[Closed] why can't we criticise religions or religious people without getting grief

I'd guess that a CofE church would be less homophobic than the average building site, police station or school...

going by what I know of my friend's wife who is a vicar and her parish and her vicar friends (several of whom are gay) I'd say that was probably right.

But let's not let reality get in the way of shrill hysteria and crass stereotyping, hey? 😉

[i]"Religion doesn't come into morals"[/i]

I thought this was an interesting remark. Through self examination, I have found faith necessary to secure my moral foundation: "Deliver us from temptation", and all that.

My understanding is that newer religions have co-opted ideas/memes from older religions - an evolution of religion, you might say. I believe what is happening today is an evolutionary spurt in religious ideas. It remains to be seen if Atheism becomes the dominant religious species or whether there will be a new and powerful hybrid.

AdamW; I see your point, re your sexuality, and I believe it is wrong for anyone to criticise such an aspect of someone's individuality, and it's one of my main issues with many religions. Surely, we are all equal on Earth, and therefore in society?

I don't have a problem with atheism; I've considered the issue surrounding the existance of God, and I've made my own decisions that I believe are right for me, as have you, and most other people.

There are too many people living in societies which are intolerant to alternative views, and who can't express themselves freely or be who they really are themselves. This is not right.

But this is less to do with religion itself, and more to do with the manipulation of dogma, and the way religion is used as an instrument of control, by those in power.

Lots of fascinating views from all sides.

But a lot of ignorance and fear, too. Therefore, things should be discussed. But simply slagging off someone's religion, because it conflicts with your own views, or you see it as a threat when in fact it is not, is wrong.

As is often the case with STW religious 'discussions', some of the most ignorant and divisive views seem to came from those who claim to be atheists. It's just an observation.

Maybe some people aren't quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?

What percentage of suicides/attempts are from children raised in religious homes? What percentage from secular homes? Where's the evidence that religion leads to suicide? Britain has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe, I believe, yet it is arguably the most secular country.

Source please? I'd say that France is a more secular state - look at the hoohah regarding the wearing of islamic dress...

As a source on my behalf (though not looked at in detail):

[url= http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_suic.htm ]religioustolerance.org[/url]

But, looking at extremes and then using extremes to characterise all religion is not helpful, useful or constructive.

That is a poor attempt to avoid answering a question. I was not using extremes to characterise all religion. I was asking a specific question, which you attempted to broaden and hence ignore. You asked me if bringing a child up in a religious household could be deemed abuse. I answered 'sometimes'. I take it then that in extreme cases such as this you must agree with me but didn't want to actually say it. Unless you mean that bringing up a child in a religious household - regardless of the religion or extreme within - is good?

And I repeat. You can believe anything you want. Just don't ask me to either agree with you. (you meaning 'anyone' - English is crap at only having one 'you'!). And if it impinges upon human rights (pope/condom etc.) then I will make my political stand against you.

And I still stand by my point. A foetus cannot be of a certain religion. A small baby cannot be. Only when a person has reached a level of maturity to question, analyse and accept/reject views could they in all honesty be called of a certain religion.

I was asked to be a godfather for a child. I agreed with the caveat: "I will not teach him only about christianity as you know I don't believe, but about *every* religion, including none. When he's old enough to make up his own mind then fine." They agreed. I did. Hopefully the young man will grow up questioning everything until he forms his own opinions.

shrill hysteria and crass stereotyping

[i]Maybe some people aren't quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?[/i]

Excellently put.

I was asked to be a godfather for a child. I agreed with the caveat: "I will not teach him only about christianity as you know I don't believe, but about *every* religion, including none. When he's old enough to make up his own mind then fine." They agreed. I did. Hopefully the young man will grow up questioning everything until he forms his own opinions.

that is the ideal for everyone surely?

sure some of of these people use 'religion' to legitimize their actions, but thats hardly the fault of the religion itself is it?

Its what it has become, it is a weapon to be used rightly or wrongly. Religion is just another form of Human nature, attack what you don't understand/can't control/different from you.

