to say "we must be allowed to talk about killing infidels or similar".Putting aside for the purpose of discussion the validity or otherwise of that comparison and, for the same purpose, ignoring your use again of the word 'excuse': Is it your opinion that the church should not be allowed to speak out in favour of things it believes to be right/against things it believes to be wrong?
Re losing followers:
There may be many good reasons why the church may change its stance on various topics from time to time. Doing so simply to retain existing members or attract new ones is not, in my view, one of them.

Foresight
Churches are not exempt from equal rights legislation.
The legislation provides for specified exceptions, some of which apply to some aspects of the church.

Keef
If you have the Chymorfa case in mind then 'for the record' it was accepted that the couple who ran the 'guest house' in their own home had restricted double rooms to married couples for many years. The same 'house rule' applied to all unmarried couples and had never caused a problem until ...
The law is sometimes an ass.

racedo As of yet not enshrined in Law but it will be......... eventually.
Establishment will indicate you are free to have beliefs provided it concurs to the ones they wish you to have today, which will be subject to change tomorrow.
Sadly, I think you may be right in relation to Europe.

Gertrude
I don't know if you'd be able to 'track down the explanatory gossip from the corridors of power' of Cambridge Council but the explanation was published at the time, together with the competing arguments, and is readily available from numerous sources on the internet.


FL

JFZ90
19th Jan 2015, 21:23
But for some on this forum, that is their stock in trade, just as mocking is the stock in trade for a certain magazine. I think it sad and pathetic to resort to mocking, but some appear to enjoy wallowing in sad and pathetic.

I hope you can see the irony Ken in that your first post here is to imply some people are sad and pathetic.

Who did you have in mind, and why?


Is it your opinion that the church should not be allowed to speak out concerning matters it believes to be wrong?

Yes, no reason not to of course, but where it has an opinion it needs to be aware of the implications, and whether the opinion is morally defensible. I have an issue where a religion starts to express opinions that may affect those outside of that church.

This is the case where a church says non-believers should be killed; is it OK to for a church to speak out and say that? Or encourage its followers to think that is acceptable?

Gertrude the Wombat
19th Jan 2015, 21:33
I don't know if you'd be able to 'track down the explanatory gossip from the corridors of power' of Cambridge Council
I had more in mind the HoL, and any interesting story there might have been behind the "published reason". But not interesting enough that I actually bothered (I get limited face time with people who move in those circles and other topics of conversation came higher up my list).

obgraham
19th Jan 2015, 21:51
Churches being forced to marry same sex couples, by Law. Is that what you mean?

Can't see that ever happening in the US due to the First Amendment.Not so fast, Con.
Right here in my town is an ongoing case wherein a local florist is being sued by the gay guys, AND BY THE STATE also. She refused to provide her services for the gay wedding, citing moral objections.

The issue is that if she had simply refused to sell the flowers, there might well be a case against her. But she also refused to plan and design the wedding floral services. State came in with a civil rights violation against her.

No outcome yet, but by all indications she will be closed down.

Now why in the world would the customers continue to try to get her services, rather than just going to another florist? Well we know the answer -- it's all about the agenda and the right to be offended.

I fully expect that churches eventually will be in the same situation. The Agenda will trump the First Amendment.

Flying Lawyer
19th Jan 2015, 22:10
JFZ90 This is the case where a church says non-believers should be killed; is it OK to for a church to speak out and say that? Or encourage its followers to think that is acceptable?
No, I do not think it is OK.
I don't know of any Christian church which does either of those things.
Some misguided militant Islamist extremists do. In the UK, incitement to murder is a serious criminal offence which is punished severely.

Gertrude
The provision was necessary for legal reasons:
The Act took account of the particular circumstances of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. Unlike any other religious organisation, their clergy have a specific legal duty to marry parishioners. In addition, Anglican Canon law forms part of the law of the land.
Both the Church of England and the Church in Wales made it clear that they did not wish to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. The Act contains specific measures to ensure that, as for other religious organisations, it is their decision whether to marry same sex couples and there is no compulsion on them to do so. For the time being anyway; I wouldn't like to guess how long that will last.
If in the future the Church of England wished to conduct same sex marriages, it would need to bring forward to the Synod an Amending Canon to amend its Canon law and a Measure to amend the Book of Common Prayer and primary legislation as necessary. Like all Synodical legislation, it would be subject to parliamentary approval.
Should the Church in Wales wish to marry people of the same sex, the Act sets out a procedure for its governing body to ask the Lord Chancellor to make secondary legislation enabling it to do so.

The legal necessity may indirectly and superficially have aided the government's unconvincing pretence of protecting and promoting religious freedom.

con-pilot
19th Jan 2015, 22:38
Not so fast, Con.
Right here in my town is an ongoing case wherein a local florist is being sued by the gay guys, AND BY THE STATE also. She refused to provide her services for the gay wedding, citing moral objections.


