Should religious beliefs be free from attack?

It might seem that the straightforward answer to this should be ‘yes’. But, in my opinion, religious beliefs are nothing more or less than political beliefs and we don’t afford special protection to those. Imagine for a moment not being able to attack someone who describes themselves as holding Fascist, Maoist or extreme nationalist political beliefs. Why should be religion be any different? When we get religious extremists from the Christian right suggesting that ‘gays are filthy perverts", "Muslims are vile" and "God has placed fathers at the head of the household”, should these religious beliefs be free from attack? (see this current article in the New Statesman at http://www.newstatesman.com/200504180017). The same thing goes for radical Islamists, Jews, Hindus, whoever.

Isn’t it right that when a right wing creationist tells me that the world was created in 6 days, that the world is only about 6,000 years old and that Noah really did take all living things onto the Ark in pairs (what, from bacteria to dinosaurs, polar bears to kangaroos?), I should be able to attack such nonsense? Similarly, isn’t it desirable that when a radical Islamist tells me that Allah is the only true God, that women should subservient to men and must be veiled and that we must live under Islamic rule (public beheadings anyone?) I can mount a strong assault on these extreme beliefs?

I am deeply concerned with the growing intolerance of our society perpetrated by religious groups and conducted under supposedly inclusive and progressive legislation to protect holders of religious beliefs from ‘attack’. If we afford protection to one group then it must be extended to all. Think about that for a moment. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Raelians, Satanists and a multitude of others all believe sincerely in their ‘religion’. Who are we to say what is and is not a religion? Isn’t the only way forward to comprehensively reject the role of religion in public life? Isn’t it in fact fairer to say that we recognize no specific religion, that any individual is free to follow whatever beliefs they like, but when these rub up against the public life, the maintenance of a secular state is the absolute priority? The French have had a secular state for over 100 years, why can’t we?

As more and more faith schools are established that reject applications from ‘non-believers’, state education in this country is fragmenting and increasingly coming under the influence of those with a religious agenda. This does not bode well for a society where we all get along together. In fact, it makes for an increasingly intolerant, prejudiced and divided society. Just a few years into the twenty-first century and we are already hurtling back to the dark ages.

I would very much like to hear what you all think.

In many ways we have a secular state as it is; the power of the Monarch is very restricted, and their role as Head of the Church of England is not one that has an impact on the day to day running of the State.

I believe whole-heartedly in the freedom of worship, belief and speech PROVIDED THAT it doesn't impinge on the rights of others. If by expressing a religious freedom then the rights of another group are repressed, then that is not on.

So, whilst it is anathema to me personally, if someone wishes to be a Satanist, my attitude is that it's their soul in question, not mine, and they can do what the Hell they like as long as it doesn't impact on me or others. But if they do, they should be dealt with.

If a Creationist tries to stop me teaching evolution, then again - that is not on. If a Darwinist tries to stop me reading the Biblical story of Creation (which I do not believe) to a child, then again, not on.

Any religious belief should be capable of withstanding question; I don't believe in a blasphemy law because this returns us to the question of who defines blasphemy. We should be able to debate and discuss these matters in a civilised way, and if we can't and feel it necessary to threaten or harrass people then the normal laws of the land should be applied.

Joe

I don't believe that any religious doctrine can represent the full 'truth' of human life. In light of this, all religious people should be prepared to step back and take a critical view of their own pratices and ideas, from the perspective of other religions or non-religious people. They should also be prepared to enter into an open dialogue about the role of religion in the state and people's personal life. If they don't/won't/can't, then they should be openly criticized (although I would use the word 'attack' with more caution!)

Having said that, there are few things worse than people attacking or criticizing anothers religious belief without first entering in to some kind of dialogue to try and understand the full reasoning for it first. Criticism is only valid (in my opinion) when it is delivered with a full understanding of its target.

While I would agree that it appears we have a secular state, I would conclude that the reality is quite different and further, that our traditional secular tendencies are increasingly under threat in this era of fundamentalist resurgence in general and the Blair administration in particular. This is not to say that the Tories would be any different – Howard makes his conservative tendencies well know and even the LibDems are not as committed to a secular state as they once were. I think the real danger is that people are not aware of how tenuous our traditional liberalism is and of how many threats to it are emerging.

The fact is that the head of the Church of England is the head of State, that we still have blasphemy laws on the books, and that we will increasingly being tying ourselves in legal and subjective knots thanks to the encroachment of religion on our civil liberties (article 9 of the European Human Rights Acts, proposed legislation).

Examples abound; senior figures in the Catholic Church, particularly in Scotland, make it clear that they think gays should not be teaching in Catholic schools. So whose rights should buckle first?
Given the recent ruling on wearing the jilbab to school, it is now enshrined in law that an individual’s right to manifest his/her religious beliefs is of greater importance than providing a learning environment free of religious interference. Hypothetically, I could roll up to the school gates in a Count Dracula get up and demand the right to manifest my religious beliefs as a Satanist (I am not but you get the picture!).

The point is, once one group gets preferential treatment then there can be no case against denying the same rights to all and sundry – legally enshrined anarchy!

I agree that the existing laws of the land on threatening and harassing people should be enough. But some think they aren’t and legislation presented by the government (shelved before the dissolution but Labour promises to reintroduce it) will criminalise criticism of a religious belief if the recipient of the criticism feels insulted. This is what Rowan Atkinson et al have been trying to highlight. As the wording stands, and a pandering to the Muslim vote can clearly be seen in this, our freedom of speech will be subjugated to religious belief. This is wrong, unwarranted and dangerous.

While it is clearly nonsensical to question or criticise an individual’s gender, sexual orientation, colour and age (these are attributes that we are born with unless you subscribe to the notion that gays choose to be gay –do heterosexuals choose to be straight?! – then clearly these are issues over which we have no volition) it is not only right but crucial to our democracy that we have the right to question and criticise religious/political beliefs. We make a conscious decision to follow a religion or not and therefore must be prepared to explain why. Unfortunately, the way things are going means that this will not be the case and that instead of subjecting our beliefs to the rigorous testing of public scrutiny (creationism is a classic example – who in their right mind would believe such nonsense, even the Church of England rejects this literal acceptance of the Bible) those holding extreme views can smugly smirk from behind the veil of legal protection.

I find this all very unnerving.

Not entirely on this subject but nethertheless an interesting viewpoint of religion from a skeptic. http://home.btclick.com/scimah/memes.htm

Not only are religious people capable of spouting the most amazing twaddle and rubbish you could ever imagine but , in my view , they also "fail" in two other , related areas.
Each religion believes that God only reveals the truth to THEM and no one else. It seems strange that these "truths " also happen to co-incide with the social environment of that particular religion. How convenient !
Although most religions bang on about loving ones neighbour and ones enemy and so on , it's odd how many of them will massacre , assassinate and otherwise do each other in , at the drop of a hat.
Their sheer arrogance astounds me , but , I still believe they ought to be free to organise , if they so wish. The only restriction on any religious activity ought to be on acts of violence or urging others to committ acts of violence and/or assisting that violence.
Why is religion so successful , if it is true that they come out with a load of twaddle ?
Well , most people , I think , can't face up to the prospect of death and religion offers them hope of eternal life so they'd rather believe anything than really think about it deeply.
Bertrand Russell wrote in his book ,
"Why I Am Not A Christian "
" I believe that when I die , I shall rot. I am not a young man and I love life but I scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihalation.
Happiness is none the less true happiness because it is temporary , nor do truth and love lose their value because they are not everlasting "
Nicely put , Bert !

Quite!

For anyone interested and/or concerned, go to the homepage of the National Secular Society. I joined recently as I have become interested in this area and because I am concerned about the type of society my children might have to grow up in. The society is resolutely non-political (indeed who to vote for is a difficult topic given the timid and grubby positions of all the major parties on these issues) and you will be in good company; members include:

Prof. Peter Atkins, Iain Banks, Edward Bond, Dr. Francis Crick, Prof. Richard Dawkins, Rt. Hon. Michael Foot, AC Grayling, Dr Evan Harris MP, Prof. Ted Honderich, Sir Ludovic Kennedy, Alice Mahon, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, Jonathan Meades, George Melly, Sir Jonathan Miller, Taslima Nasrin, Stan Newens, Harold Pinter, Philip Pullman, Lord Raglan, Claire Rayner, Martin Rowson, Joan Ruddock MP, Brian Sedgemore MP, Joan Smith, Dr. David Starkey, Polly Toynbee, Baroness Turner of Camden, Gore Vidal

http://www.secularism.org.uk/

no,

You could call anything a "religion".