Atheism is kind of the same. It falls into the same Human trap of attacking something that is different also.

Also I think you will find that a lot of the religious leaders/organizations in the world are actually trying to improve the situation for a lot of people

I'd agree with this, but at the same time Catholicism, Africa, Aids and Condoms spring to mind.

[i]Maybe some people aren't quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?[/i]

It's an interesting thought, but it falls down on any examination. Let's say you propose something prepostorious such as women aren't equipped mentally to carry out important jobs. The fact that people laugh and pour scorn on your proposition probably wouldn't be considered a sign of lack of security about their own beliefs on the subject.

The argument that the ill that men do in the name of their god is a function of the human condition [i]not[/i] their religion cant be used at the same time as the argument that moral guidance comes from religion and not society or human nature.

Humans are natually moral animals, we have the innate (and some say unique in the natural world) capacity for empathy and hence guilt, shame, and all the other effects by which moral choices are measured.

and

Maybe some people aren't quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?

women aren't equipped mentally to carry out important jobs.

all religious people dangerous and deluded

That Dalai Lama, phycopathic thug.

That is a poor attempt to avoid answering a question. I was not using extremes to characterise all religion. I was asking a specific question, which you attempted to broaden and hence ignore. You asked me if bringing a child up in a religious household could be deemed abuse. I answered 'sometimes'. I take it then that in extreme cases such as this you must agree with me but didn't want to actually say it. Unless you mean that bringing up a child in a religious household - regardless of the religion or extreme within - is good?

What's going on in that household, I would characterize as child abuse. I would question whether it is religion at the root of it, however, rather that it is power, control, mental illness...

I have to admit to missing the 'sometimes' in your earlier reply.

On suicide, a quick Google shows that there have been studies which have shown that religious people are less likely to commit suicide; it's not something I've particularly researched however.

I still think that it's rather a leap to state that a religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse, which was darrell's initial claim, with which you agreed. (Actually, darrell referred to indoctrination, though that's a term often used to describe reading bible stories to kids...)

That Dalai Lama, phycopathic thug

I've been stalking this thread, waiting for someone to mention the Dalai Lama. Tell me, what are your views on the Dalai Lama's involvement in the removal of the infant Tashi Tsering from his family, to live a life amongst Buddhist monks, in the belief that he is the reincarnation of Khensur Rinpoche ?

same as parents sending there children away to boarding school isn't it? or are you against that too?

I imagine the childs destiny is going to be pretty much out of his control.

Boarding school is only temporary although you are put off Nice biscuits for the rest of your life....so I hear 🙂

when the child comes of age, he will be allowed to do whatever he likes, the Dalai Lama offers advice to the Rinpoche's, however he doesn't tell them what to do.

So seem like the a win/win to me, the child will be highly educated and brought up in a very tolerant and peaceful environment and when he comes of age he can decide to live his life as he choses.

same as parents sending there children away to boarding school isn't it?

No it isn't. Parents send their children to boarding school by choice, not because of religious indoctrination and its related social pressures. Think of a better example if you wish to make a point.

Parents send their children to boarding school by choice, not because of religious indoctrination and its related social pressures.

Or, parents send their child to boarding school because of social indoctrination and its related social pressures?

We're rather drifting away from the point of the thread though, which is that religious people get upset when their actions/views are criticised 😉

buzz-lightyear - Member

"Religion doesn't come into morals"

I thought this was an interesting remark. Through self examination, I have found faith necessary to secure my moral foundation: "Deliver us from temptation", and all that.

Surely you can arrive at the same conclusion through logic e.g. ask yourself if everyone acted thus, would society be stable?

Do as you would be done by etc actually make sense from a logical stable society stand point. On a small scale, selfishness / short-termism can be sustained, but let it become too wide spread and society collapses. Hence policing society / practising self control is rational.

I imagine the childs destiny is going to be pretty much out of his control.

What about it's [i]density[/i]?

