You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
... I am all for constructive debate and the topic is usually a good one for it. The central questions of any region have exercised the minds of believers, atheists, agnostics, philosophers, scientists, Uncle Tom Cobby etc for thousands of years and will continue to do so. But that is not the point. Most threads on this topic are merely rehashes on a rotating 48 hour basis of entrenched positions, often with derogatory overtones towards those who chose to follow whatever faith they chose. You know what they say about too much of a good (?) thing?
But fine, it was only a suggestion. The weather is ok, I have the second day of a demo booked and I am off for a ride. Enjoy the religion roundabout!
Wallace, "jog on" is an excellent way to avoid the swear filter. But I take the underlying point and will happily oblige!
Edit: Grum, was that "religion for atheists"? By chance, I saw the author on a weekend chat programme recently and read the intro to his book. Might download the whole book as it made similar points. Aethism for today meets the nudge principle?
And in general, religion asking for tolerance actually means 'we want to keep the special status we've had for hundreds of years'.
I don't think so, to be honest. Most Christians I know don't care if it's an established religion or not. The people who care about that tend to be the ones who are are just being deeply conservative. Being conservative is the problem there, not being religious.
Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't understand.
FTFYMost Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't[s] understand. [/s]believe
Wallace, "jog on" is an excellent way to avoid the swear filter.
But also a well known phrase used in common parlance.
No surprise that we disagree molgrips, seems to be the case on just about every issue. 🙂
Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't understand.
I don't for a second think that Christians are stupid or ignorant, certainly the devout members of my family aren't. But I do think some of the core tenets of Christianity, if you believe them literally, are daft.
You don't have a right to have your opinions respected, whatever they may be, and however far-fetched they are. Religion tries to demand that right.
And surely I do 'understand' Christianity, having been raised as a Christian in a Christian country.
However many atheists understand very well what Christians are all about and regard them in exactly the way they ought to be regarded.
The arrogance of them is what I can't stand, the bible is the word, the truth, the Gospel not only do they claim to know there is a god but more over they know the mind of god too, what a farce.
I don't for a second think that Christians are stupid or ignorant, certainly the devout members of my family aren't. But I do think some of the core tenets of Christianity, if you believe them literally, are daft.
Well I agree with you on that.
You don't have a right to have your opinions respected
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them. With which some people on here seem to struggle. That's all I am trying to say on these threads. You do have to respect other people's right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters - and that means not slagging them off or being prejudiced. It's never good to be prejudiced.
Oliverd - It's fine not to believe in a religion, but if you don't understand why someone else does, it doesn't mean that it's automatically stupid.
I may not understand string theory, doesn't mean it's a load of rubbish, does it? A lot of people probably would think that though.
Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't understand.
Similarly it would be fair to paraphrase that with ....
Most non religionsists I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't understand.
That point cuts both ways. However, I think the difference being that I can't immediately think of any non religionsists who have made up a pseudo intellectual argument to oppress the Believers. Seems to me that behaving appalling badly goes hand in glove with pontificating about religion....any religion.
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.
No, you don't. 🙂
I could call someone a crab walking, toad licking, sidewalking, basenji loving poltroon, and there's nothing they could do about it.
NOTHING! 😀
I'd feel bad about it and probably wee in my own shoes though, depending on who I was insulting and the opinion they had just espoused.
Most Christians I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid or ignorant by people who've never met or spoken to them, based on things they don't understand.
(Devil's advocate)
But if religion is a subjective opinion, all levels of understanding are also necessarily subjective too, aren't they?
(Devils's advocate)
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them. With which some people on here seem to struggle. That's all I am trying to say on these threads. You do have to respect other people's right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters - and that means not slagging them off or being prejudiced. It's never good to be prejudiced.
Religion hasn't exactly traditionally been that tolerant/respectful towards atheists or other religions/denominations though has it?
I find the idea that the religious might think I and all my friends will be damned to an eternal hell if we don't repent and find god pretty offensive. I know someone who's mother strongly believes that about them and its tragic tbh.
I'm not telling them they can't say it though.
damned to an eternal hell
Hell is where all the cool people are.
[edit]Even though the idea of such a polarised afterlife is daft anyway; if there is in fact a life after death[/edit]
Most non religionsists I know would just like the chance not to be considered stupid
Not using lame "Clarksonisms" such as "Religionists" would be a good starting point 😉
Bloody atheists being intolerant again, I see.