I'm somewhat familiar with the case.

Personally I look at this case in the same way as if one refused service to anyone of a different skin color. They cannot do that. Of course I know that there are places that have that sign stating that they ‘’Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they chose”. But I’d like to see that stand up in court if those people used that supposed ‘Right’ to refuse service based on race.

Now, one question, if you don’t mind?

Are the owners of the flower shop in question using their religious beliefs as a cause/reason to refuse to offer their services to the gay community, not just personal moral objections? If so, I guess it would be an issue of the First Amendment.



I fully expect that churches eventually will be in the same situation. The Agenda will trump the First Amendment

God I hope not. However, ever since the Obamacare decision by the Supreme Court, I don't even attempt to predict a decision by the Supreme Court. Nor bet a beer on one. :p


Yes, pun intended. ;)

Flying Lawyer
19th Jan 2015, 22:45
obgraham Now why in the world would the customers continue to try to get her services, rather than just going to another florist? Well we know the answer -- it's all about the agenda and the right to be offended.


Perhaps it was just by innocent chance that these customers chose to ask a baker well known locally as a committed Christian to make a cake with a slogan promoting same sex marriage.

Christian bakery Ashers 'told to pay compensation or face legal action' (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gay-marriage-cake-row-christian-bakery-ashers-told-to-pay-compensation-or-face-legal-action-30723562.html)

“Ashers Baking Company is willing to serve any customer regardless of their sexual lifestyle... but we don’t want to be forced to promote a cause which is against our biblical beliefs,”

Keef
19th Jan 2015, 23:15
I wonder if the Equality Commission would have taken the same approach if it had been a Muslim bakery...

FL - thanks for the clarification. Yes, that was the one.

There are some rights of the individual that the Church of England is obliged, by law, to meet. One is the right of burial. If you live in the village, and die in the village, and your relatives ask for you to be buried in the churchyard, then we have no choice in the matter. However, if you want a "humanist" funeral, I can refuse to do that - and have done. We soon came to an amicable agreement, and the funeral went ahead.

Tankertrashnav
19th Jan 2015, 23:24
I understand that there are people who think Bob Dylan is a talented songwriter and musician. I also believe there are those who maintain that Finnegans Wake is a great work of literature, or that Damien Hirst is a brilliant artist. I am tempted to mock them for their beliefs but I hope I am too good mannered to do so.

Same applies to religions really. I could do it, but I just dont think I should.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Jan 2015, 00:49
The problem is, who judges what is insulting or mocking?
Some people are over-sensitive.
Does not incite violence is the only practical yardstick.

con-pilot
20th Jan 2015, 01:05
Some people are over-sensitive.


There within we have the problem.

Must say at times I could be guilty of the above, but never slightly close to the point I'd get an AK 47 and go around killing people.

Or strap on a vest bomb and blow myself up along with other innocent people.

Have trouble understanding those that do.

obgraham
20th Jan 2015, 03:06
Con, the issue is subtle but important:

Mrs Stutzman, the proprietress of the floral shop, has served the gay community for many years. In fact the plaintiffs in the suit state they have shopped with her for years. So she can hardly be accused of failing to serve a segment of the population. I agree she would be on shaky ground refusing to sell to gay people, just like a business cannot refuse to sell to a specific racial group, etc.

But for this event she was asked to provide her artistic input, not just sell the product. How is it justified to force someone to design something they oppose on moral/religious grounds? And by extension, what would then prevent a gay couple from requiring a given church/priest/minister to preside at an event he opposed?

FL:
I think the florist case here is similar to your cake case in the UK -- what's really upsetting people is that the state came in and added a secondary suit to the original civil suit. That suggests that if a given group can't have their way, let's get the government to bully them into it.

Unfortunately, I think she will lose her case because the consequences of winning would be too great for the politically correct to accept.

B Fraser
20th Jan 2015, 08:01
This is getting all too serious. I suggest that tonight, we crack open a decent bottle of claret and watch Python's "Life Of Brian". Who else remembers the great outcry when the film was first released ? It all seems so silly these days however the General Synod must take credit for making the film so popular.

In a similar vein, does anyone of a religious persuasion find Dave Allen offensive ? I think he was one of the sharpest comics of our time.

I find it strange that nobody is making aethiest jokes, that must be the safest genre as an aethiest has nothing to be offended at. Perhaps the reason is that everyone suspects they may be right but few admit it.

airshowpilot
20th Jan 2015, 08:33
Hear hear B Fraser. Firmly in the camp for mockery, especially when it comes to religion.

The growth of Atheism/Anti-theism/Free-thinking is the only honest way to counter bad ideas and it is finally taking hold in the real world. We have to learn to get on in the here and now, that's all we have. Extreme world views, wishful thinking and those that envoke the supernatural are incompatible with the flourishing of mankind and our collective progress so should be marginalised.