[img] [/img]

[img] http://a2.vox.com/6a00fad693dc36000500fa96a4c43a0003-320pi [/img]

NB I consider following religious mantra to be irrational.....

Or, parents send their child to boarding school because of social indoctrination and its related social pressures?

Very possibly and it's a reasonable argument. However, I think it only goes to prove that [b]both[/b] religious and social indoctrination and it's related pressures are morally wrong.

What about it's density?

Now there's something we could characterise as child abuse over and above religion!

Very possibly and it's a reasonable argument. However, I think it only goes to prove that both religious and social indoctrination and it's related pressures are morally wrong.

do you agree that ultimately the child will get a better education/start in life because of these social indoctrinations?

If so is that a bad thing? and why is it morally wrong to want the best for your child?

do you agree that ultimately the child will get a better education/start in life because of these social indoctrinations?

If so is that a bad thing? and why is it morally wrong?

The child has been removed from it's family. The family did not ask for this to be done but would be under impossible social pressure to allow it. This is morally wrong. Every benefit that the child stands to receive, in your argument, are material. The feelings of the child's family or the future psychology of the child are not accounted for.

If that's enlightenment, I'm happy to be in the dark.

The family did not ask for this to be done but would be under impossible social pressure to allow it.

but what if the family want it? as it would lift their child out of poverty and allow them to have a life they could never have provided?

you seem to be superimposing your own western middle class safe values, onto Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family whose concerns aren't what matching bits they can get for their bike, but instead how to get food on the table and educate their children.

In that situation, what parent wouldn't want their child to be chosen to lead there people and be educated by the elite of their society.

you seem to be superimposing your own western middle class safe values, onto Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family whose concerns aren't what matching bits they can get for their bike, but instead how to get food on the table and educate their children.

Not at all, I'm going on the evidence of my degree course material, which stated very clearly that the family were distressed by the event.I think it's perhaps your own western middle class safe values that are making you feel that a Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family are incapable of bringing a child safely and happily into the world and need any kind of external help in making it possible.

so, Darrell et al, I go to church on Sundays, have a belief in the Christian God, mind my own business about it, have a responsible job in the public sector, a couple of science based degrees and accept the theory of evolution rather than being a creationist, and you want to equate me with somebody who touches up little girls?

Obviously no parents amongst you, or else you have a misplaced sense of the absurd. Vomit inducing, really. You're the one preaching hatred, not me.

[i]i personally think that all religions are obscene and all religious people dangerous and deluded. In particular i take great offense that parents brainwash and indoctrinate their young children and i think this is tantamount to child abuse. To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.

[/i]
I think you pretty much answered your own question. Semi-literate drivel like that is just as offensive as some of the more extreme religious views. By all means put forward an opposite view to religion, or aspects of religion, but please try and do it in a reasoned and intelligent manner. And if you aren't capable, do try and get someone to write it for you.

Poking at religion with a stick is fun
Organised religion is anti-fun

Simple, really.

Well, clearly I was being flippant. I don't know anything about the Dalai Lama's involvement in the removal of the infant Tashi Tsering from his family, to live a life amongst Buddhist monks, in the belief that he is the reincarnation of Khensur Rinpoche.

But then again, probably better than being brought up by Fred and Rose West, who I don't think were overly religeous.

BTW, before eanyone goes off on one, obviously I am being flippant again.

Organised religion is anti-fun

From the tone of some of the posters on this thread there's not much room for fun in the atheist world either..

Simple, really.

Yes, you are.

My my, the child's getting stroppy - late again with our schoolwork are we?

You're the one that responded, when I poked fun at you!

Lovely!

😆

..and if replying to being poked at proves something, you're point would be?

sorry [b]your[/b] point - damn me and my apostrohe addiction

you're point would be?

You don't like it when it's done to you.

To give, you gotta take.

Atheists; they don't like it up 'em!

My niece who is 7 goes to church every Sunday morning, and when I see her she occasionaly talks about what she has learnt at Sunday school, or what will happen if she is a naughty girl. Some of it scares me, some of it makes me just stand there is disbeleif.

