Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The main concern I have about religion is that it doesn't end with belief/faith. The proselytizing and attempts to further policy and law based on said belief is not appreciated by me or value added to our society...to put it mildly.
Yes I wondered whether, if it weren't for that, one could simply show "respect" by simply keeping quiet. But I think they'd come after us if we didn't fight them.
I looked up Stephen Fry - it was that Rant at God, of course. Apparently the Irish police were pushed into a Blasphemy probe, but have dropped it. I doubt that episode will hurt Mr Fry more than it hurts religion in Ireland.
The Rant was mostly misunderstood. Perhaps he wouldn't dare to say that to God if he was put up in front of him. But that wasn't really the question. It really was "Why don't you become Christian Now, in order to avoid God's wrath when you die?" And Stephen's answer (Translated from Athiecanian into English ) was "I don't believe in that God, because (e.g) of the problem of Evil, so the question doesn't arise". Of course, that subtlety went right over the theist heads.
That's a sideline: the relevant matter is that it sounded rude about God, whatever the argument actually was. And there are those who think saying rude things about the god they believe in should be punishable.
You'd think they could leave it to God, rather than try to earn Brownie points by leaping to God's defence, as if he needed it. But of course, they are taking it Personally. They see it not as as an attack on God, but on their beliefs and -thus - on themselves.
It won't do him any harm, I think, nor religion any good. The public will think - as I did - "How Quaint". Then a double -take: "You can still get the police to look into a charge of Blasphemy?" And hopefully it will be a defunct law removed from the books to save waste of police time.
Indeed, and there are states where it is a capital crime, even for people not subject to those laws. Sure - we need urgently to eradicate the last of that "Burn the heretics" nonsense, but then address the massive task of obtaining social justice for those who don't toe the party line in Islamic countries.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-10-2017 at 11:28 AM..
Reason: much -needed tidy -up.
I have no problem ridiculing someone's religious beliefs in a forum(they did not have to be here/there). But, I'm careful what I say around my family, friends and others not confronting me with their beliefs.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint8ball
The main concern I have about religion is that it doesn't end with belief/faith. The proselytizing and attempts to further policy and law based on said belief is not appreciated by me or value added to our society...to put it mildly.
That's so much of how and why this country has made so many missteps the last few decades. Gung ho 'Mericans don't appear to understand that we may well have to pay for our constantly warring nation some day.
Oh I don't know. The Uk is not the only country that owes the US a lot for pulling our butt out of the fire in 2 world wars.
But do they know it or care? Not really. No one appreciates what someone else does for them as much as what they do for themselves. It's true not just on a personal level, but on a national level as well. American involvement in World War 1 and 2 is hardly mentioned to British school students. They think they did it all themselves. When we were in the midst of winning it for them they didn't like us in their country WHILE WE WERE SAVING IT FROM INVASION.
But do they know it or care? Not really. No one appreciates what someone else does for them as much as what they do for themselves. It's true not just on a personal level, but on a national level as well. American involvement in World War 1 and 2 is hardly mentioned to British school students. They think they did it all themselves. When we were in the midst of winning it for them they didn't like us in their country WHILE WE WERE SAVING IT FROM INVASION.
All right...
First, it is entirely normal for individuals to over-inflate their own contributions to war at the expense of the contributions of their allies. Do some British individuals do this? Absolutely. Not because they're British but because, well, again, that's just what (many) people do. Do some American individuals do this? Absolutely. For the same reason.
But as an American, I'm going to call complete BS that we - ie, the United States - SAVED THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM INVASION. Because we didn't. Period.
The Battle of Britain was won (and, contrary to popular thought, won rather handily) by the Royal Air Force culminating in September 1940. It was won with Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfires, of British origin. It was won with thousands of British pilots, along witbh a few hundred from other Commonwealth and conquered (such as Poland) nations. It was won months before FDR gave his Arsenal of Democracy speech, in which he proposed selling weaponry to the UK, and over a year before the first Lend-Lease aid was extended to the Brits. It was even won before any of the ships in the Destroyers for Bases agreement had been turned over (not that they could have played any substantial role in the Battle of Britain, anyway).