There are so many things that we don't yet understand and admit to not knowing, but that's what inspires great minds to progress our collective knowledge in our quest for real truth.

foresight
20th Jan 2015, 08:43
I find it strange that nobody is making aethiest jokes, that must be the safest genre as an aethiest has nothing to be offended at. Perhaps the reason is that everyone suspects they may be right but few admit it.

What is there to say that is funny about atheists? There is plenty of humour to be mined from all religious faiths, as we all know.
But atheism? Just soulless and,well, not funny.

Wingswinger
20th Jan 2015, 08:56
I've been to two atheist-humanist funerals. They were cringeworthy affairs with over-the-top eulogising of the dear departed and tacky popular songs meant to represent his approach to life. They did no justice to the occasion which brought the assembled mourners together.

By contrast, I find that a religious service provides just the right amount of comfort, solemnity, respect, sadness and hope. In short it presses the right buttons. And I'm not religious. Agnostic probably.

MOSTAFA
20th Jan 2015, 09:50
A Wiki Quote from the previous page confused the hell out of me. (Not hard).

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or some other group characteristics.

Sexual orientation is very ambiguous. Orientation describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. Sexual orientation must therefore; describe a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: homosexuals are, oriented toward the same sex, bisexuals, both sexes, pedophiles, toward children, etc etc.

Well if that is what defines bigotry then I'm a bigot albeit, I don't feel like one because I'd quite happily hang pedophiles by the neck until dead. Just saying.

B Fraser
20th Jan 2015, 10:22
"What is there to say that is funny about atheists?"


Q. How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb ?


A. Two. One to change the bulb and the other to photograph it just in case the fundamentalists claim it was an act of god.


Actually, I may well have just proven you right !

foresight
20th Jan 2015, 10:26
Yep, think you did!

Vercingetorix
20th Jan 2015, 11:39
atheism? Just soulless

Well, there you go!

:ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
20th Jan 2015, 13:10
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-076a4c74ba9ac31baab810011ad00a7a?convert_to_webp=true

More goodies here:
http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-profound-atheist-jokes

foresight
20th Jan 2015, 13:44
More goodies here:


Couldn't see any jokes about atheism/atheists there.
Apart from the one you posted.

Just helps prove my point.

Choxolate
20th Jan 2015, 13:50
Jokes aimed at particular groups tend to be targetted at the more ridiculous activities / beleifs / dress / lifetsyle of the particular group.
Atheism being a lack of belief doesn't really have anything that is ridiculous - it is a little like trying to find a joke about people who do not collect stamps,

B Fraser
20th Jan 2015, 14:14
There's always the one about the insomniac dyslexic agnostic who would lie awake at night wondering if there really was a dog !

Radix
20th Jan 2015, 17:43
Why do Christians get arrested/persecuted in Muslim countries?I know, it happens.

Please don't believe all you hear, see or read when it comes to propaganda for or against any religion. Proponents and opponents supply wild exaggerations in equal measure, usually from ignorance or fear.
You're in danger of putting your head in the sand. Sticking to the facts is always a great idea.

But on the other hand, my children were christened in a church in the UAE, and I have been to services in Christian churches (simply out of interest in the Arabic versions of the liturgy, I don't practise Christianity) in Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq and Egypt. There are others elsewhere, I just haven't been to them.
Good for you and good to hear. Unfortunately your 'data' is hardly representative. Lebanon is only 50% muslim anyway, so it's not so surprising that the power of Islam is somewhat limited there. Other countries' situation is rapidly changing, for example in Iraq with the rise of ISIS.

In any case if I remember correctly none of the examples of persecution that I mentioned happened in countries on your list. They would be (or were!) the more mild countries.

This is the sad and dark side of Islam. It's far from somebody objecting on moral grounds, or refraining for conscience reasons. Nor is it freedom of speech.

JFZ90
20th Jan 2015, 19:19
Sexual orientation is very ambiguous. Orientation describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. Sexual orientation must therefore; describe a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: homosexuals are, oriented toward the same sex, bisexuals, both sexes, pedophiles, toward children, etc etc.

Well if that is what defines bigotry then I'm a bigot albeit, I don't feel like one because I'd quite happily hang pedophiles by the neck until dead. Just saying.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or on a wind up, but you appear to be equating homosexuals with pedophiles?

Are you trying to say they are equally 'bad' or 'evil' or something? Is this a thought that you have developed through your religion? Do you think that is a good thing?

But atheism? Just soulless and, well, not funny.

This sounds a bit like you have a low opinion of atheism, and perhaps by implication atheists - and feel they are somehow lacking or missing something. Is that your view? It could be argued that such a view says something about what religions teach in how to regard 'non-believers'. OK, not exactly killing infidels, but is there some contempt or feeling of superiority there, just under the surface?