Now some times my wife (who went to Catholic school, but like me has no religious beleif at all) will start asking her questions about why they have told her certain thing, or how it could be plausable, or does she beleive it. Imediately my niece's mother will change the conversation or literally jab my wife in the ribs.

So apparantley it is ok for a child to be taught one biased way of life and one way of right and wrong, and to be allowed to challenge what she is being told, or for other people to offer alternative methods.

Oh and don't ask about me about the Catholic church, Africa and condoms.

As an adult you can turn up to a religion, have a look, and see if you like it and move on if not. Child rely on adults to teach them, and certainly in my nieces situation she certainly isn't getting both sides of the story...

we were having conversation on saturday and it turned to religion.

one guy saying he'd have to be there with his folks the next day (sunday) at church.

one guy that was present is chinese. he described communism being akin to religion. was a good point.

in days of old if you didn't believe, and that is all it is - a belief, you didn't get what or where you wanted in life. much like communism today.

he went on to say about one guy in his uni class who hadn't finished his project, for which he had had 2 months to finish. when asked by his professor he said that he had less time as he went to church on sundays and took the rest of the day off.

this was considered a valid excuse.

there is a church in new mexico where the parishoners take peyote to help them 'see' god. anywhere else in the states this is illegal but as its use is for religious purposes its ok'd by the state. there is a lobby to help sufferers of MS use canabis, but they get nowhere.

why? why should religious beliefs be held above the needs of other peole?

why pray? you pray to god so that your wishes be fulfilled. but isn't god's will already decided? if so, why pray?

a woman was quoted as saying "god will help my daughter get better" after the earthquake in italy. didn't god send the earthquake, as was his will...?

the whole thing is a scam.

and why should governments apologise to muslim communities after the whole printing of pictures of the cartoon mohammed? f@ck 'em.

americans would not vote for an atheist to be president. more likely to vote a jeew, black man or even a poof into office.

someone who takes into consideration what is written in a book about a man, or his teachings, is less likely to be, in my mind, of independant thought.

shit, i heard a story about some girl and three bears. must be true because my folks told me when i was real young and now i've read it.

infact. if we were to tell all children from a very young age that they must believe, must go to church at xmas and egg time, then they will believe. they are naive.

and why should governments apologise to muslim communities after the whole printing of pictures of the cartoon mohammed? f@ck 'em.

americans would not vote for an atheist to be president. more likely to vote a jeew, black man or even a poof into office.

Hmm. Some mature views there, alpin... 🙄

I see where yer coming from, just the way you've presented your argument is a bit off-key.

But if you don't consider that the government has an obligation to consider the feelings of all communities, then likewise, no-one need respect yours.

someone who takes into consideration what is written in a book about a man, or his teachings, is less likely to be, in my mind, of independant thought.

And what does that say of someone who takes no consideration of 'a book about a man'? I'd have considered that person to be less likely capable of thought and analysis.

Your diatribe does not read at all rationally, sonny.

[i]someone who takes into consideration what is written in a book about a man, or his teachings, is less likely to be, in my mind, of independant thought. [/i]

And someone who doesn't read books (regardless of the subject) is, in my humble opinion, far more likely to be ignorant on a huge variety of topics. Sorry, poor argument that one I'm afraid. I'd say it's always a good idea to read books or articles putting forward a viewpoint different from your own.

You don't like it when it's done to you.

To give, you gotta take.

Atheists; they don't like it up 'em!

eh? who said I was an atheist?
..and again, if you replied to my post what exactly was the point you were trying to make?

I apreciate you're a bit on the dense side, but can you try making a bit of sense for a change?

There are many things done in the [i]name[/i] of a religion which would not be condoned by rational members of that religion. Extremists are to be found everywhere.

Speaking as a Christian, I find [i]so-called Christian[/i] extremists at least as scary as any other extremists.

I don't call any rational follower of any faith rude names and don't like being insulted for my beliefs.