Meanwhile, [url= http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2921/taking-on-the-miracle-mongers ]in India, a man faces 3 years in jail for pointing out that a miracle wasn't a miracle[/url].
if there is in fact a life after death
I mentioned the other day that there wasn't life after death, in any form: brain function ceases and we become meat. My (Christian) wife was surprised that I thought this, which made me wonder which bit of "it's all bollocks" she didn't get 🙂
So if I cause you offense by describing your religion as a load of old gormless twaddle, you'd be offended?
Well, so be offended then. Nothing's going to happen.
Personally, I find religion to be extremely offensive. Constantly bombarded by it on the TV every time the Pope farts or some Islamic numpty makes a stupid video about a kidnapped overseas worker or the British Christian Propaganda Broadcasting Corporation tries to ram it down my neck.
Do you find me shouting "It's all about biological adaptation and random cause and effect" before blowing myself up on the underground?
blowing myself up on the underground
Retrospectively, of course. 😉
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.
No you don't.
So there was a debate on the tellybox on Sunday "Is there a hell"
A very earnest young woman said yes there most definitely is and if you don't want to end up there then you had best accept Jesus into your life because as far as going to heaven is concerned he is the only game in town.
When asked if she was bothered by the fact that some of her loved ones would not be going to heaven she said she was a bit but not all that bothered as the person she loves most is Jesus and he will be waiting there in heaven.
What happened to all the people that a benevolent all knowing god place on earth before the birth of Jesus wasn't covered, but it seems a bit mean for god to create all these people before the time of Jesus when belief in him was their only path to salvation.
Personally I don't really mind what people want to believe so long as they keep it to themselves. Firmly believing anyone not of your religion is going to hell and preaching about it seems a bit strong though and is hardly tolerant.
"it's all bollocks"
The thing that I find hard to believe is there is a heaven and a hell in the form described by organised religion more than the fact that there may be some form of life after death.
As Alan Watts puts it imagine going to sleep and never waking up in the same light as waking up after never having gone to sleep.
but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them
Tell that tp the gays the christians so warmly embrace
again this tolerance is a one way street andmuch of what they say is offensive and insulting to me and many others
What is their message to me ?
Im a bad person , a siner and destined to an eternity of hell and suffering becasue i dont follow their rules or share their beliefs
Why bless them for that 🙄
When my message gets this intolerant you might just have a point as it is I merley say they are wrong and they should leave me alone and not force their views on others who dont agree [ i am not forcing them to stop going to church, endure an aetheist ceremonty in school or marry gays am i?]
I could of course start killing you for saying things that are against my beliefs as well like they have done , perhaps engage in a Aetheist war etc
Its laughable to hear them talk about tolerance consiodering what they say
Man... I'm drawing blood here, biting my lip.
I will not get involved today.... I will not get involved today.
Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself.... maybe you guys are right after all 😀
People can believe what they want. What I object to is taxpayers cash being used to provide a duplicate school system for one religion. Drive round Glasgow and there are dozens of pairs of primary schools near to each other.
School should be for education not indoctrination. Religion should be taught in the home and the church.
Now there IS a sign of madness.... [s]talking to myself[/s] praying.... maybe you guys are right after all
Go on, you KNOW you want to.
That point cuts both ways.
Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.
No, you don't
Yes, you do. We have a moral obligation not to randomly start on people whenever we feel like it. How the hell were you brought up?
Constantly bombarded by it on the TV
That's not true. The pope's in the news now because he's a major world figure. There'd be just as much coverage if a US president resigned. You're just picking on that particular story because it's a religious figure. Fine you don't believe in it, but the head of an organisation including a billion people resigning IS news, regardless of if you agree with that organisation.
And don't bring terrorists into this FFS. Terrorists exist, regardless of religion. If you think we wouldn't have terrorism without religion you're an idiot. Do you blame the existence of football for hooliganism?
Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them.
No you don't.
Well.......
Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, [b]religion[/b], or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]Any communication which is threatening, abusive or [b]insulting[/b], and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]
[i]Watching the pope on the news, just find it so bloody weird how many religions around the world can become so big and powerful, all based on faith over fact.[/i]
Money, power, influence and self perpetuating bureaucracy mostly. In reality it had little to do with faith, that's for the 'little' folk, but more to do with banking, diplomacy etc etc. early church was the grease that oiled the machines of kings and their ambitions
Mostly
A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.
(once they've dried our sufficiently not to wreck the log burner, of course)
nealglover - Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo.