Roman Catholicism started as a cult.

NOTHING should be free of questioning or attack.

That is how the church used to rule and make everyone's life a misery.

Very well reasoned arguments from tallyho and Fareast ... I wish I could afford to join the National Secular Society right now, but I've bookmarked it for later in the year. Looking at the list of "celebrity" members, they all seem to be people whom I can relate to and who promulgate reasonable views. It's a relief to find that there are "important" people trying to combat this recent wave of religious fervour. When I was young, religion seemed to be on its way out, but oddly, it seems to be making a comeback of recent years.

Quote from Fareast - "Although most religions bang on about loving ones neighbour and ones enemy and so on , it's odd how many of them will massacre , assassinate and otherwise do each other in , at the drop of a hat." I can endorse that, just the other day on here I made a slightly irreverent comment about wanting relgion banned (I meant in schools and public life but somehow that bit disappeared) and the pms and posting from supposedly Christian people made vitriolic look weak! Whatever happened to turning the other cheek and doing unto others as you would be done by?
:confused:

We seem to have fallen into a stupor nowadays and dont seem to realise the dangers of some of the legislation that's being proposed ... "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and I just hope we don't wake up one day and find our freedoms are all gone .. after all, no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition , do they :P

why does everyone have a go at satan? Satan is lord!!:love:

robbie,

If you think that the catholic church has weird origins, just check out the origins of the Mormons:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/mormon.html

Only in America….

Hey tallyho

Instead of dissing what you can't understand, pm me your address and I'll send you a book of mormon. If you read it, pray about it and ask God in total faith you might be lucky and gain a spiritual witness of the truth held in the book of mormon.

I've read it several times now, and can honestly tell you that no other book has touched my heart so deeply.

If it's a matter of proof you seek, why not put faith to the test?

Originally posted by MovingOn
I've read it several times now, and can honestly tell you that no other book has touched my heart so deeply.

Have you tried "The Lord of the Rings"?

Yep, read all three. I haven't read The Hobbit yet. I should be buying it within the next few weeks. Wait for payday, I think. :)

Tallyho the argument you present is really thought provoking so just wanted to say thank you for coming up with such an interesting topic to discuss ;)

Although I do believe any religion should be open to criticism, and that any religious person should accept that others may want to question their beliefs, I believe that as long as religious beliefs are not harming anybody or infringing on anybody's rights, then people have a right to believe what they want. Obviously this is not the case for the radical right Christians out there, or the radical Muslims for that matter, who may use their relgion as an excuse to attack and persecute others. However, the majority of religious people in this country are not as radical and for them their beliefs are a private and personal affair. For these people I believe in the notion of tolerance, yes they should expect to be open to criticism but nobody should view them any differently because of what they believe. If they aren't harming anybody then what's the problem?

Lucy_Smith,
I completely agree with you. Fire breathing US creationists or Abu Hamza are not in the same mold as the Vicar of Dibbley! However, what I'm trying to draw attention to is that even though the vast majority of people with religious beliefs are undoubtedly not radical as you point out, this happy 'ask no questions I tell you no lies' state of affairs is under threat, as are out civil liberties in this current (and questionable) climate of fear.

I used to accept a certain degree of ambiguity in the status of religion in this country - as I mentioned above, I was brought up a Christian, sang hymns at morning assembly, took communion, (I reject all this now as an adult) and see nothing wrong in the main message of love, tolerance and acceptance.
But radicalism is not this by definition.
It is 'my way or the highway' absolutism and this I cannot accept. We can fully expect to see the same kind of extremism witnessed over animal rights coming our way on issues such as abortion (already started), sexual orientation, sex education and all the rest of it. And I shudder at the thought of this.
Yes, we are not Americans and traditionally Brits and Europeans enjoy a much more liberal tradition, but wouldn’t you agree that we have become more Americanised in the last few decades? As the New Statesman article points out, US and Saudi money is flowing into explicitly religious projects as we speak. What about Reg Vardy schools? How about Muslim schools that focus on memorization of the Koran, condemning a new generation of young men to social exclusion (just what kind of job can you get with such an education in modern society?). And I for one do not want the local education authority compelling schools to insert stickers into science textbooks that suggest that creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution, as the do in the State of Georgia at present. One of the UK’s leading scientists, Prof. Richard Dawkins, has the best line on creationism: “"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

As a society we need to wake up and get some things straight before it's too late. For me, this means clearly stating my position and working towards a secular state. Many of these debates were initiated during the Enlightenment - literally a casting of the light of science and rationality on all the murkiness of the 'dark ages'. It seems that now the political battles have been fought - democracy triumphs over totalitarianism, capitalism over communism - we are losing our faith in science and the way forward.


Anyway, I’m off to watch Songs of Praise……



And to Moving On, thanks for the offer but not really into the alt.bizarre science fiction/cult section stuff, prefer a good history book myself…..

Moving On:
I've read it several times now, and can honestly tell you that no other book has touched my heart so deeply.

Max:
Have you tried "The Lord of the Rings"?

Moving On:
Yep, read all three. I haven't read The Hobbit yet. I should be buying it within the next few weeks. Wait for payday, I think


ROTFLMAO! Good to see wit and satire alive and well!

By the way,
ROTFLMAO = rolling on the floor laughing my.....

Originally posted by max
Have you tried "The Lord of the Rings"?

:D :D :D

Much more action

oh this is soooo not fair ... i'm supposed to be getting ready to go to the Cat and I'm sitting here lmao waiting for the next pithy comment!!

but you should always read The Hobbit FIRST .....!!

its a personal thing,you are the only one who can make the decision,maybe the bible is full of contradictions, but no one is going to break your legs if you dont believe what it says,have a look round first, see which one, if any, suit you, if your not sure then take your time,you have the rest of your life to decide.

Excellent thread Tallyho,I myself feel that ALL religion and its preachings are fair game to be scrutinised.
Like wise they should be free to express those views,after all we do live in a secular democracy do we not?

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this one, just because ;)

Originally posted by Fareast
Not only are religious people capable of spouting the most amazing twaddle and rubbish you could ever imagine but ,

but so is everyone else...?

Each religion believes that God only reveals the truth to THEM and no one else. It seems strange that these "truths " also happen to co-incide with the social environment of that particular religion. How convenient !

This is not always true. It is true for any religion who does not believe in conversion of non-believers (i.e. you have to be 'born into it'). However, it could be argued that when a religious person tries to tell you what they believe, to them it is them doing their duty for the religion, at which point the 'truth' (for want of a better word in this context) has been delivered to you. There you go, you've heard their truth. If you don't believe it you can say you weren't told ;)

Christian faith, on the other hand, it is commonly heard of that non-believers hear the truth direct from God, and then become Christians. In a way you are right, because they are believers after it, but in a way you are not, because they weren't beforehand.

Although most religions bang on about loving ones neighbour and ones enemy and so on , it's odd how many of them will massacre , assassinate and otherwise do each other in , at the drop of a hat.

I can only think of one that specifically teaches that; Christianity (and some, but not all, of the strange little cults that sprang off it over the years). There are far less wars and violence in the name of Christianity than 'certain other' religions. Of course, there are some (e.g. in Ireland) but to be honest I would put that down to individual hatred with a facade of religion to make it 'feel right' to the perpetrators.

There is a world of difference between using religion as a front to your own bigotry and a full on holy war!

The only restriction on any religious activity ought to be on acts of violence or urging others to committ acts of violence and/or assisting that violence.

Um, there already are laws against that and they go for everyone.


Bertrand Russell wrote in his book ,
"Why I Am Not A Christian "

Because he is Buddhist? Muslim? Jewish? Satanist? There are many reasons to not be a Christian. Why not "Why I am not religious?" or even better (given that the word religious has secular meaning too) "Why I have no faith". Oh wait, that doesn't cover it... let's just pick on Christianity because it's the most prevalent one in our society.

Just try publishing a book "Why I am not Muslim" and see the reaction.