I think you probably need to be an atheist to find atheist humour funny; but make no mistake it can be very funny. Perhaps not to everyones taste, but arguably some of the best comedians are atheist - Ricky Gervais, Tim Minchin, Stephen Fry to name a few. Can you describe Stephen Fyy as soulless & not funny?

KenV
20th Jan 2015, 19:26
JFZ90: I'm not sure if you are trolling or on a wind up, but you appear to be equating homosexuals with pedophiles?


Hmmm. Odd conclusion. I drew two different conclusions.

1. Not all sexual orientations are created equal. Pedophiles can be viewed with loathing without making the viewer a bigot.

2. IF viewing a pedophile with loathing is consided bigotry, the viewer is willing to accept the label of bigot in this case.

This sounds a bit like you have a low opinion of atheism, and perhaps by implication atheists - and feel they are somehow lacking or missing something. Is that your view? It could be argued that such a view says something about what religions teach in how to regard 'non-believers'. OK, not exactly killing infidels, but is there some contempt or feeling of superiority there, just under the surface?

A fascinating view. I find that many atheists on this forum use this forum to express "contempt or feeling of superiority" by routinely mocking and ridiculing "religionists". Have you not observed that?

JFZ90
20th Jan 2015, 19:51
Not all sexual orientations are created equal. Pedophiles can be viewed with loathing without making the viewer a bigot.

The original discussion was relating to how 'unfairly disliking' homosexuals (or their acts depending on how you view the argument) could be described as bigotry.

Quite why MOSTAFA decided to then link this to pedophilia and how disliking them was OK - as if the subject was related - is something for him or her to expand upon.


A fascinating view. I find that many atheists on this forum use this forum to express "contempt or feeling of superiority" by routinely mocking and ridiculing "religionists". Have you not observed that?

I've observed both sides doing it - some common ground eh? :)

PS Perhaps I misunderstood, but though you were fairly clear in implying that 'awe' was not possible without "the context brought about by religion" - or similar words. Whether you feel religion is the 'only' tool which could provide that context is unclear - to clarify, what do you consider are the other valid tools that can enable 'awe'?

KenV
20th Jan 2015, 20:30
The original discussion was relating to how 'unfairly disliking' homosexuals (or their acts depending on how you view the argument) could be described as bigotry.

Aaaah. I missed that. So to restate my first point in light of the above, you believe MOSTAFA was saying: "If Pedophiles can be viewed with loathing without making the viewer a bigot, why can't homosexuals be viewed with loathing without making the viewer a bigot." I don't know if this is truly equating a pedophile and a homosexual, but I do see how one could interpret it that way.


PS Perhaps I misunderstood, but though you were fairly clear in implying that 'awe' was not possible without "the context brought about by religion" - or similar words. Whether you feel religion is the 'only' tool which could provide that context is unclear - to clarify, what do you consider are the other valid tools that can enable 'awe'?


1. I believe awe is the result of the human experience. That experience is (generally) independent of religion.

2. Religion is but ONE tool humans use to give meaning to and place into perspective the human experience. Humans use many other tools.

3. I believe that the scientific method is sterile and cannot in and of itself produce awe. For example, taking pictures of stars in line with the sun during a solar eclipse gathers and catalogues sterile data. However comparing that data when the sun is not present confirms a breakthrough theory full of awe inspiring consequences that clearly contradict human experience and Newtonian physics.

JFZ90
20th Jan 2015, 20:39
What are the other tools Ken? Can you give some examples?

I don't agree that Science is sterile, but that's just my view. The concept of evolution - discovered by science - is to me far more amazing than any concept yet generated by any religion.

To coin a phrase, truth often can be stranger - and more interesting - than what I may personally regard as fiction.



PS A quick google turns up this as one Christians view on the matter of bigotry and gay rights. No doubt there are opposing views.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2014/05/is-every-christian-against-gay-marriage-necessarily-a-bigot/

...and here is an opposing view.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_chri stian_wedding.html

KenV
20th Jan 2015, 20:59
What are the other tools Ken? Can you give some examples?
Language. Laws. Government. Literature. Stories. History. Ceremony. Ritual. Tradition. These are but a few. Religion is but one of many tools. And these tools are interlinked. Many religions for example make great use of tradition, ceremony, and ritual. As does government.

I don't agree that Science is sterile, but that's just my view. The concept of evolution - discovered by science - is to me far more amazing than any concept yet generated by any religion.
Careful. I did not say "science" is sterile. I said the "scientific method" is sterile. Humans use insight and intuition based on their human experience to postulate ideas. The scientific method is then used to gather observed data and record the data to confirm or refute those ideas. I believe the gathering and recording of data to be sterile. Contrary to your claim, evolution was not "discovered by science". It was postulated by a human based on that human's experience. We have been using the Scientific Method to gather and record data to confirm and refute it ever since.

