![]() |
Quote:
Your spelling was not all that bad, I could read it :D And I did enjoy hearing your veiws on the subject, please continue to post. |
I don't get people who don't embrace their fellow human beings and the uniqueness that each human represents..... just seems that we are a world full of misery and those miserable oh so love some company.
|
Gentlefolk,
I’m uncertain if anyone else might find this interesting, but Tony Blair recently gave a rather extended speech, if not precisely on this topic, then on one rather close to it. Well worth the time to listen to it. The text of the speech can be found Foreign Policy Speech I For a video of this speech on Britain's foreign policy (21 March 2006) While not everyone will agree with him, I do find most of his points consistent with my experience in the Middle East of a few years ago. |
It is an interesting speech. I've always liked Tony Blair and, like you said, I may not always agree with him, but he is very eloquent in stating his position. Thanks for sharing that, jseal.
|
Quote:
Please take him! No, really! Please take him! :D |
I'll trade you ... two Clinton's and one Joe Biden! Please. :D
(Oh yeah, one Gore as a bonus gift.) |
Quote:
Woo hoo! Another Blair-hater! Never voted for him, never will! |
I just dont get Blair, wheater you like him or not he is a very inteligent man what the hell is he doing hanging out whit a man like Bush? i dont get it.
I respected Blair when he first took office i though he had alot of views that was right for europe ate the time but now he is starting to look more and more like a whipping Boy for Amerikan warmongers (See bush and others) I will enjoy the day i read about bush in my childrens history books 20 years from now, or even my gandchildren. He is going to get butcherd. Admiral |
Just as an aside. In the local paper today were two articles that I thought were an interesting contrast to how the West sees religion.
Article 1 was that the City of St. Paul (near where I live) banned Easter references from the city offices. Not real sure why, but I can only speculate "Church and State" Article 2 was a report that the in Afghanistan some moderate to hardcore Clerics were demanding death for a former Islam believer who had converted to Christianity. Is it any wonder that Westerners feel persecuted by Political Correctness gone horribly astray and that we get such a bad read on Islam? These types of examples are sadly too easy to find. |
Quote:
I don't see this as "PC gone astray"...rather, it's more like upholding the part of the Bill of Rights that says Congress shall make no law favoring any church or religion, that keeps us from turning into a Theocracy that burns people for not following the Official State religion... |
Is removing Easter bunnies really separation of Church and State or over PC? I say over PC. Christianity is no more represented by the Easter Bunny than it is by the Christmas Tree. The Christmas Tree is left around and accepted (and to that point, a Menorah is okay, but sure as heck don't show a babe in a manger).
I understand the need for boundaries and choices, but to that end get rid of 25 December as a day off too or loosen up in areas like Easter Bunnies. |
"Easter references" doesn't just mean bunnies. It's just as easy to say Spring or Winter holidays. People who are not Christian may not see the references to Easter as common place as Christians do. If I am a Jewish American the holiday means no more to me than Chinese New Year. Why should it be the focus of anything at my workplace? When a person comes to an issue with only their own vantage and makes no attempt to look at an issue from another's vantage point they miss out on a great deal of the view.
|
I'm with Jax on this. Lilith, I'm looking at this from a non-Christian point of view, and, while Easter has no significance for me, I don't mind that others wish to celebrate it (I am assuming here that we are talking only about banning references to Easter, not banning some major celebration at work, in which case I may have a different attitude). Surely your hypothetical Jewish American would adopt a similar attitude? If not, where is the tolerance?
There seem to a lot of stories over here in the UK about similar PC bans (Father Christmas could not visit a nursery because he might scare the kids, springs to mind). Multiculturalism is all about compromise and tolerance. We cannot ban everything (although Tony Blair is trying his hardest) because someone, somewhere doesn't like it. I am saying this as a hardline atheist. I have made my views plain earlier, but even I do not advocate banning religious ceremony and celebration. |
Quote:
Actually, what the Bill of Rights says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " |
I certainly do not advocate banning religious celebrations. But I do think there are ways to make specific times of the year that are filled with a variety of observances more inclusive of all the celebrations at that time.
|
Perhaps it is only my perspective, but filling specific times of the year with a variety of observances implies a particular point of view – that of equivalence - on those religions celebrations.
|
Quote:
Agreed! Easter is a Christian observance. Like it or not, it does not matter if it is of no consequence to Muslim, Jew or Hindu (or, indeed, atheist). Let the Christians celebrate as they see fit. We do not need to make it an all-inclusive event in a (failed) attempt to keep everyone happy. |
Quote:
I knew I was not making a direct quote of the Constitution, but I stand by my contention that we allow any one group official recognition, we have to allow the same for all...as it is, I see this country already skating dangerously close to the thin ice of religious zealotry... |
On the topic of Easter ask yourself this question...
