I am arguing against poor thinking.
So are we strangely enough
(Edit: We being the non religious)
by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument - if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think
WTF...?!
Huge leap there, fella...
🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member
An excellent piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.
Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?
Calling it human nature doesn't excuse it though.
But there is an excuse.
Some opinions are so vile that they need to be challenged.
And sometimes, just sometimes, ridicule is the only appropriate method.
Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?
How is that relevant?
Bear in mind that's harass in the legal definition, not the 'criticism is harrassment' definition.
I realise that yes.
But ......
A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.
(I fully expect the "Edinburgh Defence" to be deployed 😐 )
…hang on a minute - who's saying what? I've lost track, and now I don't know who to argue with next.
I suppose what I'm saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don't always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I'll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint
Yup I think most people get that, but I suppose I start to wonder why you would still call yourself a catholic if you are opposed to quite a few of the core beliefs that the leaders of the church get very het up about (never mind all the scandals/cover-ups etc). It's entirely up to you of course and I'm not judging you for it, but it seems a bit odd to me.
STW towers clearly tolerates religion-bashing and the lack of moderation suggests that it may even encourage it.
STW tolerates religious, or indeed any, debate. Threads get closed when they get out of hand.
What's the alternative to this perceived "lack of moderation?" Censorship? Would you rather that any discussion about religion was immediately closed?
Most threads on this topic are merely rehashes on a rotating 48 hour basis of entrenched positions
Don't read them, then?
You do have to respect other people's right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters
Correct. But,
- and that means not slagging them off
Incorrect. Or rather, 'slagging them off' is perhaps a bit strong; abusing someone isn't nice irrespective of the reasons why. That's not a religion issue, that's being a decent human being issue. But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can't have it both ways.
in other words, I absolutely respect someone's right to hold a different opinion. But that's not the same thing as respecting that opinion, and it's a fallacy to group the two together.
Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself...
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:
I'm a Catholic, admittedly more by the way I was brought up, but religious all the same. I'm pro gay marriage (good job really as I have a gay son), I'm not anti abortion,
You're not a very good Catholic, then. Sounds a bit like calling yourself a non-smoker, apart from cigarettes.
Have you considered changing denominations to something that better represents your world view?
But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can't have it both ways.
Or to paraphrase Gypsy Rose Lee.
"If you don't like being laughed at then you shouldn't have such funny ideas!
Rusty Spanner - Member"Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?"
How is that relevant?
Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?
To bring this back to the initial mention of the pope.
Does anyone else find it weird that when top religionists (the current ex pope and mother theresa spring to mind) are honest and reflect on their beliefs (pope in his speech and m.t. in her biography) they talk about how god often seems absent and how its all a bit of a struggle to believe.
Doesn't that seem a bit weird?
Its like they [i]almost[/i] realise the truth but can't quite take the next step.
I could almost feel sorry for them, if it wasn't for the other evils they'd perpetrated and supported in the name of their imaginary friend.
Cougar - all those points being tackled with such a strong tone. A [i]booming voice[/i] - almost god-like...
🙂
I was christened as a catholic after being born premature and not being expected to survive. Also, I suspect an element of my mam wanting to piss my dad off, an ex catholic and very vocal anti religionist. My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?
No, it doesn't.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.
Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.
"Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself...
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:"
Dear dear C .... I held your view once, not so long ago.... as you well know.
I'm really glad I dont any more.
I can't understand how, if you don't believe in the concept of heaven and hell, you'd get so upset if a religious person thinks you're headed to hell in a handcart. I'm all for a bit of handwringing but this does seem a bit on the sensitive side to me.
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:
See? Even the modz are laughing at the devout. Seems ernie was right. 🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member"Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?"
No, it doesn't.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.
Well I kind of like 'evidence', 'proof' and 'examples'. It's just as relevant as your unsupported opinion (I'll call it a 'hunch') that this law is 'ruined' and now potentially 'dangerous'.
Rusty spanner, I'm a bit confused now.
A couple of pages back when someone suggested people had a right not to be insulted based on their religion you said that they didn't and you could say whatever you wanted to them and there was nothing they could do about it.
When it was pointed out that this wasnt actually the case, you said you had been arguing against religion being part of that legislation for years (but you seemed not to be aware of it previously?)
darcy, as I mentioned before, a good friend's mother is a devout born-again Christian, and she really strongly believes all of her kids are going to be damned to a fiery hell for eternity unless they repent and find Jesus. She gets really upset about it.
I dunno if offensive is the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.
Neal, the legislation does not provide a right not to be insulted based on religion.
My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
WOAH THERE, if you're going to be reflective, honest and polite you can bugger off this thread. pesky christians with their politeness, i want to be reading athiest fury.
Atheist fury - now there's a good name for a band!
I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected.
Why?
I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
You can be a good or a bad Catholic, and a good or a bad person. The two aren't codependant (despite what the faith might have you believe to the contrary).
Seriously though, I don't know why you'd want to associate with an organisation whose views were in conflict with your own. Well, I could guess; habit, peer / family pressure, inertia? There's plenty of ways to be Christian without being Catholic, and plenty more ways still to be religious / spiritual. Western Buddhism, perhaps?
I dunno if offensive as the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.
I guess being raised a catholic in Ireland, then realising it was all bollocks at an early age (aided, surprisingly by the realisation that my mum didn't really believe it either, but just went along with it because of a devout father) helped me not to give a shit. I do agree with you that it's a bit tragic though.
I think I'm gonna stick with 'atheist fury', thanks all the same cougar. It makes me feel strangely potent. 😯
Western Buddhism, perhaps?
Diet Buddhism.
nealglover - MemberRusty spanner, I'm a bit confused now.