Choxolate
20th Jan 2015, 21:09
KenV:-
With respect your use of the term "Scientific Method" is at fault, it is NOT just the collection of data it is the whole process of collecting data, formulating hypotheses, generating theories and validating the process by repeatability and peer review.
"Science" and "Using the Scientific Method" are more or less interchangeable.
I think that this misunderstanding is at the root of your claim of "sterility" for the Scientifc Method which seems to have generated some confusion.
The Wikipedia entry for Scientific Method explains this better than I can.

JFZ90
20th Jan 2015, 21:16
Darwin seems to be a rather good example of 'scientific method' in action.

Darwin made three key observations that made him cast his doubts on the view that species were fixed:

i. The continuity of species through history.
Darwin found fossils from some extinct armadillos in southern America. The skeletons were much larger in size than those of the existing ones; however, much of the construction was similar. Intrigued by this, Darwin realised that the armadillo species must have changed over time.

ii. The geological specificity of species.
When Darwin was travelling across the great grasslands in southern America, he noticed that different regions along the geological landscape were occupied by similar species of ostrich with certain small differences. He thought of the possibility of species differentiating and developing according to geological differences.

iii. Evidence from the Archipelagos.
Darwin compared the species found on the Archipelago of Cape Verde with those found on Galapagos. While the two Archipelagos were similar in terms of environment and geological landscape, the respective wildlife were drastically different. From a creationist’s point of view this seemed strange: if two environments were similar then God should have created similar species to put into them. Darwin speculated that species on the Archipelago of Cape Verde came from the near-by African continent, but this was not the case for the wildlife on the distant Galapagos Islands, thus accounting for the observed phenomenon.

foresight
20th Jan 2015, 21:28
This sounds a bit like you have a low opinion of atheism, and perhaps by implication atheists - and feel they are somehow lacking or missing something. Is that your view? It could be argued that such a view says something about what religions teach in how to regard 'non-believers'. OK, not exactly killing infidels, but is there some contempt or feeling of superiority there, just under the surface?

I think you probably need to be an atheist to find atheist humour funny; but make no mistake it can be very funny. Perhaps not to everyones taste, but arguably some of the best comedians are atheist - Ricky Gervais, Tim Minchin, Stephen Fry to name a few. Can you describe Stephen Fyy as soulless & not funny?

I don't feel remotely superior to atheists, I find their position entirely reasonable.
If I felt superior I would miss out on some close friendships. What I do find objectionable is the constant rubbishing, by some - I emphasise some - atheists of the religious point of view. There are perfectly good reasons for atheism, so why do so many descend into ridicule? It is narrow minded at the very least and betrays an intolerant attitude.
I suspect from your list of comedians, your idea of atheist humour is religion bashing rather than humour about atheism . It's the same humour that relies on just the mention of George Dubya Bush for a laugh. It gets very tiresome. Dave Allen on the other hand, a non believer I presume, had an understanding of religion which enabled him to be funny about it. For the record none of the above comedians do I find more than occasionally funny. Stephen Fry is my bête noir, not,before you say it, because he is gay. Someone summed him up perfectly, saying he was a stupid persons idea of a clever person.
One area I believe the relentless atheist is missing out on, is the appreciation of our Christian heritage (I'll stick to Christianity). If you don't have an inkling of appreciation where it's all coming from, how can you have a full appreciation of much of our western history, literature, architecture, painting, music? Beside repeating ad nauseam how religion killed a lot of people or retreating into a purely Marxist view.

Yesterday I was reading John Donne's poem 'Batter my heart, three person'd God'. Google it if you don't know it-it's just a sonnet. Can a militant atheist be moved by that, or does he,rejecting the very idea of God, despise the words? If so, it seems a huge shame. Genuinely interested in your reply.

JFZ90
20th Jan 2015, 22:13
It isn't so much about their religious humour - which I would tend to agree does take the 'easy path' in some respects (but Tim can still string together some arguably clever concepts) - but their wider comedic ability; being atheist does not dampen their ability in a wide range of areas.

I'm not sure why some feel it necessary to attack Stephen Fry - does it make me stupid to admit I do find him clever, articulate and amusing? I hope not, seems like an odd sort of snobbery, and yes, you can't help wondering what is really at the root of it. What is it that irks you about Stephen Fry? I know its 'for the masses', but isn't General Melchett in every way a comedy great?

I do appreciate of course the rich history of the world - in which of course religion has previous played a significant role and left many stories and treasures. It has created some fantastic art and architecture - but the world has much more still to offer and in context the religious contributions are actually only a subset of the total. When thinking of great paintings - religious art does not necessarily jump out first - impressionists, turner, picasso spring to mind immediately - though of course it is true that the most famous painting of all is indeed religious in nature.