Why does any [i]rational[/i] person feel the need to insult another person's beliefs as long as those beliefs don't harm anyone or incite harm against another?

As an adult you can turn up to a religion, have a look, and see if you like it and move on if not. Child rely on adults to teach them, and certainly in my nieces situation she certainly isn't getting both sides of the story...

Its how religion indoctrinates...get them while they are young and unquestioning.

So seem like the a win/win to me, the child will be highly educated and brought up in a very tolerant and peaceful environment and when he comes of age he can decide to live his life as he choses.

And this is a classic example. What life will the child chose? The unknown or the only one he has known and was chosen for him?

Obviously no parents amongst you, [u]or else you have a misplaced sense of the absurd.[/u] Vomit inducing, really. You're the one preaching hatred, not me.

Or perhaps we don't want our Children to be brought up anywhere near Religion. The original post regarding Child abuse is over the top.

I thought I'd underline that line, coming from a Christian. 😆

Why does any rational person feel the need to insult another person's beliefs as long as those beliefs don't harm anyone or incite harm against another?

Because the ultimate goal of these religions is to have everyone "under their wing" whether we like it or not.

not against reading, i'm all for it.

just not one particular set of books that tell us how we should live our lives according to a handful of authors.

i don't consider those that hold deep religious beliefs to be of a rational mind.

i make no apologies for what i, or others say about religion. if god is that upset i'll live for eternity in hell (very unlikely though) which i'm guessing is more fun than heaven.

Because religious people can't see that they are fruityloop, so they get angry when we try to tell them. Despite all that bollocks being about forgiveness, and all that. ****ing retards.

Oh, and my background is Exclusive Brethren (left a long time ago). Now [i]there's[/i] an ideologically scary organistion.

I'm an agnostic but I really don't see what is wrong with religious parents bringing up their children exactly how they want.

Most parents in the West tell their kids that Santa brings their Christmas presents etc. & the tooth fairy collects teeth that have fallen out - in most cases they simply allow the kids to figure it out for themselves when they're a bit older.
Kids aren't stupid

[i]Kids aren't stupid [/i]
the fact that some people continue believing in religion [i]after[/i] childhood would suggest that some really are. And some don't grow out of wearing football shirts either.

I don't consider religionists 'fruityloop' but I find it very hard to understand them. Still, if they want to believe in the christian/muslim/chinese/hindu/aztec/martian gods then that's their business. Just leave me out of their faith until I come calling (the number of times I have been 'invited' to go the 'Alpha course' [read: very poor brainwashing attempt]....).

While others would consider me a hard-core atheist I believe I am omni-agnostic. You cannot prove a negative (i.e. there is/are *no* god(s)) so there must be an infinitesimally small chance that any of them exist. Therein lies the rub - it is *any* of them. Zeus/Apollo/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Pink Unicorn/Christian god/Muslim god/Hindu gods. I believe in them all to exactly the same extent!

Which bring up something else - a person of religion X, while themselves consider themselves of faith, are usually much more vehemently atheist about god Y, which isn't in their pantheon. Odd that.

One more interesting thing is the concept of the devil/beezulbub etc. You could argue that the abrahamic faiths are not really a monotheistic faith but a duo-theistic faith with the 'good' god being 'god' and the evil god being 'the devil'. Still, the devil isn't discussed much in the bible but so much is made of it. Stick, I guess as opposed to the carrot of 'heaven' (which could bring us into the 'pure-land' view of some buddhist branches but lets not go there!).

I thought I'd underline that line, coming from a Christian. [:lol:]

very droll. 😳

Because the ultimate goal of these religions is to have everyone "under their wing" whether we like it or not.

see, that seems to be a common misconception. Not sure where you get the idea that Christianity supports conscription.

see, that seems to be a common misconception. Not sure where you get the idea that Christianity supports conscription.