When you hear the word Easter, what do you think of first... a bunny or a cross? I would be willing to bet the majority of people in this country would say bunny. Probably chocolate. |
Quote:
I think about my ass getting bigger (thanks to eating the chocolate). But that's just me. :D |
Quote:
Funny... I think about your ass too. Wait.. did you say something else besides that? :confused: :p |
Quote:
I don't see how that is a PC thing. Personally I was shit scared of Father Christmas impersonators and the like when I was a child. Kids get scared of adults dressed up in costumes and they're always told 'don't talk to strangers' until one is dressed up in a mask and make-up.....fucking terrifying if you ask me! Oh and what the hell is Father Christmas to do with religion....I bet the same nursery were probably allowed to stage a nativity play. ;) |
|
As a kid I was terrified of dressed up Santa Clauses and clowns. Despite a family friend always being the one to dress up as Santa for my dad's work Xmas party I would promptly proceed to vomit every year at his arrival at the party :D
|
Lilith,
One of my nieces was also scared of costumed characters. Only overcame that behavior recently. Must not be that infrequent a response. |
Quote:
... or secular zealotry. I don't see those of faith ... Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or others) ... saying that people who do not have faith must give up that point of view or that they must celebrate those holidays. I think secular zealotry is a far greater risk. |
I like that. Secular Zealotry. I think that is a better way to say what I was going after. That is a huge problem.
|
Gentlefolk,
Intolerance comes in many guises, and is not native to any land or sect. Consider, if you will, the French State’s ban on the Islamic headscarf and (nominally) all other overt religious symbols from state schools. When people who wield power - be they religious, or in this case secular – feel threatened, they feel obligated to protect their domain. That their behavior may be as damaging to what they claim to be defending as the actions of their supposed foe is of no consequence. They must not be seen to be weak. This does lead, from time to time, to peculiar behavior. |
Quote:
I've deliberately stayed out of this debate so far, but... Strange you should say that - last Christmas some schools in Britain did ban nativity plays on poltically-correct grounds. |
Fed by the same madness which caused a shopping centre (mall for the yanks) chain to ban the charity Xmas tree
because someone could put a bomb in a package and leave it there. They couldn't just walk in with a bomb belt and go bang, they have to wrap it in Xmas paper and hide it at the charity tree. There is a tree frog in my garden makes more sense than that. |
Quote:
Ooops :o I've been checking the news - I got a bit mixed up. Several schools in Britain banned cameras at nativity plays in case paedophiles got hold of the pictures/videos, and the Red Cross charity shops banned nativity scenes in their shop windows. Still PC madness. Carry on without me :o :) |
Quote:
OK, so not the best example, although it was an example of PC gone mad, not religion. I'll happily go with Sharper's Red Cross example. |
So the Christians fight back :D Bring it on!
Quote:
That must be the comedy post of the thread! Now, where should we start? 1. There is a Muslim-turned-Christian in Afghanistan who wishes that what you are saying was true 2. In post-Reformation England (1530s) the Protestants and Catholics burned each other for not believing in the same version of the same basic beliefs 3. The Algerian parliament has just approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam (in person and by any sort of publication). 4. The Spanish Inquisition 5. Neither I, nor my parents, were offered a choice of me attending religious education and worship at school. I was not given an alternative viewpoint that God may not exist either. I suspect most of you were in the same position. I could make a really long list but I am sure you can see the point :) |
Quote:
The trouble is, that as a Christian, you see this as the thin end of the wedge and worry when something similar will affect you. I, as an atheist, can see the French government's point. It's quite draconian, but fairly applied, so no-one should complain. |
Quote:
Gee, I didn't know Afghanistan was insisting on Spring Bunnies at their Walmarts? I thought we were talking about what was happening in the US and other western countries today. Maybe we need more precision in what the topic is. It's not even clear what your 5th point had to do with. |
just taking notes ;) :D
|
mabelode,
Rather than characterize the situation as one favoring a theist or an atheist point of view, I think it may be more useful viewing intolerance as favoring or suppressing personal liberties. To that end, I am minded of a poem attributed to Martin Niemöller about the quiescence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power. There are various versions, this is the one I favor: Original......................................Translation Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,.........When they came for the communists, habe ich geschwiegen;.........................I remained silent; ich war ja kein Kommunist.....................I was not a communist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,.....When they locked up the social democrats, habe ich geschwiegen; ........................I remained silent; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat................I was not a social democrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,............When they came for the trade unionists, habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter................I was not a trade unionist. Als sie die Juden holten,.....................When they came for the Jews, habe ich nicht protestiert;...................I did not speak out; ich war ja kein Jude..........................I was not a Jew. Als sie mich holten,..........................When they came for me, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte...there was no one left to speak out. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I favor personal liberty, particularly as realized in a liberal democracy. It was not too long ago that Germany descended from a civilized nation to one which burnt and gassed its own citizens. How far into the common weal must the wedge be driven the next time before someone cries “Halt!”? On a lighter note, wasn’t it President Chirac who said “Aprés moi, le Shari'a.”? |