I will certainly confess that the music can be stirring. Pie Jesu springs to mind - sang it as a youngster - pre-Lloyd Webber.

Lonewolf_50
20th Jan 2015, 22:25
funfly:
I do not agree with mocking the beliefs of anyone.
Do you respect the beliefs of those who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, funfly? Having been exposed to a slightly larger than average serving of 9-11 truther and conspiracy theory beliefs, I can only answer them with ridicule and disdain.

funfly
20th Jan 2015, 22:27
As an artist and an Atheist I have to admit that without the religions of the world it would be a much poorer place aesthetically.

Beautiful buildings, paintings, but most important the subject matter that has inspired artists to try to illustrate it. Pain, suffering, love, creation itself, what a wealth of subject matter the religions have produced.

From the Christian Death of Christ to the erotic portrayal of Hindu art, religious organisations have throughout history been the only ones with the ability money and means to produce art forms.

Nowadays we have the ability for anyone to produce art and to get their inspiration from where they wish but that hasn't always been the case. Where would art be today had it not been for the religions throughout the ages.

Maybe I should tread a middle ground and admit that while I am unable to understand why anyone can entertain what to me is the mumbo jumbo of organised religion, it does and has served a place in the development of mankind.

funfly
20th Jan 2015, 22:36
Do you respect the beliefs of those who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, funfly?

Lonewolf, keep up!

I have absolute distaste for all the murderous actions in the name of the Islamic faith whether it is terrorism or beheading by small groups or by Countries.

I have repeated time and time again that taunting these people is not the way forward, indeed I am suggesting it is counter productive.

When threatened by the playground bully, do you thumb your note at him (which you have every right to do) or do you consider that some other course of action might present a better option.

I don't know the answer to this escalating problem but it sure ain't saying "Ya Boo" to them.

Do you respect the beliefs of those who believe that 9-11 was an inside job, funfly?

With those people I would have no problem with mocking them because although they might have a stupid argument they are using words to express themselves and words or drawings would be an appropriate response. If I insult these people they are unlikely to go out and start beheading people (I hope)

Tankertrashnav
20th Jan 2015, 23:02
Going back to p(a)edophiles. Leaving aside any question of religion, from a moral point of view we should not loathe them, even though it might be difficult not to.

Surely the point is that no person would actively choose to be a paedophile, so it would seem that a sexual attraction to children is probably an inborn trait, or possibly one that has developed as a result of the individuals themselves being subjected to the attentions of a paedophile when young.

Where the essential difference comes in is that for example a homosexual who forms a relationship with another person of the same sex in a consenting relationship is not doing anyone any harm, the same most definitely cannot be said of paedophiles who live out their desires. Thus sexual attraction to children is not in itself evil, whereas sexual abuse of children by paedophiles most certainly is.

Hydromet
21st Jan 2015, 01:28
Lots of talk about rights, but I haven't seen any mention of responsibilities (though it may have been implied in some posts). Does one go with the other? Can either or both be enforced? Should they?

JFZ90
21st Jan 2015, 07:27
what do you mean hydro?

the right to offend but perhaps the responsibility to choose not to?

chuks
21st Jan 2015, 07:59
"Freedom must give everyone the right to believe what they wish [to believe] without hindrance. We all have the 'right' to question others about what they believe in and try to understand their reasoning but mocking is abuse, it's [the] stuff of the playground."

Okay, got that, I think, what you said, although it seems a bit mixed-up. If being questioned about my beliefs comes across to me as mockery and a hindrance to my belief then you just, what, lost your "'right' to question others about what they believe in"?

You have two put irreconcilable things together here, the right to unhindered belief and the right to question belief. "Mockery" may be one way of questioning belief, when even the act of questioning may be taken as mockery.

"The Blessed Virgin Mary can talk to birds?" is just one way of questioning the story of the Annunciation, since the Holy Spirit appeared to her in the form of a dove. Is doing that mockery, though? Well, to a devout Christian it might come across that way. What if asking the question causes the fellow to lose some degree of his belief, to hinder his belief? Was that "abuse," then, to ask?

I think you have to accept that mockery, abuse even, is to be accepted in the name of freedom, when "freedom of belief" is just a subset of freedom in general, along with another subset, the freedom to mock and abuse, assuming that you really do believe in freedom.

If you don't accept freedom, including its risks, then you are perfectly free to practice self-censorship, as you clearly have done by failing to prioritize freedom in general over the freedom to not have to answer questions about this or that belief, and feel that self-censorship confers on you some sort of wisdom or moral superiority.

When it comes to intolerant Islam, then you don't even need to be abusive; simply asking some fanatic if it's true that the Prophet took an 11 year-old as his wife might be enough to put you at serious risk. The problem then is not with the questioner but with the questioned, his response to reasonable inquiry. You may be forced to practice self-censorship then, but please don't excuse that as coming from your own tolerance; you are simply bowing to force. We all have to do that now and then, unless we are after some sort of martyrdom, but it's not right, having to do that, is it? Saying that it is right seems to be essentially cowardly, failing to identify the real problem, the use of force against the use of reason.