We seem to be seeing this little gem about 'being offended on someone else's behalf' and use of the term 'handwringing' lot on here lately. It's usually a good indicator that someone has no actual argument that I agree with.
Fixed that for you, my fragile little flower...
😉
Thanks Woppit
Already had a little go this morn...
And I will be going to a lunchtime service at St Marys Aldermary... at bottom of Bow Lane later.
Come along I'll buy you a pint in the Watling after
Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!
Another view: They don't start threads, because the secular doesn't negatively impact their life. They don't argue, because there are no rational counter arguments for religion for the religious to make.
teasel - again then, by your logic weren't slavery abolitionists just 'offended on someone else's behalf'? Oh I forgot you don't have an argument.
Well if that law is applied in the way that you seem to be implying then those religious folk who insult everyone who disagrees with them (and yes I have been insulted by such types) better think before they start spouting their nonsense.
Do you blame the existence of football for hooliganism?
Pretty much.
Expressing a hateful position is one thing, questioning someone's position and pointing out the quite obvious contradictions is simply debate. If people feel insulted by the easy dissection of their own belief systems that's their issue not mine.
by your logic
You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.
nealglover - Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo.
I didn't say that was ok though did I ?
I was just pointing out that its actually NOT ok (legally) to insult someone based on their religious beliefs.
(Despite what some people on here seem to think 😐 )
I've run out of Chocolate Hob Nobs 🙁
nealglover - Member"Of course, but you do however have a right not to be insulted because of them."
"No you don't."
Well.......
'Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]
Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]'
You should have bolded this bit
[b]intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone[/b]
as it's quite important.
They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments. They do a great job of turning the other cheek, something from which we could all learn I think!
Yes you never ever encounter one preaching to you or knocking on yor door to pass on the message. they do not do it on STW but that does not mean they do not do it general. Its obvious which sides "preach" their message ad infinitum to the opposite side.
Yes, you do
Could you explain this in light of the following comments by the highest ranking catholic in the UK on homosexual marriage- in what sense were those who support gay marriage being protected from being offended for their beliefs?
"captives of sexual aberrations
I mean how tolerant is that eh 🙄
“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships, we have failed those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wider society by our actions.”[17]
see the terms used such as struggling with and saying it is harmfule
I mean imagine if i said thia
The empirical evidence is clear, being religious is demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such beliefs, we have failed those who struggle with this afflcition and wider society by our actions.
now that is offensive for you
Miuch of what they say is offensive and what is worse is it based on a beleief that has no proof
Lifer, Yes your right I should have.
[b]"harass" [/b]does seem quite relevant.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Grum - I'm a Catholic, admittedly more by the way I was brought up, but religious all the same. I'm pro gay marriage (good job really as I have a gay son), I'm not anti abortion, and to be honest, other than getting involved in pointless debates on here (despite knowing I really shouldn't bother), have no opinion either way on atheism. People are just people, I either get on with them or not, but I never base that on their beliefs regarding religion. Don't tar us all with same brush, that's not really 'ticketyboo' either. 😕
grum - Member
teasel - again then, by your logic weren't slavery abolitionists just 'offended on someone else's behalf'? Oh I forgot you don't have an argument.teasel - Member
You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.
I love the internet
Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3]Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]
I've always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.
Religion is an opinion, no more and no less.
I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can't be helped.
Not using lame "Clarksonisms" such as "Religionists" would be a good starting point
Actually I chose the word carefully, as I wanted to avoid reference to any one particular religion. In my book they are all as bad as each other, and there is little to chose between them. I started off with believers, but in context I felt it would be taken as a Christian reference, thus the offensive Clarksonism.
Yes, but the religious people aren't popping up on here saying 'atheists, what a bunch of ignorant cretins' every two weeks, are they? They are also not the ones getting entrenched in these stupid arguments.
I suspect the frequency of appalling and hypocritical behaviour on the part of the "religionsists" of the world may have more influence on the frequency of said threads than the fact that people who post may or may not be athesists. Its a bit like seeing a comet ala Chelyabinsk recently, you can argue that people should simply ignore it, but the reality is that its going to provoke a reaction, and perhaps some pointing and staring.
Just moving on one step, tell me more about these stupid arguments by atheists.......
nealglover - Member
Lifer, Yes your right I should have."harass" does seem quite relevant.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Bear in mind that's harass in the legal definition, not the 'criticism is harrassment' definition.
mitch - wasn't meaning to say that all religious people are like that, more that it seems to be allowed/justified to express what would normally be considered bigotry/ignorance if you dress it up as a religious belief.