Quote:
I, as an atheist, seem to have far more concern for the plight of a Christian than you, as a Christian, judging solely by that statement. Quote:
It's too late to complain at the direction we are now going - you were steering at the time! The original question was: Quote:
We have expanded the scope a little since then. For example, you said: Quote:
That's exactly what religions do - enforce conformity of belief and control what the followers do. See my examples above. That may be OK for enforcing morals if done moderately (but you don't need the god aspect for that) but it gets abused. My examples show what happens when religious belief is enforced on those who don't want to believe the same as you. Point 5 was simple. On a more personal level I am illustrating that faith was pushed onto us at an impressionable age - we didn't choose to embrace it as adults (and, no, continuing with what was forced on you as a child is not the same as freely embracing the same belief as an adult). |
Quote:
A very reasonable request. We could say, however, that religious education almost everywhere suppresses those rights (until too late in one's school career). Each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, with no balancing view that it may be made up. This maintains the myth and the status quo. More enlightened countries allow individuals to make their own minds up later in life (but too late), and many do not. I simply suggest that we teach atheism, and, again, allow individuals to make their own minds up later. I point out, once more, the Jesuit approach - the first years in a child's education are highly influential (I might even say indoctrinating). Note that I have not suggested anywhere that religion should be banned - the way forward is through education. Religion will then wither naturally. Quote:
Not at all - a view I share. I am not a "banning" type of person, which may be why I have a problem with Tony Blair's style of government. |
mabelode,
As silence implies assent, I take it that you have reconsidered your position on “the thin edge of the wedge” whether assessed as a communist, social democrat, trade unionist, theist, or atheist. I must admit that I do have difficulty reconciling your stated position on personal liberty and liberal democracy with your acquiescence to the French State’s suppression of individual liberties – down to such details as what type of head covering one may and may not wear to class. Rather intolerant I’d say, but then, I’m not French. As a bad law remains a bad law even if applied consistently, I am curious why a law which is described as draconian is one about which no-one should complain. While it is true that there are countries that do teach its dominant/official religion as fact, it is decidedly not true for all countries. It is not the case that each country teaches its dominant/official religion as fact, unless you are referring to the citizens of a country being inculcated in that country’s culture, a different process than being “taught”. If it is true that there is no country without a culture, and I would argue that case, then it is unreasonable to expect its citizens to grow up within it without absorbing their cultural norms. Perhaps I can call upon some local expertise; how many of our American Pixies were offered, much less had forced upon them, religious education in state funded schools? For that matter, how many Australian, Canadian or English Pixies were compelled in their state funded educational careers to pass exams on Christian, Muslim, or Hindu theology? I am under the impression that, at least here in the States, very few religious education classes are funded by Federal, State, or Municipal governments. As for teaching atheism, I don’t think that would be wise at all. Atheism asserts the absence of God, just as theism asserts the presence of God. Are you suggesting that there exists a proof that there is no God? Unless the claim can be objectively substantiated by repeatable tests, such a claim must reside in the realm of other faiths. Many people, I among them, consider that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Additionally, if one wished to take a scientific approach, one must keep in mind that a hypothesis can only be falsified, not proved. Frankly, given the metaphysical properties of both theism and atheism, I believe both are clearly outside the domain of science. Finally, Kurt Gödel’s paper "On Formally Undecidable Propositions Of Principia Mathematica And Related Systems" contains a proof that there exist truths which cannot be proved. Replace “truths” with “God” and the sentence remains logically unchanged. We both know that the proof exists only within the limits of formal systems, so I cannot offer it as a proof, but it is persuasive, even if not convincing. Not, I hasten to conclude, that there is a God, only that those who make blanket assertions that there is no God do so with neither evidence to support their position nor iron clad logic to support their arguments. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.