But do they know it or care? Not really. No one appreciates what someone else does for them as much as what they do for themselves. It's true not just on a personal level, but on a national level as well. American involvement in World War 1 and 2 is hardly mentioned to British school students. They think they did it all themselves. When we were in the midst of winning it for them they didn't like us in their country WHILE WE WERE SAVING IT FROM INVASION.
Yes, yes, we're a snobby and xenophobic nation we Brits, doncherknow. And the view you express is quite right, as probably is the British view that US thinks that we pretty much used up all we had at Alamein and the battle of Britian, and from then on it was all Uncle Sam and the Uk just came along to clean your boots. And the Canadians feel their work on D day and some amazing tank battles after is ignored. And who even knows the Poles were at Cassino? They practically won it!
This isn't totally off topic. as his reflects a sort of flaw in education. Fact is that it is made dull - which can't be helped, but becomes more entertaining when you outgrow pretending you can smoke and hate girls. But there we are. I cannot comprehend how people find Strictly come dancing or Big Brother better entertainment than a documentary on comet exploration or an investigation into the Bounty mutiny -was Bligh stitched up?
But then I think Bruckner or Sibelius beats yet another bunch of guitar -smashers with a singing style like my mother having a quarrel with the neighbour. So what do I know?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-18-2017 at 03:49 PM..
The thread about why people still believe in religion has gotten me thinking once more about the concept of respecting another's beliefs.
First I would like to divide respect for someone's right to free religious belief and respect for the belief itself. I fully embrace the former as both morally and practically correct. Remove the right to individual belief and you instantly create a huge class of outlaws whose crime is disagreement about the cosmos. In that none of us come with any absolute proof of our interpretations of origins or purpose of the universe, one group prosecuting another makes no moral sense.
Further, attempts in the past to eliminate religious belief via legislation, persecution or any other forceful means, have always been failures. In some cases it only resulted in the religious belief getting stronger via the creation of martyrs who served as symbols of courageous fidelity to a faith.
On the other hand there is the concept that we are supposed to respect the belief itself. This seems to arise from the notion of such beliefs being "sacred" to those who hold them. And that is where logic breaks down.
Nonsense is nonsense irrespective of any claims of "sacred." I give the Christian concept of The Trinity exactly the same chances of being true that I assign to astrology or numerology or voodoo...no chance whatsoever. The idea that there is some deity out there perpetually monitoring our every thought and deed seems to me about as probable as there being a Santa Claus doing the same.
In short, I don't respect wild and unlikely theories which come with no supporting evidence or even logical reasons for being true. Yet if I attended a gathering where I mocked someone insisting that Bigfoot was real, I would not be seen as violating any societal norms, but I would be if instead of Bigfoot, it was the virgin birth or the resurrection of the dead. And the only difference is that while no one would claim that their belief in Bigfoot was "sacred", nearly everyone seems to assume such a blanket of sanctity for their religious views.
I can certainly have respect for some of the ideas which come out of religious mythology. The sermon on the mount contains value in terms of our moral characters, there is wisdom in the Koran. It is the idea that such wisdom comes directly from a deity which annoys me.
Finally, there is no reciprocity in this deal. There is no equal obligation that anyone seems to feel regarding respect for atheism. We don't get to advertise our beliefs as "sacred" because, well, they aren't and we know it.
Obviously there is a practical element to this. If I began to go around mocking all religious belief wherever I heard it expressed, I would quickly find myself a social leper. But just how far must I extend my pretense?
Good post. I think that we will eventually have a Supreme Court case that recognizes the fact that explicitly protecting religious freedom is itself an endorsement of religion. Let me explain: If my employer asks me to plan a company barbecue, but it is against my religion to eat pork or support, I can legally ask him to make a reasonable accommodation so that I don't have to order up ribs and plan for hundreds of people to eat them. If I am simply a vegetarian due to deeply held beliefs about animal ethics, I have no such legal protection. My employer can fire me for refusing to order up the ribs. It seems like there will be a time when this disparity of protection -- which amounts to nothing more than protecting religious belief as special belief -- will end, at least in the legal realm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) was "I don't believe in that God, because (e.g) of the problem of Evil, so the question doesn't arise". Of course, that subtlety went right over the theist heads.
.
.