A couple of pages back when someone suggested people had a right not to be insulted based on their religion you said that they didn't and you could say whatever you wanted to them and there was nothing they could do about it.
When it was pointed out that this wasnt actually the case, you said you had been arguing against religion being part of that legislation for years (but you seemed not to be aware of it previously?)
You can insult whoever you like, as long as, as pointed out above, there is no intention to harass etc.
There was a thread about this a couple of years ago when the Tyneside Koran-burning case came to trial.
I attempted to debate the intricasies & interpretation of the legislation with TJ, Fred & Ernie, who all disagreed vehemently with my opinion.
There were even insults directed against me 😀
I enjoyed the debate very much.
It'll still be in the archives if you want to look.
Even the modz are laughing at the devout.
I know that was a joke but just for clarity so we can avoid ad modinem attacks; I'm posting here (and generally) in my capacity as a forum user, not a moderator.
Neal, the legislation does not provide a right not to be insulted based on religion.
I'll quote it again ....
Any communication which is threatening, abusive or [b]insulting, [/b]and is intended to [b]harass, alarm, or distress [/b]someone is forbidden
Granted, anyone can claim that their intent was not to distress or harass, as a get out.
But the example I quoted above was pretty clear.
abusing someone isn't nice irrespective of the reasons why. That's not a religion issue, that's being a decent human being issue.
Challenge ideas - yes.
Abuse someone randomly - no.
That's always been my point. Saying 'religious people are ignorant and feeble minded' is not challenging the ideas, that's just being nasty and prejudiced.
Offending and insulting aren't synonyms.
Personally I think we are all missing a trick.
If you can't beat them join them.
Set up the church of mountain biking.
There are already rules (although not on stone tablets as far as I'm aware)
There are already places of worship / pilgrimage.
There is already a great schism (29ers)
Set it up as a religion - claim charitable status - claim all the VAT back on tyres. Everyones a winner
What tyres for sunday prayers?
Halo Choir Boys, of course...
That's always been my point.
Cool; we're in agreement on that, then.
Saying 'religious people are ignorant and feeble minded' is not challenging the ideas, that's just being nasty and prejudiced.
Is it, though? If you accept religious explanations of, say, creation of the world over well established scientific theory, evidence and proof, then you're either ignorant (literally - ie, you don't know any better) or you lack some form of critical thinking which would otherwise empower you to call into question the circular reasoning and inconsistencies that such "explanations" attempt to provide.
It's a rash generalisation perhaps, and it's not particularly nice to call people names; but I don't think it's automatically "nasty" without knowing context and intent, and I don't really see how it could be called prejudiced?
Blah, blah, blah...
...You're not a very good Catholic, then.
How very dogmatic of you.
I'd wager that Barnleymitch's knowledge and understanding of Catholicism is at least as valid as your own.
Perhaps a more "scientific" approach would be to question whether your own pre-conceptions of "good Catholics" hold true?
Slightly more introspective, but also less confrontational and judgemental.
What tyres for sunday prayers?
This time of year... Mudrakes.... as it's all a bit dour and super somber.
Come September and harvest we can crack out the Kenda 8 blocks and have a tear up.
Right I'm gonna be late... catch you after the service
That's always been my point. Saying 'religious people are ignorant and feeble minded' is not challenging the ideas, that's just being nasty and prejudiced.
Although technically it is true.
Halo Choir Boys, of course..
Applauds
Although technically it is true.
So you are opting to be prejudiced and unpleasant here, just to make it absoultely clear?
Aye, you're right joolsburger , I'm as thick as shit me. Better tell the wife to pack her job in as a senior lecturer as well. 🙄
That's always been my point. Saying 'religious people are ignorant and feeble minded' is not challenging the ideas, that's just being nasty and prejudiced.Although technically it is true.
Meh...
Aside from the genuinely ignorant - eg never been taught otherwise I've actually always been impressed by the capacity of bright religious people to hold onto some of the sillier tenants of their faith.
I mean the intellectual rigour involved in the beliefs held by "young earth creationists" would tire me out pretty quickly.
Personally I'd just give in and go along with everyone else and you know all that "evidence" and other stuff
No to make it absolutely clear I am using those words in exactly the way they are intended to be used.
Ignorant - Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
In this case the belief in something without a shred of evidence and despite the evidence to the contrary
Feeble minded - Is perhaps a little harsh and I withdraw that however the cognitive dissonance required to believe in god and post that using a computer on the internet is mind boggling.
Prejudiced and unpleasant, I'm not the one in a club based on hatred and fear.
I'd wager that Barnleymitch's knowledge and understanding of Catholicism is at least as valid as your own.
I know what a quack sounds like, that doesn't make me a duck.
I don't doubt that BM knows at least as much about Catholicism as I do, and probably a lot more. But he's choosing to ignore it.
Perhaps a more "scientific" approach would be to question whether your own pre-conceptions of "good Catholics" hold true?
I don't have any preconceptions of anyone, but I do have a basic understanding of the core tenets of the Catholic church, and their pro-life isn't something that's ambiguous. If you're going to align yourself with a group and then choose to ignore what they stand for, you're not a very good member of that group.
If I ate fish, I'd be a pretty poor vegetarian. If I continued to call myself a vegetarian whilst chowing down on a cod fillet, would that not suggest that perhaps a different label is appropriate? Hey, maybe I should look into what those pescetarians are up to?
Slightly more introspective, but also less confrontational and judgemental.
My intention wasn't to be either of those things, sorry if it came across otherwise.
Granted, anyone can claim that their intent was not to distress or harass, as a get out.
Intent is a legal idea, which is contained in many laws. Intent makes the difference between murder and manslaughter or other lesser charges, for example.