Choxolate
21st Jan 2015, 08:46
Chuks: If I may so that was an excellent post and distills the issue to its basics.

Wingswinger
21st Jan 2015, 08:58
...and let us not forget that the freedom we cherish does not come free. It had to fought for and many died in the process. The problem we have is talk of the useful idiots who "understand" the offence taken by over-sensitive muslims and who would limit our freedom of expression in order to appease the unappeasable. They are unwittingly contributing to a return of oppression. Or perhaps it is wittingly? After all, they are probably the same people who scream homophobia, sexism or racism at every opportunity in order to limit the freedom of expression of those who hold to a different view.

N707ZS
21st Jan 2015, 08:59
So it won't be long before we ban mocking at football or other sports events!

Metro man
21st Jan 2015, 10:30
Singapore has got it right with it's laws on racial and religious harmony. No one can mock any other race or religion, hate speech is outlawed. Last year a play was banned because it was deemed offensive to Catholics. All the main religions have their holidays officially celebrated.

It works because everyone is treated equally, there is no resentment because no group has special treatment. You are free to practice your religion in peace, you are not free to denigrate anyone else.

They even ban the Jehovahs Witnesses, though the Mormons are allowed.

Choxolate
21st Jan 2015, 10:58
It works because everyone is treated equally, there is no resentment because no group has special treatment. You are free to practice your religion in peace, you are not free to denigrate anyone else.

They even ban the Jehovahs Witnesses, though the Mormons are allowed.
I am sorry I really do not understand - all religions are treated equally except some are banned? How is that equality??

Metro man
21st Jan 2015, 11:48
Jehovahs Witnesses are banned because they are anti government and refuse military service which is compulsory. Allowing them to go around brainwashing people isn't in the national interest, there are a few other cults banned as well.

Surprisingly the Mormons are allowed to go around peddling their false prophesies. 10% of your income and you can become a God and have a planet to rule over in the next life.

Mainstream religions are recognised.

Choxolate
21st Jan 2015, 11:53
So not all religions are treated equally, only those approved by the state are treated equally - got it.

Ancient Mariner
21st Jan 2015, 12:20
I thought that anything "anti government" in Singapore was banned, or sued out of existence. Not a country I would hold up as a leading light of freedom of speech and democracy.
Per

Keef
21st Jan 2015, 14:23
Surprisingly the Mormons are allowed to go around peddling their false prophesies. 10% of your income and you can become a God and have a planet to rule over in the next life.

I'm not a Mormon, but I didn't know they offer that option now. When was that added to the prospectus?

obgraham
21st Jan 2015, 16:40
Having associated with many Mormons over the years, Keef, the above statement, while oversimplified, is essentially correct.

obgraham
21st Jan 2015, 16:42
No one has ever suggested that Singapore is a model for Western Democracies to emulate.

It's a modern state, and has a lot to admire, but definitely an authoritarian place.

JFZ90
21st Jan 2015, 19:41
Surprisingly the Mormons are allowed to go around peddling their false prophesies. 10% of your income and you can become a God and have a planet to rule over in the next life.

You do have to wonder at belief systems that are seemingly rather overtly commercial & whether their originator was potentially a cynical business man, rather than somehow spiritual.

It seems the first 'vision' the originator of the mormons - Joseph Smith - experienced was around 1820, when he claims he saw Jesus and God who told him all the other Christians were corrupt.

Would someone who says they saw Jesus or God in a vision today be believed?

--

Wow, look at this list. Many upto mid 1980s, very few since.

List of new religious movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements)

Jediism (Star Wars) is there too. Most recent seems to be 2012, brace yourselves.....

Missionary Church of Kopimism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism)

KenV
21st Jan 2015, 21:30
Going back to p(a)edophiles. Leaving aside any question of religion, from a moral point of view we should not loathe them, even though it might be difficult not to.


Good point. Let me correct my statement. We should loathe pedophilic behavior and pity and have compassion toward a pedophile who is driven toward such behavior.

KenV
22nd Jan 2015, 20:28
Originally Posted by Metro man
Surprisingly the Mormons are allowed to go around peddling their false prophesies. 10% of your income and you can become a God and have a planet to rule over in the next life.

Keef: I'm not a Mormon, but I didn't know they offer that option now. When was that added to the prospectus?

It is not now nor was it ever in the prospectus. It's amazing what some people claim about religions they know nothing about.

JFZ90
22nd Jan 2015, 20:36
Back to the principle of not mocking beliefs - is it the case that theists do not (even internally, or to themselves?) mock the beliefs of other theists who have different beliefs?