People who write books like this appear to have something to prove. The people who agree with him cheer, the Christians (in this case) carry on regardless and everyone else remains blissfully unaware. It's like a rant in paperback, and should be treated as such.

dons flameproof underpants :)

Originally posted by spiffymonkey


Quote:
Although most religions bang on about loving ones neighbour and ones enemy and so on , it's odd how many of them will massacre , assassinate and otherwise do each other in , at the drop of a hat.


I can only think of one that specifically teaches that; Christianity (and some, but not all, of the strange little cults that sprang off it over the years). There are far less wars and violence in the name of Christianity than 'certain other' religions. Of course, there are some (e.g. in Ireland) but to be honest I would put that down to individual hatred with a facade of religion to make it 'feel right' to the perpetrators.



I think that Islam teaches that too - at least historically it does. In the first constitution of Medina non-Muslims were protected in the community as long as they conformed to the laws and Jews and Christians were allowed religious freedom. However, Religions that believed in polytheism were not allowed the same freedom.






Quote:

Bertrand Russell wrote in his book ,
"Why I Am Not A Christian "


Because he is Buddhist? Muslim? Jewish? Satanist? There are many reasons to not be a Christian. Why not "Why I am not religious?" or even better (given that the word religious has secular meaning too) "Why I have no faith". Oh wait, that doesn't cover it... let's just pick on Christianity because it's the most prevalent one in our society.

Just try publishing a book "Why I am not Muslim" and see the reaction.

People who write books like this appear to have something to prove. The people who agree with him cheer, the Christians (in this case) carry on regardless and everyone else remains blissfully unaware. It's like a rant in paperback, and should be treated as such.



This book was written in 1927 when there would have been less diversity of religion. Russell was a philosopher and logician and the essay is essentially a criticism of religion but does address other religions briefly

Originally posted by tallyho
While it is clearly nonsensical to question or criticise an individual’s gender, sexual orientation, colour and age (these are attributes that we are born with)....

We make a conscious decision to follow a religion or not and therefore must be prepared to explain why.

Some good points made so far. But, don't most people follow the religion of their parents? Or at least society? I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to be something that many people weigh up and decide "i'm going to be hindu..." or "i like the sound of this christianity..." It's something most people are actually born into.

I've not been brought up with religion at all part of my life. I've not been christened and the only "religious" holiday i celebrate is christmas where i believe i am celebrating my appreciation of my family much more than the birth of christ. There are certain things that i do within my family at christmas that others probably do differently. Isn't tradition a good enough expanation as to why?

-PK-

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
I can only think of one that specifically teaches that; Christianity (and some, but not all, of the strange little cults that sprang off it over the years). There are far less wars and violence in the name of Christianity than 'certain other' religions.

just had to disagree with this bit.

The west has been going to war in the name of christianity for well over a thousand years.

I think any religion and by extension practitioner should be willing to debate the issue.
As to whether the beliefs should be 'free from attack'. The wording sounds a bit strong to me. They certainly shouldn't feel like they have to defend there faith from all and sundry whenever they walk out of the door.

Personally I see little to worry me at the moment. The influence of the christian church continues to decline in the UK with the population becoming increasingly secular and the church less relevant to life.
Whilst it may never fully die out, it's on the decline and I see nothing to suggest that religion will make a resurgance in the near future.

Originally posted by tallyho
robbie,

If you think that the catholic church has weird origins, just check out the origins of the Mormons:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/mormon.html

Only in America….

Only in America?

Well, yes and no. The Mormon church was formed in 1830 by Joseph Smith. By 1850, they had more members in England than in North America and the rest of the world put together.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_2.shtml

As religious groups go, I rather like the Mormons. They tend to be quiet, decent, family oriented people. And no, I'm not mormon.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by GimmeSomePK
Some good points made so far. But, don't most people follow the religion of their parents? Or at least society? I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to be something that many people weigh up and decide "i'm going to be hindu..." or "i like the sound of this christianity..." It's something most people are actually born into.

That may be true of some people but is certainly not true of all. Some people think long and hard about there religion, read about it and read about other religions and then decide what is best for them. Some people adopt different beliefs from lots of religions, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. What they believe is there own personal choice.

Of course as Tallyho has pointed out, we are not really talking about your average religious person here. We are talking about the so called "radicals", who often preach hate in the name of religion. Of course they should be criticised and should be expected to explain their beliefs.

Moving On:
I've read it several times now, and can honestly tell you that no other book has touched my heart so deeply.

Max:
Have you tried "The Lord of the Rings"?

Moving On:
Yep, read all three. I haven't read The Hobbit yet. I should be buying it within the next few weeks. Wait for payday, I think


ROTFLMAO! Good to see wit and satire alive and well!

By the way,
ROTFLMAO = rolling on the floor laughing my.....

You like history books tallyho, honestly try the Book of Mormon, it's a record of the ancient peoples of the American Continent. Lots of wars and people struggling to get on with life and arguments about religion.

Sound familiar?

And sorry Max, obviously sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, because the above is completely BEYOND me. :)

In many ways there are certain aspects of evolutionary theory that require as much faith as some aspects of religion.

I should add here than I'm a scientist, born and bred, but prefer to be open minded. Many people in the sciences are just as 'doctrinaire' about their view of the world being 'right' as many religious people are. If faith is defined as a belief unfounded on fact, then there are still certain aspects of scientific belief that might be defined as acts of faith. Though we tend to call them 'first principles' .... :)

As for the National Secular Society - good luck to them. A very august and bright bunch of people. However, I think it worthwhile for all of us to come to our own beliefs about the world(s?) in which we live. :)

Joe

Even though I don't actualy "believe" anything I do find religions very interesting, as someone said earlier some fo the things people do believe are pretty weird.

However, I think it worthwhile for all of us to come to our own beliefs about the world(s?) in which we live.

To each his own! A healthy magnanimous response. :)

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
That may be true of some people but is certainly not true of all. Some people think long and hard about there religion, read about it and read about other religions and then decide what is best for them. Some people adopt different beliefs from lots of religions, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. What they believe is there own personal choice.

Of course as Tallyho has pointed out, we are not really talking about your average religious person here. We are talking about the so called "radicals", who often preach hate in the name of religion. Of course they should be criticised and should be expected to explain their beliefs.

surely we are talking about all people with religous faith?

They should all be capable of defending there beliefs against questions raised by infidels, or failing that they should burn them at the stake :thumbsup:

I think the generalisation about people following the religion of their parents is fairly accurate. I doubt there are many children who 'change' religion.

Joe - Are first principles an article of faith, or are they the simplest explanation for observational data (applying occams razor).

I would accept that children identify themselves with, or proclaim themselves followers of, the faith followed by their parents and my own experience supports this. Yet, can it really be acceptable for an adult to defend his/her choice of faith on this basis?

“Why are you a Christian?” “Um, because Mum was.”

Can an individual really be described as a Christian (or whatever) simply on the basis of their upbringing? I think the even the church would question that. Of course, we can have a Christian upbringing (I did) but this doesn’t make us a Christian (I’m not). This is why there are classes for Baptism, why the Church demands of those who wish to be married in a Church that they actually attend services, discuss their faith with the Vicar and so on. Surely then, being a Christian means having an understanding and acceptance of the word of Christ as ‘recorded’ in the bible and is not an accident of birth. If not, then we are talking about a blind adherence to a set of beliefs without understanding what those beliefs mean or imply. I suspect this is a more accurate description of many ‘mainstream’ believers today who describe themselves as Christian but who never go to Church. Can we really accept that this group (the majority?) are Christian even if they describe themselves as such?

I should also reiterate that although I have rejected religion, the right of an individual to follow whatever belief they choose is of course a right that I defend. But I will fight tooth and nail to keep those beliefs out of public life (government, laws, education etc).

To Moving On, you are of course free to believe whatever you like, and as I note above, I certainly defend your right to this. However, this does not mean that I have to respect your beliefs. On the contrary, I find that the foundation and continued existence of the Mormon ‘church’ simply beggars belief. Outside of full-blown cults such as the Raelians (see below) I’ve never come across such a spectacular barrel of bilge in all my life.
You may not like this, you may even feel upset or angry about my criticism but – and this is the crux – tough. This is my right to free speech in a democratic nation such as the UK and this is what I will fight to maintain. It does not matter that Mormons do good work or that they are nice people – even Nazis helped little old ladies across the road. Sorry, but I find that your beliefs deserve the harshest criticism.
Others can follow the links and come to their own conclusions:
On the origins of the Mormons:
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
A collection of personal accounts of leaving Mormonism:
http://www.exmormon.org/
A Christian group dedicated to rescuing people for Mormonism:
http://www.saintsalive.com/who.html
A Mormon website (has some awful organ music so turn your sound off!)
http://www.nccg.org/LDS-Page.html

Another fun group.
Raelians believe scientists from another planet created all life on Earth and that “on the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth. The extra-terrestrial was about four feet in height, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin and exuded harmony and humour.” (http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php)

Going back to the original post, all of these ‘religions’ would be afforded legal protection from criticism under proposed legislation. WHY?!