To be fair, activeDuty:

From google -

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for evangelical church. (0.22 seconds)

I know someone in an evangelical church. Scary. From 'evangelicalchurch.org' (the top hit on google):

The Evangelical Church is a movement of "Harvest-focused, Holiness-fueled" churches committed to establishing healthy multiplying churches that proclaim the Gospel of free and full salvation from all sin for all people. It is our intent to fulfill the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations.

I don't see this as a misconception. Could you tell me how this is not true? I thought the 1990s were to be the decade of evangelicalism according to the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time?

And don't start on the 'Jesus Army'. If he existed and was a nice bloke he would be rotating in his grave at a high speed with that bunch...

[i]Because religious people can't see that they are fruityloop, so they get angry when we try to tell them.[/i]
Sorry to disappoint you, but they don't. Most just tend to laugh when they read childish silly things like that.

Perhaps you could show me on here where someone putting forward a pro-religious point of view (I'm staying neutral) has shown any sort of anger or hatred? On the other hand I could show you umpteen comments like "child abusers" and "******* retards" that rather make me think all the hatred is coming from one side. I do feel very sorry for you if you really hate folk that much. That's genuine, I'm not being sarcastic.

see, that seems to be a common misconception. Not sure where you get the idea that Christianity supports conscription.

Conscription, an appropriate word because if you are born in this country you are technically governed by Christian beliefs, traditions and of course their influence in the political system. The only reason you are getting so many bishops etc speaking out recently is because their influence is on the wane.

And having once been of the Christian Ilk, I understand the methods and means completely.

There's an awful lot of intolerance going on in this thread.

If someone's beliefs don't chime with yours (whatever they might be) but don't harm you either (and I have been on the receiving end of some pretty (to me) harmful so-called Christian beliefs), can't you just live and let live?

It won't hurt you...

[i]"If someone's beliefs don't chime with yours (whatever they might be) but don't harm you either " ..[/i]

Ah, but we have to fund them as well! What of Radio 4's outstandingly irritating Christianity dirge on Thought For The Day? - And last week we were also told of the £30M of taxpayers money spent on Hospital Chaplains.

If there were tax on the Church forcing them to fund a daily athiest BBC sermon and Humanist hospital psychiatrist, they might soon kick up a fuss!

we have to fund them as well! What of Radio 4's outstandingly irritating Christianity dirge on Thought For The Day?

I expect you will find, if you interogate the statistisc closely, that some license payers are in fact religeous.

And last week we were also told of the £30M of taxpayers money spent on Hospital Chaplains

Ditto taxpayers/sick people

I expect you will find ....... that some license payers are in fact religious.

Really ?

Well they better not show their faces here.

God help them if they do.

Ernie; like anyone would dream of showing their faces in Croydon.

Now that is a truly Godforsaken place...

AndyP - Member
Because religious people can't see that they are fruityloop, so they get angry when we try to tell them. Despite all that bollocks being about forgiveness, and all that. **** retards.

Brilliantly done LOL!

I've sinned but a sacrifice should sort it out with God.

Cant be bothered reading this whole thread, but am amused by the notion of lies and supersition being forced on youngsters not old enough to know better as "child abuse".
Will those postulating this view be telling their kids "santa's not real. Don't you dare believe in him!!" or will they be happily "abusing" their children with this lie come Christmastime?

Atheists; they don't like it up 'em!

Nor do those who believe in a religion. Thats why they would prefer that there are laws to protect them from criticism.

Without freedom of speech there is no freedom.

No, the UN Resolution (If people would actually read it propply), is about stopping people from spreading falsehoods and untruths about religions, NOT stopping people from having the right to free speech.

Read it propply. Do yerself a favour. Learn something... 🙄

I knew you would bite. Its too easy.

I tell you what, I'll Learn something 🙄 if you drop the mockney spelling.

I've also decided what I'm going to learn.

Guitar.

Put up, or shut up.

RudeBoy's Law don't extend to you... 😉

I'd like to learn Spainish, actually. If the local Council adult education service could sort itself out enough to run a course for more than 3 weeks...

Good luck with the guitar. I considered it once, but I'm just not patient enough.