There does seem to be some encouragement in various scriptures to ignore and actively dismiss the beliefs of others. Is this really an acceptable feature of such religion?

oldchina
23rd Jan 2015, 16:12
If someone belongs to a group that believes that Adam & Eve existed, and that Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, they'd better think twice before mocking other folk's daft ideas.

KenV
23rd Jan 2015, 17:16
Having associated with many Mormons over the years, Keef, the above statement, while oversimplified, is essentially correct.

Having associated with many Mormons over the years, obgraham, the above statement is not only grossly oversimplified, it grossly misrepresents Mormon theology.

funfly
23rd Jan 2015, 17:21
And the Archbishop of York will not touch the head of the next male bishop because his hands have been 'tainted' by touching the head of the female he has just ordained?
And we thought it was only the Muslims who had ideas from the Middle Ages!
FF

KenV
23rd Jan 2015, 17:31
Back to the principle of not mocking beliefs - is it the case that theists do not (even internally, or to themselves?) mock the beliefs of other theists who have different beliefs?

There does seem to be some encouragement in various scriptures to ignore and actively dismiss the beliefs of others. Is this really an acceptable feature of such religion?

Based on posts #131, #135, and #137 it is obvious that mocking JWs and Mormons is both "acceptable" and "encouraged". And it is exceedingly doubtful that the authors of those posts were encouraged to do so by "various scriptures".

sherburn2LA
23rd Jan 2015, 18:24
mocking, mocking, mocking

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOCahZIBtig4&ei=npHCVO_qE8OtogTX1oKQDg&usg=AFQjCNEdvBbXLfcRUrVptVH_VZ6StsyYYQ&sig2=a0UVRMuOIAOu6r5HTAqMhQ&bvm=bv.84349003,d.cGU

JFZ90
23rd Jan 2015, 19:33
KenV

Yes, it seems you are correct in that obgraham in #135 is mocking mormonism and it seems he is a theist.

Is metroman in #131 a theist?

What makes someone respect their own religion and yet mock others. Does this not introduce doubt about ones own religion as a matter of principle? If you can dismiss some religions, why not all?


PS - #137 is not really mocking any religion other than perhaps "kopimism" but I'm not sure that 2012 startup is taking itself too seriously. Plus the poster is clearly not a theist.

KenV
23rd Jan 2015, 20:32
Yes, it seems you are correct in that obgraham in #135 is mocking mormonism and it seems he is a theist.Being a theist and being encouraged to mock others due to "various scriptures" are two VERY different things.

What makes someone respect their own religion and yet mock others.What makes someone respect their own (political party, sports team, non-theism, fill in the blank) and yet mock others? Answer: they are humans. It seems to be part of the human condition.

con-pilot
23rd Jan 2015, 20:42
What makes people mock any religion?

For some sort of self-important feeling of false superiority?

Don't see any reason for it myself. Different is different, not better or worse, just different.

obgraham
23rd Jan 2015, 22:16
I wasn't "mocking" anyone, but simply reporting the essence of a several- hours-long discussion with a good friend of mine, who happens to be an LDS Bishop.

You here are free to interpret it whatever way you wish, it's of little concern to me.

Everyone of faith by definition is critical of a different faith. So what.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Jan 2015, 22:19
There does seem to be some encouragement in various scriptures to ignore and actively dismiss the beliefs of others. Is this really an acceptable feature of such religion?
Yes. You may or may not like it, and such may move you not to embrace that religion. Asking about its acceptability seems a personal value judgment.

It is a feature of a given religion, or it isn't.

Lonewolf_50
23rd Jan 2015, 22:20
What makes someone respect their own religion and yet mock others.
Yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions. ^^^^^^^^^^

JFZ90
23rd Jan 2015, 22:34
Everyone of faith by definition is critical of a different faith. So what.

Are they automatically critical of other faith by definition?

The "so what" is whether dismissing other faiths makes you ask questions about your own belief? If you are comfortable rejecting other faiths (presumably considering it incorrect or wrong), do you reflect on rejecting your own? Or is it just a different interpretation of the same basic creator that you don't favour but can relate to?

con-pilot
23rd Jan 2015, 23:26
I wasn't "mocking" anyone, but simply reporting the essence of a several- hours-long discussion with a good friend of mine, who happens to be an LDS Bishop.


Wasn't aware that you did, my post was more in general.


Now, please don't ask just which general. :p




By the way, my cousin, a staunch Mormon, is married to a great granddaughter of Joseph E. Smith and my brother is about as high as a layman can be in the LDS. Also I was born in Salt Lake City.

Yeah, I know, three strikes.

And no, I’m not Mormon. Even though I was accused of being a Mormon spy by a division chief when I was with the government, but then again that guy was never the same after his jeep accident. It was after the accident when the spy thing came up.

We finaly got rid of him, but it took a while.