Some excellent books for those interested (and required reading from some):
How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007140975/qid=1113831902/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_0/026-6847961-6271663
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743268083/qid=1113831938/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/026-6847961-6271663

what legislation would protect religion from critisism?

Something I always find quite interesting is the need for people of no religious faith to convince believers of the fact that they're right and that to have faith is wrong. :)

Again, so similar to the way in which zealots of any faith try to convert others.

Blind adherence to a set of facts is what is required for scientists to some degree, as well.

Scientific Doctrine uses existing facts to support theory, which is as it should be. But if work hasn't been done to discover new facts, then it is possible for the world view as postulated by accepted doctrine to be wrong because it doesn't take in to account the unknown facts, waiting to be discovered.

Science has proceeded over the years by a series of paradigm shifts. Some of the early propagators of new theories are sometiems declared as being heretics by the scientific establishment - just like in a religion. But eventually the new doctrine is established that takes in to account new facts.

I am expected to believe in a science that I cannot empirically prove to my own satisfaction all aspects of. Whilst I understand the way in which a neutrino, depite having no mass or energy, can be detected by it's interactions with other particles, I am expected to totally poo-poo other forms of surprising phenomena because they do not yet fall in to the 'permitted' scientific doctrine of the day.

Perhaps an openness of mind and spirit by all - people of faith and secularists alike - is needed to truly progress the world.

Joe

The proposed amendment to the Serious Organised crime and Police Bill.

See a Home Office press release on the bill here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1161
and note the inclusion of:
‘Also in the Bill are plans to extend the harassment laws to protect people from animal rights extremists and measures to prohibit people stirring up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs. …introducing an offence of incitement to religious hatred.’
Further information here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html

And finally, why this is a bad idea here:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=210
resistance to the bill from Christians noted here:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050118hatred.shtml
and here
http://www.christian.org.uk/incitement2005/incitement_jan05.pdf
From Rowan Atkinson here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4073997.stm

discussing with someone why there faith is not rational is not incitment to religous hatred. Nor is critism, nor indeed telling them if you wish that they are a gullible fool (I would never say such thing, it's merely an example).

Joe - I don't know why it is, but I feel obliged to try and correct mistakes of perception and understanding in others. Religion could be thought of as the biggest mistake in the understanding of the universe you can make (but then I would say that :suspect: ).

tallyho

If after death, I am proved right, my Christian nature will prevent me from saying, "Ha ha, told you so." Whereas if you're right you will be totally unable to have the last word.

As for your lack of respect, I won't judge you for it. I know that God exists, he has performed many wonders in my life and I'm grateful that he considers me of sufficient worth in order to help me.

Faith is a marvellous thing, undermined mainly by those who cannot comprehend such unfaltering trust.

Each of us every day trusts our life to something we cannot see, something we cannot touch, something we can only sense if the conditions are prime.

My brother and my husband take your stance in this very matter, but when I look at their hopes, their dreams and their vision, it's a very one-sided life, lacking somewhat in hope and optimism.

I am grateful for the way in which the Mormon church has blessed my life - and I've only been going for a few months. I have found a way to live life, something that really challenges me every day, and shows me how to be a better person in every way. My husband has noticed the difference that this has made within the home - it's more harmonious and the bonds of friendship and love are stronger.

It might be absolute bilge to you, but it's made our lives a lot better.

I've never seen much evidence of atheists or agnostics trying to convert anybody , whereas religious bodies , through schools , knocking on doors , T.V. , radio , at home......etc.....are always putting pressure on people to either conform , convert or simply admire.
Someone said that politicians spout a load of rubbish , on occasions. Too true ! I don't think anyone would deny that. However , what has that got to do with whether religious people spout rubbish or not ? Two wrongs......and all that.Also , I feel that the rubbish spouted by politicians is of a different calibre than the twaddle which pours forth from the religious groups. We all have something in common with politicians , in that , to some extent , we, too , live in their world and to some degree it can be tested. If a politician says ' " If x and y happens , then z will happen " we can use our experience of the world to consider his/her argument-----therefore they can't spout too much rubbish in a democracy and hope to stay in power.There's a limit to their fantasies.
However , if someone tells you they have received a special message from "God " and this message is the true one , what can you say ? They can then go on to say any old garbage [ space ships , aliens , angels on the head of a needle ] and you have no common ground to even discuss it. These aliens or angels ....et....al....never seem to actually appear before us , either.
The only two political systems that come closest to a religious model are [or were] the Communists and the Nazis. In both cases , the adherents knew that they were right ; no arguing ! ; both parties had their " Gods " who were practically worshipped i. e. Lenin , Stalin and Hitler. ; both had their "bibles" , Das Kapital and Mein Kampf ; all the leaders were convinced that they were doing good and in both cases people were killed for opposing them.
Not only have there been religious wars , more to the point , people who proclaim themselves Christians.....etc.....seem quite willing to kill people if they're told to do so.
The only people who stood by their principles in the last war were the conscientious objectors in Britain and the Jehovah witnesses in Germany .What were the other 99 % up to ?
Bertrand Russell's book was simply stating why he rejected Christianity. Why should he have to belong or not to belong to an organised religion to write a critique like that ?

Originally posted by Cyclone

Joe - I don't know why it is, but I feel obliged to try and correct mistakes of perception and understanding in others. Religion could be thought of as the biggest mistake in the understanding of the universe you can make (but then I would say that :suspect: ).

I think this is one of those points where we have to agree to disagree! :)

I separate my faith from my understanding of how the univesre works on a day to day basis. What I won't do is acknowledge that I don't have an eternal soul. That's my main article of faith.

Why feel obliged to correct people? If we're wrong then we're as dead as anyone, and no one will be aroudn to say 'I told you so'. If we're right then I doubt that I'll want to spend the afterlife telling folks 'I was right, yaah boo sucks'.

My own outlook is to expose people to the ways in which they can acquire a world view - educate people to read, use information sensibly, read widely apply common sense and the scientific method and have an open mind. Sometimes you may find things that spark questions that can't be 100% answered by science, and then we move to the realms of faith.

I won't proselytise to anyone; I believe people have to come to their own beliefs in their own way - which is how I came to mine! :)

Joe

Originally posted by Fareast
[B] The only people who stood by their principles in the last war were the conscientious objectors in Britain and the Jehovah witnesses in Germany .What were the other 99 % up to ?


Not quite correct.

Bonhoeffer (sp) was not a JW in Nazi germany, and many Lutherans and Catholics went to the concentration camps in Germany and Austria because of their faith.

Joe

Point taken----and I must say that I think those people were exceptionally brave.
The reason I mentioned the Jehovah witnesses was that , as far as I know , they were the only religious body , en masse , who refused to take up arms.
There were many individuals who stood out against the Nazis , of all persuasions and backgrounds , and I've never denied that religious people are capable of great actsof bravery---andl , let's be honest , many Communists and Nazis too]----but this has no bearing on the further point that their arguments are rubbish or not. It just proves that they are completely enslaved or captivated by their beliefs.

Originally posted by royjames
after all we do live in a secular democracy do we not?

No royjames, we don't live in a secular democracy - though I wish that we did.

A few facts -
The retiring MP for Middlesbrough, Stuart Bell, was the second church estates commisioner, essentially the Church's representative in the Commons.
Parliamentary sessions open with prayers.
The appointment of C of E archbishops is made by the Prime Minister.
There are reserved places in the House of Lords for C of E Bishops, (the Lords Spiritual).

I believe that we should have a secular democracy, which would mean the disestablishment of the Church of England.

I also believe that religions and religious beliefs should be open to criticism just as politics and politicians are. I do not believe that there should be a special status for religious belief, and would welcome the abolition of the law against blasphemy. This out-dated law was resurrected {every pun intended!} by Mary Whitehouse to successfully prosecute Denis Lemon and Gay News Ltd in 1977 for the publication of a poem by Professor Jame Kirkup.

Despite a majority Law Commission report in 1985, recommending abolition of the common law of blasphemy, and four attempts by parliamentarians to legislate (Lord Willis, 1978; Tony Benn MP, 1989; Bob Cryer MP, 1990 and Frank Dobson MP, 2001) - it is still the law!

redrobbo,

Bang on the nail!
we do need the disestablishment of the Church of England - why on earth do clergy sit in the House of Lords influencing our legislation? - and a repeal of blasphemy laws. Not much chance under happy-clappy Blair's 'ministry' I fear.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I think this is one of those points where we have to agree to disagree! :)

I separate my faith from my understanding of how the univesre works on a day to day basis. What I won't do is acknowledge that I don't have an eternal soul. That's my main article of faith.

Why feel obliged to correct people? If we're wrong then we're as dead as anyone, and no one will be aroudn to say 'I told you so'. If we're right then I doubt that I'll want to spend the afterlife telling folks 'I was right, yaah boo sucks'.

My own outlook is to expose people to the ways in which they can acquire a world view - educate people to read, use information sensibly, read widely apply common sense and the scientific method and have an open mind. Sometimes you may find things that spark questions that can't be 100% answered by science, and then we move to the realms of faith.

I won't proselytise to anyone; I believe people have to come to their own beliefs in their own way - which is how I came to mine! :)

Joe

That's a bit like having two bob each way Joe. You appear to accept that science has fully exposed religion to be little more than a collection of myths and horror stories designed to keep the people in line, yet you hang in there just in case it all turns out to be true when you pop off.

In answer to the original question. Yes, religious beliefs should be open to attack and, just like politics, they should also be open to ridicule where appropriate.

In addition, no religion should be classed as a charity.

right on!
Your mojo is indeed working!

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's a bit like having two bob each way Joe. You appear to accept that science has fully exposed religion to be little more than a collection of myths and horror stories designed to keep the people in line, yet you hang in there just in case it all turns out to be true when you pop off.

In answer to the original question. Yes, religious beliefs should be open to attack and, just like politics, they should also be open to ridicule where appropriate.

In addition, no religion should be classed as a charity.

You and I have had this debate before.

I just think that there is more to the universe than we've so far discovered, and I don't see that having a belief in God and my possession of a soul is against that.

Knocking my beliefs as an each way bet is a cheap shot, but, what the heck. If I'm happy with it then it shouldn't bother anyone else!

Joe :)

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Perhaps an openness of mind and spirit by all - people of faith and secularists alike - is needed to truly progress the world.


Hear hear!

open your mind too much and your brains fall out

Religion (faith, belief), especially the radical kind that is taking over Islam and Christianity today offers no way forward at all. It offers instead a one-way ticket to the dark ages. Progress hasn't come from memorising the Koran or hearing a calling from God. It has come from science. We live longer because of science not preaching. Man has been to the moon on a spaceship, not on a prayer.


Religion knows this and that's why the Taliban effectively banned education, why the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo, why ....oh why?!

I agree that an openness of mind is desirable but this doesn’t mean giving equal acceptance to any old rubbish that comes your way. Should we be open to the nonsense spouted by cults? And what is a cult? The Catholic Church sees Mormonism as a cult. This is not how progress is made. Progress is saying, ‘that’s a load of pants, I don’t accept it and here’s why’.

We believe that God is God; almighty. The same today, forever and always. What was in biblical times stands as strong today.

The Mormons have something that other churches don't have. Revelation given in 1833... The Word of Wisdom (part of which I've outlined below)

It teaches that wine and strong alcoholic drinks are not to be consumed, but for washing bodies (a form of alcohol is one of the main ingredients in perfume and it is also used for cleansing wounds)

The Word of Wisdom also advises against the use of tobacco, either chewing or smoking - only recent evidence has proven a link between tobacco and forms of cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc.

Also, the Word of Wisdom advises against the use of tea and coffee, how many people have sleeping disorders exacerbated by the consumption of caffeine?

All of this doctrine was considered barmy in the 1830s by non-believers, but it has proven its worth in Utah, which has the lowest health bill in the entire United States, and the fittest pensioners in the world.

The Mormon Church is not a Cult. How can a Church that stands for truth and righteousness, puts Jesus Christ as the cornerstone to its faith, and extends its good works into its own community be a Cult?

By the by, the Red Cross announced its two biggest donators have been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Mormons. Funny that!

By their works tallyho, shall you know the followers of Christ and if their works don't make Mormons Christians, I don't know what does.

Even though I'm an agnostic , leaning towads atheism , I've obviously heard people talk about " Hell " and I've wondered what it would be like if there were a Hell.
I know now-----living in Utah.

Originally posted by tallyho
open your mind too much and your brains fall out

As I have two degrees, have writen half a dozen books, a few hundred articles and professional papers I guess my mind can't yet be open enough! :)

Joe, I don’t doubt your intelligence, I was in fact plagiarising a quote from Prof Richard Dawkins. Out of interest, would you say Graham Hancock has an open mind or a blown mind?

Originally posted by MovingOn
How can a Church that stands for truth and righteousness, puts Jesus Christ as the cornerstone to its faith, and extends its good works into its own community be a Cult?

By this definition:

Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false

By both considerations it can be considered a cult, it's extreme in that most western civilisations do not condemn the drinking of alcohol (rightly or wrongly) and it's considered false by the majority of the world's religious followers.

Myself, I consider it to be of your own choice what you believe in. At the present moment in time I'm between beliefs, was a catholic, then an atheist now an agnostic just waiting for some sort of revelation or, to put it another way, explanation.

Each to his own I say, just don't deny me my right to doubt.

Max,
read these and liberate yourself from any religious belief!

How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6847961-6271663
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6847961-6271663



Report this Post | Link | IP

A further example, as if it was needed, of religious nuts attempting to undermine our democracy:

'Protesters disrupt Muslim event'

Not, as I originally thought, about the BNP charging a mosque.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4460565.stm

"The group, believed to be former members of extreme group Al Muhajiroun, said Muslims who voted {in the general election}would commit a crime against their own faith."

Their thinking is this: the word of Allah is the final word. Democracy challenges this word. Democracy is blasphemous. Prevent democracy.

Another great example of progressive thinking from those cuddly, loving believers.

Yes religious beliefs should be free from attack - when they are an individuals beliefs - however the moment they try and inflict those beliefs on anyone else thats when they are free game for examination (you will notice I said examination and not attack). However this should hold true to those who treat science and materialism in a quasi-religious way!

Originally posted by tallyho
Max,
read these and liberate yourself from any religious belief!

How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6847961-6271663
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...6847961-6271663


Good lord no. I'm a reactive agnostic not a proactive one. I said I was waiting for a revelation - I didn't mean I was going to go out and look for one. Neither does it mean I'm going to read something which would prejudice me and prevent me believing in any potential revelation.

As I said on page 2 To each his own

At the end of the day you get out of life what you put into it. It was my children's decision to get involved, not mine. They didn't do it to please me, because at the time, I didn't care less.

Max, if you're going to go down the false religion route. Some people consider the Roman Catholic faith to be false, simply because not one of the popes, priests, etc have a clue and do not believe in the power of God on earth today. Why should an omnipotent being change? Is He the same God today who spoke to Moses on the Mount Sinai; who parted the Red Sea to allow His chosen people to escape from Pharoah or not?

Or, you could follow the admonition of the Bible. James 1v5

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally; but let him ask in faith and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."

In a world where so many people are losing their way, children are growing up ignorant of other people or their feelings, there's a general lack of consideration for anyone. If my children choose to become members of a "CULT" that teaches them about Christ and how to become like him, to follow his example and choose the right, I am not going to complain. They might be out of fashion as far as some people are concerned, and way behind the times, but I don't think that's a bad thing, considering the way the world is going.

Max, I can extend to you the same offer I made tallyho on page one. PM me your address, I'll send you a book of mormon. :)

You claim you're waiting for revelation - why not try it?

Originally posted by MovingOn
The Mormons have something that other churches don't have. Revelation given in 1833... The Word of Wisdom (part of which I've outlined below)


And that's it. Mormon's have something special (the something special by the way concerns golden plates and mumbling in hats…..). They are, in other words, the chosen ones. Well, they would be wouldn't they? Every cult believes that they are. Meaning that if we want salvation, we have to join them. Great membership ploy, must mention it to the staff at the gym.

Originally posted by MovingOn
All of this doctrine was considered barmy in the 1830s by non-believers, but it has proven its worth in Utah, which has the lowest health bill in the entire United States, and the fittest pensioners in the world.

So what if Mormonville has the lowest health bill in the US - the Japanese have the longest life expectancy in the word and Mormons they ain't (although bizarrely I did run into a couple of your chaps last time I was in Tokyo!). Who's denying that alcohol and fags are bad for you? That said there is the evidence that moderate intake of red wine is benefical to health and that green tea prevents cancer.

Originally posted by MovingOn
By the by, the Red Cross announced its two biggest donators have been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Mormons. Funny that!


And? I have a direct debit to UNICEF.

Originally posted by MovingOn
By their works tallyho, shall you know the followers of Christ and if their works don't make Mormons Christians, I don't know what does.

Vatican Will Not Accept Mormon Baptisms
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010723-05.html

Anyway, enough of this. I’m off for a pint of virgin’s blood with my old pal Satan. Pray for me.

Originally posted by max
Neither does it mean I'm going to read something which would prejudice me and prevent me believing in any potential revelation.
Surely you're not afraid of knowledge? Why don't you pm movingon for whatever material she has and pop into Waterstones for the books I've suggested. Read them, and make up your own mind.......or shall I send you a bucket of sand for you to hide your head in?

Originally posted by tallyho
Surely you're not afraid of knowledge? Why don't you pm movingon for whatever material she has and pop into Waterstones for the books I've suggested. Read them, and make up your own mind.......or shall I send you a bucket of sand for you to hide your head in?

Leave me alone.

Max,
It's a forum, you came in. I thought the point of a forum was to engage with people not to be left alone, but if that's what you want, I'll not refer to you/your posts again.
Cheerio.

Originally posted by tallyho
Max,
It's a forum, you came in. I thought the point of a forum was to engage with people not to be left alone, but if that's what you want, I'll not refer to you/your posts again.
Cheerio.

I enjoy engaging with people but I do not want converting. As I pointed out in my post, I'm a reactive agnostic and do not take kindly to being offered reading material to help me seek revelation. If I do chose to read this book of mormon it will have to wait it's turn with all the other works I intend reading when time allows.

Originally posted by tallyho
Joe, I don’t doubt your intelligence, I was in fact plagiarising a quote from Prof Richard Dawkins. Out of interest, would you say Graham Hancock has an open mind or a blown mind?

Hancock has some interesting ideas but I do believe he massages the archaeological facts to suit his theories.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I take on board every theory that is propagated. I'm not sure why you feel I should have a strong opinion one way or another on Hancock.

Joe

Vatican Will Not Accept Mormon Baptisms
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010723-05.html


Will the Mormons accept Catholic baptisms? lol Will the Catholics accepts baptisms into any other faith, eg, Church of England, Church of Scotland, Methodist, Baptist??? I know they don't. Why concentrate only on the fact that the Vatican won't accept Mormon baptisms?

I think you have some serious issues tallyho, though goodness knows what they are. I would not have joined in this discussion but for your posted drivel, enjoy your pint of blood.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Yes religious beliefs should be free from attack - when they are an individuals beliefs - however the moment they try and inflict those beliefs on anyone else thats when they are free game for examination

Exactly. Tallyho I don't see the problem with people believing in Jesus, Allah, Budda, whatever, if they aren't bothering you in any way what's the problem?

Some choose to have faith others don't. For those who do have faith it can be the most wonderful fufilling thing they have ever experienced. For those on the outside it seems bizarre but like has been previously said, each to their own.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Exactly. Tallyho I don't see the problem with people believing in Jesus, Allah, Budda, whatever, if they aren't bothering you in any way what's the problem?

Some choose to have faith others don't. For those who do have faith it can be the most wonderful fufilling thing they have ever experienced. For those on the outside it seems bizarre but like has been previously said, each to their own.

some people choose to commit suicide, does it mean that we shouldn't try and talk them out of it?

Originally posted by Cyclone
some people choose to commit suicide, does it mean that we shouldn't try and talk them out of it?

That's slightly different methinks...in that they are actually harming themselves. If people aren't harming themselves or anybody else then I still don't see the problem. Sure religious people should expect others to question and criticise their beliefs but essentially I think it is important to just accept that other people are always going to think different things to you, and that this isn't neccesarily a bad thing ;)

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
That's slightly different methinks...in that they are actually harming themselves. If people aren't harming themselves or anybody else then I still don't see the problem. Sure religious people should expect others to question and criticise their beliefs but essentially I think it is important to just accept that other people are always going to think different things to you, and that this isn't neccesarily a bad thing ;)

self delusion is generally considered to be a psychological problem, except when it's the delusion that a diety created us and is watching over us.
Since I can't tell which religious people will be okay and which might decide to blow themselves up or go on a crusade, I'd rather persuade everyone to give it up as a silly idea, you don't see many scientists murdering each other in the name of a hypothesis, the worst you'll get is a sharply worded critique of your paper, or a nasty put down at a dinner party.

Originally posted by Cyclone
self delusion is generally considered to be a psychological problem, except when it's the delusion that a diety created us and is watching over us.
Since I can't tell which religious people will be okay and which might decide to blow themselves up or go on a crusade, I'd rather persuade everyone to give it up as a silly idea, you don't see many scientists murdering each other in the name of a hypothesis, the worst you'll get is a sharply worded critique of your paper, or a nasty put down at a dinner party.

You do have a point...I remember one lecturer saying to me once "what's the difference between a schizophrenic saying he hears voices and a priest saying he talks to God?" Nothing psychiatrically but one is socially acceptable and one isn't!

Originally posted by Cyclone
self delusion is generally considered to be a psychological problem, except when it's the delusion that a diety created us and is watching over us.

If the majority of people in the world believe in a god of some description then who is delusional - the people who do believe or those who don't. Psychological abnormality is largely a social construct defined by deviation from the norm - if the norm is religious belief then disbelief is psychologically abnormal!

However, leaving that to one side, what you are talking about is not belief but the activities based on those beliefs. Faith can inspire people to great altruistic activities and to the depths of depravity - but that is more to do with individual reaction to faith rather than faith per se.

Originally posted by tallyho
Should religious beliefs be free from attack?

It might seem that the straightforward answer to this should be ‘yes’.


No, the straight forward answer should be, and is, "no".

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Hancock has some interesting ideas but I do believe he massages the archaeological facts to suit his theories.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I take on board every theory that is propagated. I'm not sure why you feel I should have a strong opinion one way or another on Hancock.

Joe

Well, even if you don't agree with some of his theories, you must admit he was very good in the Blood Donor! ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, even if you don't agree with some of his theories, you must admit he was very good in the Blood Donor! ;)

A PINT!!!! Hehehehe

Originally posted by Snook
A PINT!!!! Hehehehe

That's very nearly an armful! ;)

The Mormons have something that other churches don't have.


Would that be polygamy?


The Mormon Church is not a Cult. How can a Church that stands for truth and righteousness, puts Jesus Christ as the cornerstone to its faith, and extends its good works into its own community be a Cult?


Does that also apply to the Baptists, C of E, Methodists, Catholics, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Scientology, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Salvation Army, Plymouth Bretheren, Jehovah's Witnesses and all other Christian denominations - all of whom would argue that they too stand for truth and righteousness, etc.? Or are any of these cults?
Would you please explain - I am curious to know.


By the by, the Red Cross announced its two biggest donators have been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Mormons. Funny that!


Yes it is funny - looks like double counting to me, as the Mormons are the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints!

Would that be polygamy?

You can't know many Mormons Redrobbo. I do and believe me, not one of them would be willing to share their spouse with anyone.

Does that also apply to the Baptists, C of E, Methodists, Catholics, Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Scientology, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Salvation Army, Plymouth Bretheren, Jehovah's Witnesses and all other Christian denominations - all of whom would argue that they too stand for truth and righteousness, etc.? Or are any of these cults?

Christians follow Christ - don't they? Why don't THEY call themselves after the person they worship? We get all sorts of churches claiming to worship God and Jesus Christ, yet they call themselves after St Barnabus, or St Wilfred, or Doctor Spock. Surely if they call themselves after mortal men, they are not focussing on the main event.

Yes it is funny - looks like double counting to me, as the Mormons are the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints!

Not double counting Redrobbo, they had received so many donations from different stakes and ward, some calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ and others calling themselves Mormons that they thought they were dealing with two separate groups - easy mistake to make. :)

Perhaps time to wrap this one up.

In general, it would appear that there is a consensus that individuals should be free to follow whatever beliefs they like as long as this is in private and so long as these beliefs do not encroach on the civil liberties of others.

While it is heartening to see this consensus, it should also be understood that this is not a consensus shared by many religionists who as we speak are mobilising their resources to attack it (faith schools, proposed legislation, angry mobs shutting down plays, etc) that’s why I’m counter-mobilising and kicking off this discussion is one front that I’ve opened up.

Also, it would appear that the consensus includes a stance that what people believe in private is fine as long as this doesn’t harm anyone (or themselves).

I would question this, and here’s why. Having a belief in the supernatural by definition relegates the natural world (science, rational thought) to a subordinate position. Therefore, anyone who claims to have faith in a particular supernatural belief system (a religion) and to believe in evolution, for instance, is simply deluding themselves; the two are mutual exclusive.

It is precisely this comfortable grey-zone of ambiguity that I would seek to expose and demolish because I do not believe that our society or mankind in general can progress as far as we are able to when people still profess believe in the supernatural. Religion has not been described as the opium of the masses for nothing. Handing over responsibility for our own lives to some form of higher authority is slovenly as it allows us to put those things we don’t understand down to the supernatural. Religion, in short, acts like a psychological crutch for those unable or unwilling to accept that we are nothing more than vessels for DNA, that we are born and that we die, and that that is the end of us. I see no reason to be afraid of this and do not need to have the fear of being burned for eternity to make me act in a ‘Christian’ manner. In short, we do not need religion anymore. We have learnt enough about ourselves by this point in time that religion is simply meaningless. We know that thunder and lightening is not the word of God but simply the weather, Christ’s contemporaries did not. We know that the sun will rise again without the need for ritual sacrifices, the Aztecs did not. We know that Noah and his Ark is a simple impossibility, our less enlightened forefathers did not.

Some of the other responses have been ‘interesting’: non-religious Christians and reactive agnostics (whatever these might be!), and some have been encouraging. The main body probably fall into this comfortable grey-zone that I described above. I would hope that for these people, this discussion has stimulated them to think carefully and objectively about their faith and to come to their own, reasoned position on it rather than meekly accepting something that they are not too informed about – as we all are, not many people have had any more instruction in religion than that provided in RE at school. In other words, although I think people should shed religion full-stop, at this point in human development if people can at least say that they have seriously contemplated just what it is they say they have signed up to, that they understand what all this means and implies, rather than simply describing themselves as Christian (or whatever) for the hell of it - and just look at the yawning gap in census data between those who describe themselves as CofE and those who attend church. And before anyone pipes up to say that they don’t need to attend church to believe; ask you Vicar for his views on that. It’s like saying you are Jewish but then munching on a bacon sarnie – then this is at least a small step forward. How many of you ‘grey-zoners’ can honestly say that this describes your approach to your beliefs?


Originally posted by MovingOn

I think you have some serious issues tallyho, though goodness knows what they are. I would not have joined in this discussion but for your posted drivel, enjoy your pint of blood.
ROTFLMAO!

If we are talking about issues – I’m not the one in a cult! There are no organisations trying to rescue me (unless you count cults trying to drag me in), but plenty looking to rescue you. I have no issues (apart from the agenda outlined above) and I’d be perfectly happy to put myself in the analyst’s chair - would you?

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I'm not sure why you feel I should have a strong opinion one way or another on Hancock.

I didn’t ask you if you had a strong opinion on Hancock, I merely asked whether you thought he had an open or a blown mind. This was an attempt to illustrate the idea that opening your mind too much makes your brains fall out!

No beliefs should be free from rigorous criticism, particularly if these belief are the foundation of actions that impact upon others, as has been said.

In common with quite a few people on this thread, I have all the time in the world for religion as philosophy. But the moment people shed all doubt and fully opt in to a complete belief system laid out by someone else is the moment when I disengage with them on philosophical issues, as it now seems pointless.

Religious dogma holds thinking back. Moral relativism is not something to be scared of, but it is precisely that aspect of a secular society - a lack of absolutes - that many religious leaders decry.

But you cannot engage a religious leader on the possibility that these absolutes do not exist, because those principles are handed down by god, and are non-negotiable. So attacking religious beliefs is usually a fruitless activity.

Just a bit of a P.S here.

JoeP seems to suggest that having academic qualifications , publishng books .....etc.....was a sign of an open mind and a person of mature ideas who would cheerfully consider others' pointsof view. Perhaps this is so , in his case.However ! ...............
When you look at some of the characters with doctorates and so forth , that doesn't seem to add up. , as a general proposition.
Easy -going , tolerant Dr. Paisley ? Dr. Goebbels open to new ideas ? Good old Dr. Salazer of Portugal ? My favourite chess player , Dr. Alekhine was a very unpleasant geezer. He was anti-semitic , arrogant and an alcoholic of sorts , to boot. Yet , he obtained his Doctorate of Law from the Sorbonne in his second language and published more books than Joep.
I think , in fact , in some cases , academics become arrogant and close their minds to the opinions of others. A lot depends , I suppose on what , exactly your qualifications are in aid of and what kind of books one gets published.

Originally posted by Fareast
Just a bit of a P.S here.

JoeP seems to suggest that having academic qualifications , publishng books .....etc.....was a sign of an open mind and a person of mature ideas who would cheerfully consider others' pointsof view. Perhaps this is so , in his case.However ! ...............
When you look at some of the characters with doctorates and so forth , that doesn't seem to add up. , as a general proposition.
Easy -going , tolerant Dr. Paisley ? Dr. Goebbels open to new ideas ? Good old Dr. Salazer of Portugal ? My favourite chess player , Dr. Alekhine was a very unpleasant geezer. He was anti-semitic , arrogant and an alcoholic of sorts , to boot. Yet , he obtained his Doctorate of Law from the Sorbonne in his second language and published more books than JoeP.
I think , in fact , in some cases , academics become arrogant and close their minds to the opinions of others. A lot depends , I suppose on what , exactly your qualifications are in aid of and what kind of books one gets published.

Fair enough, fareast, I was responding on the spur of the moment to what I was finding a rather personal set of digs from people.

I believe that people who know me on this Forum and in the real world would say that on the whole I am open minded.

Also, the comment from tallyho, I think, referred to being open minded as leading to an 'empty mind' - that was the purpose for me blowing my own trumpet.

I would agree that the people listed there with fine academic qualifications are quite closed minded. I would also argue that there are many academics who have secular beliefs that exhibit equal degrees of closed mindedness about anything that affects their world view.

Joe

I’m not the one in a cult! There are no organisations trying to rescue me (unless you count cults trying to drag me in), but plenty looking to rescue you. I have no issues (apart from the agenda outlined above) and I’d be perfectly happy to put myself in the analyst’s chair - would you?

Call it what you like tallyho, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has brought me closer to God and I really pity you.

Nobody has examined my head more than me these past few years, and one thing I can say for certain, my life is better with God in it.

I just pray that you don't one day find that you need Him. My brother is as athiest and agnostic as anyone, yet when he was dying in hospital, he accepted a blessing from the Mormons who visited him. Of course, now his health is restored he's back to his usual critical, argumentative self - claiming that when we die that's it.

Or maybe he's done some stuff in his life that he feels he cannot repent for and that's what's holding him back. I don't know, but he's proven himself a hypocrite.

I bear my testimony to you all, that Jesus Christ walked the earth, he was the son of God. He took upon him the sins of the world in the garden of Gethsemane and was beaten, scourged, whipped and crucified. He did it for you and he did it for me - and I don't profess to be any more worthy than anyone else.

I know one day I will meet him face to face, I just hope at that time that I will dare meet his gaze. I know this, because I've prayed about it; the same way I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only place I want to be. It suits me. Whether or not it suits anyone else, is entirely for them to decide for themselves.

People are free to live their life according to their own precepts - it is your right to believe whatever you like same as it is mine to have my own beliefs and opinions. When you attack someone's beliefs you don't just attack their opinions. In the Church of Jesus Christ, our faith is not just there on a Sunday morning when we go to Church, it's a dominant factor in our lives and it's central to the way we are. We don't just believe what we believe, we LIVE it too - every day of the week. And that's not because of fear of God or the repercussions.