I don't think religion should be exempted from the same standards applied to everyone else, which seems to be what is generally demanded.
I love the internet
This thread is evidence that sharing ones viewpoint is...er...pointless, Alex.
Carry on...
@barnsleymitch - surely by the admissions in your post you cannot be a Catholic.
If the organisation to which you say you belong has rules precluding the belief in those elements you cannot belong to it. Or is that splitting hairs?
Yet the religious are allowed to insult people quite freely (gays, non-believers, women etc) and that's just tickety-boo
No it's not.
questioning someone's position and pointing out the quite obvious contradictions is simply debate.
That's absolutely correct, but that's not what I'm arguing against. It's the constant insults that I have an issue with.
I try not to hate people because of their opinions, but sometimes those opinions are so vile it just can't be helped.
Vile opinions are vile irrespective of whether or not they are religious. Likewise, benign opinions. A great many religious people do not hold vile beliefs.
I've always argued that religion should be not be covered under this legislation.
You can argue that as much as you like.
But it is included. So that's the way it is currently.
Actually I chose the word carefully, as I wanted to avoid reference to any one particular religion. In my book they are all as bad as each other, and there is little to chose between them. I started off with believers, but in context I felt it would be taken as a Christian reference, thus the offensive Clarksonism.
The word you were looking for is "Religious" 😉
I suppose what I'm saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don't always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I'll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint 😉
You don't have a clue what my viewpoint is.
So you are awful at explaining yourself and what you think?
Grum is right about a meme on here about handwringing and being offended for others ..like compassion or empathy are bad things and we should ignore everything that does not affect me drirectly.
by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument - if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think
You can argue that as much as you like.But it is included. So that's the way it is currently.
Yes, I know.
Awful, isn't it?
A piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.
he is right about a memem about handwringing and being offended for others that seems to be crop up on here
I'm not handwringing btw, I am arguing against poor thinking.
You're arguing against human nature.
Probably.
Calling it human nature doesn't excuse it though.
I am arguing against poor thinking.
So are we strangely enough
(Edit: We being the non religious)
by that argument i should not be worried if they rape women ..its a crap argument - if its not yours I would stop articulating it and say what you think
WTF...?!
Huge leap there, fella...
🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member
An excellent piece of legislation ruined to appease the religious.
A huge opportunity missed.
Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?
Calling it human nature doesn't excuse it though.
But there is an excuse.
Some opinions are so vile that they need to be challenged.
And sometimes, just sometimes, ridicule is the only appropriate method.
Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?
How is that relevant?
Bear in mind that's harass in the legal definition, not the 'criticism is harrassment' definition.
I realise that yes.
But ......
A simple test, we throw them all into Grafton Water, those that float we burn as witches.
(I fully expect the "Edinburgh Defence" to be deployed 😐 )
…hang on a minute - who's saying what? I've lost track, and now I don't know who to argue with next.
I suppose what I'm saying, admittedly not very well, is that just because someone is religious, or has faith, whatever, they don't always follow doctrine blindly. Fair enough, I could be accused of cherry picking which bits of Catholicism I agree with, but hey ho, I'll deal with that when I have to. Or not, depending on your viewpoint
Yup I think most people get that, but I suppose I start to wonder why you would still call yourself a catholic if you are opposed to quite a few of the core beliefs that the leaders of the church get very het up about (never mind all the scandals/cover-ups etc). It's entirely up to you of course and I'm not judging you for it, but it seems a bit odd to me.
STW towers clearly tolerates religion-bashing and the lack of moderation suggests that it may even encourage it.
STW tolerates religious, or indeed any, debate. Threads get closed when they get out of hand.
What's the alternative to this perceived "lack of moderation?" Censorship? Would you rather that any discussion about religion was immediately closed?
Most threads on this topic are merely rehashes on a rotating 48 hour basis of entrenched positions
Don't read them, then?
You do have to respect other people's right to hold a different opinion on subjective matters
Correct. But,
- and that means not slagging them off
Incorrect. Or rather, 'slagging them off' is perhaps a bit strong; abusing someone isn't nice irrespective of the reasons why. That's not a religion issue, that's being a decent human being issue. But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can't have it both ways.
in other words, I absolutely respect someone's right to hold a different opinion. But that's not the same thing as respecting that opinion, and it's a fallacy to group the two together.
Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself...
