Respecting religion???
Discussion
t happens when you are a kid, parents tend to make us do stuff and we have no choice.alock said:
So mocking religion is OK if it aligns with your sense of humour?
If you want to ban the mocking, then it must all go. No more Father Ted repeats. No more jokes in anything religious.
Some porn is legal, some is not. Things are not always black and white and it depends very much upon the intent of the person doing the 'mocking'.If you want to ban the mocking, then it must all go. No more Father Ted repeats. No more jokes in anything religious.
Phoneshop is to phone shops what Father Ted is to Craggy Island priests and what The Young Ones was to students. Charlie Hebdo depicting three religious texts as toilet paper does not sit on the same scale as those comedies.
Moonhawk said:
It works the other way too. No more religious street preachers shouting hell and damnation at unbelievers (surely a type of mockery in its own right).
That is a good point. Banging on about 'unbelievers' & their proposed fate is offensive - it seems this is not always evident to those banging on. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not necessarily. There is a difference between allowing freedom of speech, showing respect to others and being responsible about causing offense, and thirdly taking steps to legislate against hate speech. Banging on about unbelievers is not necessarily in the third category, though when some religions choose to preach about death for example to non-believers, I am probably more open than ever to say "er, you know that's too far, don't say that or the law will act etc.". This could follow similar rules that make holocaust denial illegal, but it would need to be careful not to single out any particular religion.
It is time perhaps that some human rights/basic secular values were enshrined in law in a way that prevented some religion from hide behind its scriptures to promote/spread hate.
///ajd said:
It is time perhaps that some human rights/basic secular values were enshrined in law in a way that prevented some religion from hide behind its scriptures to promote/spread hate.
No offence (of course, anything but), however, I don't think there should be any special protection for the secular. That would make them a group, and that they are not. There should not be any classification of 'everyone but them' sort of thing.Protection, beyond freedom to believe in anything you want, should be limited. No one should be allowed to pick on any group. There is no need to mention religion, plane spotting, homeopaths and believers in fairies. Everyone should be allowed to go about their business without hindrance. There is nothing special about those who believe they are special. The so-called hate crimes (dreadful title, quite silly in fact) involving religions should be limited to the defence that everyone else has.
I should be allowed not to believe in a god or lots of gods without hindrance, without name calling, without being picked on. As should those who do believe. They should be allowed to pray, consort and associate in any manner which does not inconvenience others. As should I.
I am not in a group of atheists. There is no grouping as such.
Mind you, I do on occasion pray:
Dear any god, or all of them, please protect me from those who are certain.
Derek Smith said:
///ajd said:
It is time perhaps that some human rights/basic secular values were enshrined in law in a way that prevented some religion from hide behind its scriptures to promote/spread hate.
No offence (of course, anything but), however, I don't think there should be any special protection for the secular. That would make them a group, and that they are not. There should not be any classification of 'everyone but them' sort of thing.Protection, beyond freedom to believe in anything you want, should be limited. No one should be allowed to pick on any group. There is no need to mention religion, plane spotting, homeopaths and believers in fairies. Everyone should be allowed to go about their business without hindrance. There is nothing special about those who believe they are special. The so-called hate crimes (dreadful title, quite silly in fact) involving religions should be limited to the defence that everyone else has.
I should be allowed not to believe in a god or lots of gods without hindrance, without name calling, without being picked on. As should those who do believe. They should be allowed to pray, consort and associate in any manner which does not inconvenience others. As should I.
I am not in a group of atheists. There is no grouping as such.
Mind you, I do on occasion pray:
Dear any god, or all of them, please protect me from those who are certain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity
..was intended to not define a group or subset, but to look outside of all religions and beliefs, and set up some basic human values and make them universal. And perhaps decide they have to always overrule religion, without exception. Perhaps we already do this, but sometimes our conviction is not clear, and it seems we may have the tolerance compass slightly adrift when it comes to the truely intolerable.
Examples would be:
1. equal treatment for all (sex, orientation)
2. no enforced/systematic body mutilation
These should be values for all, from a human rights point of view, not just atheists. Should FGM be tolerated in the name of religion? Are we turning a blind eye? Why?
You can believe in whatever you want, but should you be allowed to mutilate your daughter? Should a British core value to be to find that fundamentally unacceptable?
///ajd said:
I may have used the wrong words, but my use of secular...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity
..was intended to not define a group or subset, but to look outside of all religions and beliefs, and set up some basic human values and make them universal. And perhaps decide they have to always overrule religion, without exception. Perhaps we already do this, but sometimes our conviction is not clear, and it seems we may have the tolerance compass slightly adrift when it comes to the truely intolerable.
Examples would be:
1. equal treatment for all (sex, orientation)
2. no enforced/systematic body mutilation
These should be values for all, from a human rights point of view, not just atheists. Should FGM be tolerated in the name of religion? Are we turning a blind eye? Why?
You can believe in whatever you want, but should you be allowed to mutilate your daughter? Should a British core value to be to find that fundamentally unacceptable?
Indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularity
..was intended to not define a group or subset, but to look outside of all religions and beliefs, and set up some basic human values and make them universal. And perhaps decide they have to always overrule religion, without exception. Perhaps we already do this, but sometimes our conviction is not clear, and it seems we may have the tolerance compass slightly adrift when it comes to the truely intolerable.
Examples would be:
1. equal treatment for all (sex, orientation)
2. no enforced/systematic body mutilation
These should be values for all, from a human rights point of view, not just atheists. Should FGM be tolerated in the name of religion? Are we turning a blind eye? Why?
You can believe in whatever you want, but should you be allowed to mutilate your daughter? Should a British core value to be to find that fundamentally unacceptable?
The argument from some religionists is that without religion, then what can one base one's morals on. However, the secular have generated changes in what is acceptable over recent years, as with not condemning people based on their sexuality. Without non-religious based morality, there would not be a female bishop as she would have been felt to be inferior due to her sex.
One awaits the second female pope.
Objections to the denigration of women, either by forcing restrictions on them, or else mutilation, is generated by the secular in the main. There is no religious imperative not to do so yet the secular pov is that it is simply wrong.
For all the complaints against the secular EGHR, most, the vast majority in fact, of its work is positive. Yet we have religions having or wanting to set up their own judicial system where rights are limited dramatically.
Derek Smith said:
Indeed.
The argument from some religionists is that without religion, then what can one base one's morals on. However, the secular have generated changes in what is acceptable over recent years, as with not condemning people based on their sexuality. Without non-religious based morality, there would not be a female bishop as she would have been felt to be inferior due to her sex.
One awaits the second female pope.
Objections to the denigration of women, either by forcing restrictions on them, or else mutilation, is generated by the secular in the main. There is no religious imperative not to do so yet the secular pov is that it is simply wrong.
For all the complaints against the secular EGHR, most, the vast majority in fact, of its work is positive. Yet we have religions having or wanting to set up their own judicial system where rights are limited dramatically.
Apparently the first female pope conned her way in (they didn't she was a woman). They've got round this problem now by implementing a new procedure for all new popes. When the new one has been selected, he has to sit on a throne which has a hole cut in the bottom of it. He is then held aloft and carried over the heads of the other priests with his genitalia hanging down through the hole, and they have to check that it's a bloke! You really couldn't make it up. This is still going on in the 21st century, and we are supposed to "respect" religion.The argument from some religionists is that without religion, then what can one base one's morals on. However, the secular have generated changes in what is acceptable over recent years, as with not condemning people based on their sexuality. Without non-religious based morality, there would not be a female bishop as she would have been felt to be inferior due to her sex.
One awaits the second female pope.
Objections to the denigration of women, either by forcing restrictions on them, or else mutilation, is generated by the secular in the main. There is no religious imperative not to do so yet the secular pov is that it is simply wrong.
For all the complaints against the secular EGHR, most, the vast majority in fact, of its work is positive. Yet we have religions having or wanting to set up their own judicial system where rights are limited dramatically.
nightflight said:
Apparently the first female pope conned her way in (they didn't she was a woman). They've got round this problem now by implementing a new procedure for all new popes. When the new one has been selected, he has to sit on a throne which has a hole cut in the bottom of it. He is then held aloft and carried over the heads of the other priests with his genitalia hanging down through the hole, and they have to check that it's a bloke! You really couldn't make it up. This is still going on in the 21st century, and we are supposed to "respect" religion.
Testiculos habet et bene pendentes.Firebox7 said:
That was brilliant, nearly laughed up a lung! The perfect way to cap off a thread that's amused me all week. Dawkins irritates me a little normally but this is priceless.
Thanks Derek et al, I'll hold out hope that one day a poster will come along that has the IQ to match their dedication to sky fairy nonsense - once scientific theory / theory wooooshed overhead, there was no hope for this one.
The funny thing is scientific theory doesn't have the power to disprove the existence of a God, or at least it hasn't done and nothing mentioned on here has done.Thanks Derek et al, I'll hold out hope that one day a poster will come along that has the IQ to match their dedication to sky fairy nonsense - once scientific theory / theory wooooshed overhead, there was no hope for this one.
And it would be nice to hear from someone with the IQ to really, truly understands these scientific theories to come on here and tell the rest of us. So far the majority of posters who believe in science have just regurgitated their own limited understanding of work someone much brighter has carried out.
Is this person going to be you?
nightflight said:
Apparently the first female pope conned her way in (they didn't she was a woman). They've got round this problem now by implementing a new procedure for all new popes. When the new one has been selected, he has to sit on a throne which has a hole cut in the bottom of it. He is then held aloft and carried over the heads of the other priests with his genitalia hanging down through the hole, and they have to check that it's a bloke! You really couldn't make it up. This is still going on in the 21st century, and we are supposed to "respect" religion.
Indeed.Surely some good prosthetics could be made these days, though....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff