Mecky   10 #73 Posted November 26, 2013 My lord some of the Islamophobia on this post makes me gag, any civil rational human being can accept it's totally abhorrent to ban Islam or any religion for that matter.  I know, let's try and combat a concern by giving it a name and then try to make it look ridiculus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #74 Posted November 26, 2013 Just Sarah, as i peruse these threads on a daily basis, yours are the comments that stand out the most. Not in any positive light I would add. It seems your only reason for being here is to continually push your own agenda with regards to the faith of Islam. Whether it be pulling statistics from where the sun doth not shine, making wild assumptions or just generally tarring all with the same brush, its like a broken record. I won't be replying to anything, just wanted to leave this here. Not interested in a debate with you, a wise man once gave me a good piece of advice when it comes to arguing, something about "fools" and "at a distance"...  Don't be unfair to her, she has other reactionary and short sighted opinions that she shares on other topics as well.  ---------- Post added 26-11-2013 at 07:29 ----------  Islamic countries also ban alcohol and most countries ban polygamy. The population of those countries seem to accept it.  Is alcohol (or bigamy) a view or a belief? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Halibut   12 #75 Posted November 26, 2013 My lord some of the Islamophobia on this post makes me gag, any civil rational human being can accept it's totally abhorrent to ban Islam or any religion for that matter.  You'd have thought so wouldn't you.  Tragically, those who enthusiastically speak up for banning Islam are in the very same mindset as those who practice extremist interpretations of Islam - i.e. the Taliban and Boko Haram.  They just can't see it. None so blind etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
angos   10 #76 Posted November 26, 2013 It seams that our Advertising standards agency as banned Christians from sharing their beliefs.  For the article in full please see here The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has told a group of Christians in Bath not to make any claims which state or imply that, by receiving their prayer, people could be physically healed, reports Christian Concern for our Nation.  A registered Christian trust, the ‘Healing on the Streets – Bath’ (HOTS) team, comprised of Christians from many different churches, have been praying for the public outside Bath Abbey for three years and regularly offer to pray for people who are sick to receive healing.  But atheist Hayley Stevens took offence to the group’s adverts, complaining to the ASA that the claims by the Christians could 'not be substantiated'.   Her complaint was upheld and the ASA have now ordered the group to stop stating on their website or in literature that God can heal.  I can't see anything wrong with the ASA's decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
boyfriday   21 #77 Posted November 26, 2013 It seams that our Advertising standards agency as banned Christians from sharing their beliefs. For the article in full please see here The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has told a group of Christians in Bath not to make any claims which state or imply that, by receiving their prayer, people could be physically healed, reports Christian Concern for our Nation.  A registered Christian trust, the ‘Healing on the Streets – Bath’ (HOTS) team, comprised of Christians from many different churches, have been praying for the public outside Bath Abbey for three years and regularly offer to pray for people who are sick to receive healing.  But atheist Hayley Stevens took offence to the group’s adverts, complaining to the ASA that the claims by the Christians could 'not be substantiated'.   Her complaint was upheld and the ASA have now ordered the group to stop stating on their website or in literature that God can heal.  I can't see anything wrong with the ASA's decision.  It's slightly different from the state intervention in the practice of worship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
angos   10 #78 Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) It's slightly different from the state intervention in the practice of worship.  Yes it is slightly different but one could easily see how it could be extended to stop people preaching that which can't be proven. Obviously we could never ban people from believing in God or praying to God, but it is possible to stop people making public claims about God that can't be proven. Edited November 26, 2013 by angos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
townblade   10 #79 Posted November 26, 2013 Yeah, because the Soviet Union was fantastic  Arthur Scargill thought so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
boyfriday   21 #80 Posted November 26, 2013 Yes it is slightly different but one could easily see how it could be extended to stop people preaching that which can't be proven. Obviously we could never ban people from believing in God or braying to God, but it is possible to stop people making public claims about God that can't be proven.  No I couldn't easily see it actually, there'd be a revolution in this country before that happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JFKvsNixon   11 #81 Posted November 26, 2013 Yes it is slightly different but one could easily see how it could be extended to stop people preaching that which can't be proven. Obviously we could never ban people from believing in God or praying to God, but it is possible to stop people making public claims about God that can't be proven.  The law is clear regarding adverts. Every claim that they make must be substantiated. It is also as clear that this law does not include preaching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
angos   10 #82 Posted November 26, 2013 No I couldn't easily see it actually, there'd be a revolution in this country before that happened.  I doubt it, how many people do you think it would affect? how many people actually try spread the word of God to others. There aren't even that many people that go to church. Most people that have a belief in God tend to keep it to themselves and it wouldn't affect them at all.  ---------- Post added 26-11-2013 at 12:49 ----------  The law is clear regarding adverts. Every claim that they make must be substantiated. It is also as clear that this law does not include preaching.  Nothing like stating the obvious, not sure what point you think you made though.  An advert is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy:  A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting God or the church is therefor an advert and must not be misleading in anyway, and must be provable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
SevenRivers   10 #83 Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) The difference is obvious. Holocaust denial involves the fabrication of evidence to excuse a racial genocide, the denial of the testimonies of thousands of survivors, their liberators and of the perpetrators. Holocaust denial is a slander against history and against the victims.  Whilst the history of religions may well at times be fanciful, especially from an atheist perspective, that is not the moral distinction that informs the different treatment in law. The distinction is motive.  Religion is not a hate inspired slander to excuse a racial genocide.  I'm not making a moral distinction, simply drawing a parallel that banning certain beliefs (not in the literal sense of erasing it from thought, but prohibiting all public manifestations) is not something new, since many European states do exactly that. The only difference you're drawing on here is how much you find one or the other offensive.  If you're able to take a step back and look at it dispassionately, what is holocaust denial other than a belief which involves continuing to believe whilst being impervious to all evidence to the contrary, just like religion.  Just on you last sentence - many would say it is exactly that. Edited November 26, 2013 by SevenRivers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Wildcat   10 #84 Posted November 27, 2013 I'm not making a moral distinction, simply drawing a parallel that banning certain beliefs (not in the literal sense of erasing it from thought, but prohibiting all public manifestations) is not something new, since many European states do exactly that. The only difference you're drawing on here is how much you find one or the other offensive. If you're able to take a step back and look at it dispassionately, what is holocaust denial other than a belief which involves continuing to believe whilst being impervious to all evidence to the contrary, just like religion.  Just on you last sentence - many would say it is exactly that.  This "only difference" is the most important one when looking at why laws are made and enforced.  They are the result of value judgements, a result of moral considerations. Theft, Murder etc etc can all be looked at dispassionately.. without morality none of them would be prohibited.  Many as in what? ten people would say Religion is a hate inspired slander to excuse a racial genocide ? However many they are, if any they would be making their claims based on a hugely distorted view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...