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:
I'm a Catholic, admittedly more by the way I was brought up, but religious all the same. I'm pro gay marriage (good job really as I have a gay son), I'm not anti abortion,
You're not a very good Catholic, then. Sounds a bit like calling yourself a non-smoker, apart from cigarettes.
Have you considered changing denominations to something that better represents your world view?
But if someone is allowed to have wild and crazy ideas, then someone else is allowed to challenge that. You can't have it both ways.
Or to paraphrase Gypsy Rose Lee.
"If you don't like being laughed at then you shouldn't have such funny ideas!
Rusty Spanner - Member"Are there any examples where you feel that someone has been incorrectly prosecuted for their views on religion under this legislation?"
How is that relevant?
Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?
To bring this back to the initial mention of the pope.
Does anyone else find it weird that when top religionists (the current ex pope and mother theresa spring to mind) are honest and reflect on their beliefs (pope in his speech and m.t. in her biography) they talk about how god often seems absent and how its all a bit of a struggle to believe.
Doesn't that seem a bit weird?
Its like they [i]almost[/i] realise the truth but can't quite take the next step.
I could almost feel sorry for them, if it wasn't for the other evils they'd perpetrated and supported in the name of their imaginary friend.
Cougar - all those points being tackled with such a strong tone. A [i]booming voice[/i] - almost god-like...
🙂
I was christened as a catholic after being born premature and not being expected to survive. Also, I suspect an element of my mam wanting to piss my dad off, an ex catholic and very vocal anti religionist. My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?
No, it doesn't.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.
Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.
"Now there IS a sign of madness.... talking to myself...
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:"
Dear dear C .... I held your view once, not so long ago.... as you well know.
I'm really glad I dont any more.
I can't understand how, if you don't believe in the concept of heaven and hell, you'd get so upset if a religious person thinks you're headed to hell in a handcart. I'm all for a bit of handwringing but this does seem a bit on the sensitive side to me.
Succinctly demonstrates how an atheist views prayer... (-:
See? Even the modz are laughing at the devout. Seems ernie was right. 🙂
Rusty Spanner - Member"Because I think that our laws are usually well written and that applies to this. I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected. So I would like to know, where (in your opinion) has this law been incorrectly applied? Because if there are no examples of people being 'wrongly' prosecuted it kind of ruins you assertion that the legislation is 'ruined'. No?"
No, it doesn't.
Just because a law has not yet been incorrecty applied does not mean that the law itself is not dangerous.Your argument is irrelevant and incorrect.
Well I kind of like 'evidence', 'proof' and 'examples'. It's just as relevant as your unsupported opinion (I'll call it a 'hunch') that this law is 'ruined' and now potentially 'dangerous'.
Rusty spanner, I'm a bit confused now.
A couple of pages back when someone suggested people had a right not to be insulted based on their religion you said that they didn't and you could say whatever you wanted to them and there was nothing they could do about it.
When it was pointed out that this wasnt actually the case, you said you had been arguing against religion being part of that legislation for years (but you seemed not to be aware of it previously?)
darcy, as I mentioned before, a good friend's mother is a devout born-again Christian, and she really strongly believes all of her kids are going to be damned to a fiery hell for eternity unless they repent and find Jesus. She gets really upset about it.
I dunno if offensive is the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.
Neal, the legislation does not provide a right not to be insulted based on religion.
My own views are clearly not in line with the churches, and I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
WOAH THERE, if you're going to be reflective, honest and polite you can bugger off this thread. pesky christians with their politeness, i want to be reading athiest fury.
Atheist fury - now there's a good name for a band!
I also think it is entirely right that religion is protected.
Why?
I have to agree, that doesn't make me a good catholic. Neither does it make me a bad person, just a conflicted one.
You can be a good or a bad Catholic, and a good or a bad person. The two aren't codependant (despite what the faith might have you believe to the contrary).
Seriously though, I don't know why you'd want to associate with an organisation whose views were in conflict with your own. Well, I could guess; habit, peer / family pressure, inertia? There's plenty of ways to be Christian without being Catholic, and plenty more ways still to be religious / spiritual. Western Buddhism, perhaps?
I dunno if offensive as the right word but its certainly abhorrent/tragic.
I guess being raised a catholic in Ireland, then realising it was all bollocks at an early age (aided, surprisingly by the realisation that my mum didn't really believe it either, but just went along with it because of a devout father) helped me not to give a shit. I do agree with you that it's a bit tragic though.