As you learn more about the life of Christ and what he went through, you find yourself wanting to live a life that makes you worthy to be in his presence.

PS, from me too. Kristian was complaining a while back about religion's intolerance to Gay people. I was one of the first people to respond to him on the thread in what I hope was a compassionate and non-judgmental manner.

PPS, to the guy who said that Utah was his idea of Hell. Funny how it's a major tourist resort, catering to Winter Sports fanatics. Do you watch South Park, by any chance?

Moving on :-
Utah ? "Tourists ".........."Fanatics ".......yes , as I said.
Plus , frowning on tea , coffee and alcohol !!
And all those bright-eyed pensioners whizzing around , boasting how old they are and how many miles they walk in a day and telling glassy-eyed listeners how healthy they are and how alcohol has never passed their lips.
Give me a smoky French bistro , with steak chips and wine every time.

Your life, your choice Fareast

Originally posted by MovingOn
Call it what you like tallyho, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has brought me closer to God and I really pity you.

Nobody has examined my head more than me these past few years, and one thing I can say for certain, my life is better with God in it.

I just pray that you don't one day find that you need Him. My brother is as athiest and agnostic as anyone, yet when he was dying in hospital, he accepted a blessing from the Mormons who visited him. Of course, now his health is restored he's back to his usual critical, argumentative self - claiming that when we die that's it.

Or maybe he's done some stuff in his life that he feels he cannot repent for and that's what's holding him back. I don't know, but he's proven himself a hypocrite.

I bear my testimony to you all, that Jesus Christ walked the earth, he was the son of God. He took upon him the sins of the world in the garden of Gethsemane and was beaten, scourged, whipped and crucified. He did it for you and he did it for me - and I don't profess to be any more worthy than anyone else.

I know one day I will meet him face to face, I just hope at that time that I will dare meet his gaze. I know this, because I've prayed about it; the same way I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only place I want to be. It suits me. Whether or not it suits anyone else, is entirely for them to decide for themselves.

People are free to live their life according to their own precepts - it is your right to believe whatever you like same as it is mine to have my own beliefs and opinions. When you attack someone's beliefs you don't just attack their opinions. In the Church of Jesus Christ, our faith is not just there on a Sunday morning when we go to Church, it's a dominant factor in our lives and it's central to the way we are. We don't just believe what we believe, we LIVE it too - every day of the week. And that's not because of fear of God or the repercussions.

As you learn more about the life of Christ and what he went through, you find yourself wanting to live a life that makes you worthy to be in his presence.



PRAISE THE LORD!
Anyone for Life of Brian?

Originally posted by Fareast

Give me a smoky French bistro , with steak chips and wine every time.

Before moving on to the Moulin rouge I hope!

Originally posted by tallyho
PRAISE THE LORD!
Anyone for Life of Brian?

Fab post tallyho! :thumbsup:

Always look on the bright side of life eh? :smile:

MATTHIAS:
Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!...
OFFICIAL:
You're only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS:
Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
CROWD:
Oooooh!...
OFFICIAL:
I'm warning you. If you say 'Jehovah' once more--
[MRS. A. stones OFFICIAL]
Right. Who threw that?
[silence]
Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD:
She did! It was her! He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.

Originally posted by MovingOn
yet when he was dying in hospital, he accepted a blessing from the Mormons who visited him.

I just can't let it lie - "Christians are simply the vultures around death, despair and mental illness". :clap:

Originally posted by MovingOn
PPS, to the guy who said that Utah was his idea of Hell. Funny how it's a major tourist resort, catering to Winter Sports fanatics. Do you watch South Park, by any chance?
Hey, fareast,
All in ski package to UTAH, £649 with Crystal – you up for it?!!!
:banana:

Originally posted by tallyho
I just can't let it lie - "Christians are simply the vultures around death, despair and mental illness". :clap:

Wow!

What a classy website! Thanks for posting the link. I'm putting this one on my favorites. Maybe I'll send it to my mother as well. I don't think I've seen the words c*nt, c*ck, and f**k used with such frequency since the time I had no choice but to use the men's room at the Greyhound Bus station. I also had no idea that c*nt was a verb as well as a noun. You learn something new every day!

Frankly, it was inappropriate and in bad taste. :gag:

Sierra

[MOD NOTE]Please remember that this is a FAMILY site and all links etc. posted should conform to this standard - thankyou

TallyHo

Well , 649 pounds is about 325 pints of bitter or 160 packets of Marlboro ' so I'll pass on that one.
Utah sounds to me , culturally , like a sort of giant MacDonalds with preachers in place of piped music .
I must admit I'm a bit biased against the American way of life in general but if I had to live there or go for a holiday , I think New Orleans sounds the best place.
The problem with religious people is that they always sound so smug , don't they ? " I've discovered God and I'm so , so happy ". Perhaps they don't mean to sound smug-----they just DO ! No room for doubt !

Apologies for the link, forgot that this wasn't just for adults.
No apologies for the comments though, a fairly apt description of religionists I thought.

following on, if people are going to parade family illness in a crude attempt to support their opinions (how often do we cringe when a politician wheels out some mawkish story accompanied with crocodile tears?) then it is they who have put it in the public arena. It is then those people who have acted inappropriately and in bad taste. Moreover, the post states that the individual was dying and then, DUE TO a visit from the vultures, he was cured.
Well Hallelujah!
Or as our American cousins might say 'oh pur-leease'.
I cannot allow this kind of rubbish to go unchallenged.

As I said, I couldn't let it lie - implying that I should have. In other words, I knew their post was inappropriate and in bad taste and that I should simply ignore it, but it exactly this type of behaviour that so incenses. Like some smack head sitting in an underpass with upturned face and pleading eyes soliciting my pity and a couple of my hard earned quid so he can shoot up and then go on his next robbing spree.

Confirm my apologies to the Mods for posting the link (though it is an excellent site free of all the sanitised rubbish that passes for the mainstream media).

And I found the link after a (favourable) review in a Sunday paper.

Why should all people who have a faith suddenly be made to give it up their faith because those of no faith think we are wrong. We who have faith don't go around saying those who have no faith should be made to have faith because they have got it wrong so why do those who have no faith have the right to say that those with faith should give it up because we are wrong!

Who defines what is a religion anyway?

If me and a buch of like-minded nutters start to pray to the toadstools in my garden, would anyone be accused of blasphemy if they told us that our sacred fungi were a bunch of willy look-a-likes?

One man's prophet is another man's target of humour and ridicule. It's about time we got real and joined the 21st century.

Calling a religious belief stupid, seems to be more offensive in the eyes of some people -and the law - than calling people's mums whores.:loopy:

I wouldn't take the mickey out of people for their beliefs, but as far as the thing they believe in is concerned, why should THAT be above humour?

But the toadstools in your garden did not create the heaven, earth and stars! It was the Gremlin in my garden that did that! All hail the Gremlin.:hihi:

Mods!!!!

Sweetcheeks just attacked my religion. :o

I am deeply offended and demand a holy war.:hihi:

PS: At least my top bods are FUNGIS, not miserable gits like all the others. :thumbsup:

Please dont put a Fatwah on me and the Gremlin! I am clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and as we speak, I am flagellating myself! I can only pledge the rest of my miserable existence in exhaltation of the mighty Funghi! :hihi:

Please dont put a Fatwah on me and the Gremlin! I am clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and as we speak, I am flagellating myself! I can only pledge the rest of my miserable existence in exhaltation of the mighty Funghi! :hihi:

Sacreligious and double jointed, eh!! :thumbsup:

(Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?)

Sacrilegeous and a Friday Flagellator! I am doomed to a life in hell, or as its known in some religions, "The Cannon". I am now going offline to contemplate what is left of my miserable life. :hihi:

Sacrilegeous and a Friday Flagellator! I am doomed to a life in hell, or as its known in some religions, "The Cannon". I am now going offline to contemplate what is left of my miserable life. :hihi:

"Get thee behind me Santa!":)

Should religious beliefs be free from attack Try the question the other way round Should we be free from attack by religious beliefs

Why should all people who have a faith suddenly be made to give it up their faith because those of no faith think we are wrong. We who have faith don't go around saying those who have no faith should be made to have faith because they have got it wrong so why do those who have no faith have the right to say that those with faith should give it up because we are wrong!

Aaand -, Breathe :hihi: