Should we ban blasphemy

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And a lot will be solved by trashing it. No, it's just an excuse to take a few flogs at everyone's favorite whipping subject.

Blasphemy is not bashing religion - blasphemy is calling any resistence to religion having its demanded way, a crime of hate, intolerance, or whatever.

You really have pushed yourself into a corner there.

Just check the many ways in which religiously motivated discrimination has found its ways into the laws and constitutions of quite several of your American federal states. For some reason that simply indicates double-standards, I have never heared a religious complaining about this sort of discrimination of different believers, or atheists. It seems that in some Americans' understanding even Bin Laden benefits from the circumstance that at least he was no atheist.

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.

I had you separated from the usual religious zealots until today, but you repeatedly have illustrated now in some snapped comments the kind of double standards that usually come from right the religious zealots form which I tried to see you different. Should I take it that I have overestimated you? Please say No.

Play your radio silent enough so that others do not need to bother. Then the others maybe will stop yelling at you. And maybe then you see what the link between both events is.

If somebody still wonders what blasphemy is, and when it is called that: not agreeing with this text - that is blasphemy. Simply replace the words "Islamic" "Sharia", "Muslim" etc generally with "religious" or "any religion", and you see what blasphemy is, and what the purpose is of making this call.

And maybe you also see why not just Islam is a problem, but any orthodox fundamentalism in any religion in general. Christian and/or Jewish zealots have much more in common with those Islamic evil-doers they condemn, than these zealots are aware of. The difference is only clothing and language. The mindsets are the same.

[mapuc]

I have only one answer

"NO"

Markus

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Blasphemy is not bashing religion - blasphemy is calling any resistence to religion having its demanded way, a crime of hate, intolerance, or whatever.

You really have pushed yourself into a corner there.

Just check the many ways in which religiously motivated discrimination has found its ways into the laws and constitutions of quite several of your American federal states. For some reason that simply indicates double-standards, I have never heared a religious complaining about this sort of discrimination of different believers, or atheists. It seems that in some Americans' understanding even Bin Laden benefits from the circumstance that at least he was no atheist.

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.

I had you separated from the usual religious zealots until today, but you repeatedly have illustrated now in some snapped comments the kind of double standards that usually come from right the religious zealots form which I tried to see you different. Should I take it that I have overestimated you? Please say No.

Play your radio silent enough so that others do not need to bother. Then the others maybe will stop yelling at you. And maybe then you see what the link between both events is.

If somebody still wonders what blasphemy is, and when it is called that: not agreeing with this text - that is blasphemy. Simply replace the words "Islamic" "Sharia", "Muslim" etc generally with "religious" or "any religion", and you see what blasphemy is, and what the purpose is of making this call.

And maybe you also see why not just Islam is a problem, but any orthodox fundamentalism in any religion in general. Christian and/or Jewish zealots have much more in common with those Islamic evil-doers they condemn, than these zealots are aware of. The difference is only clothing and language. The mindsets are the same.

And you have done nothing but prove my point; that you are using this thread yet another platform to trash religion. You simply take the opportunity to tell us that religion (except for your religion) is bad. That's a whole lot like the very people that you profess to stand against.

How silent is a silent radio for you? Am I allowed to go to mass? If I do, may I sing hymns? How many? Of what type? May I say 'God bless you' when someone sneezes? If so, how often? May I recite the Pledge of Allegiance? If so, how often should I omit 'under God'? I wasn't even aware that my faith was bothering you. I never proselytize, and certainly not on SubSim. In fact, the only time I talk about religion is when someone (usually you) is telling me how stupid religion is (except for your's, of course), and what a small-minded bigot I am for practicing it (also except for your's). It would seem that the very existence of the faith that I practice and the fact that I do practice it is an affront to you. In fact, on SubSim, it is always the atheists throwing the punches and those of faith absorbing them. I am tired of it, Skybird. Very, very tired of it.

And you can respect me or not; it makes very little difference to me. As for me, I'll keep my views regarding you to myself.

[Skybird]

You are blinded by your anger. I have not bashed religion in general here, until here I namely addressed fanatism, zealots, and fundamentalism instead. I indicated that religions shall not have more freedoms than non-religious attitudes, and should not enjoy their self-claimed freedoms if they come at the cost of freedoms of people not sharing these world views. It surprises me again and again, how easily religious people will to discriminate others - and not seeing that they do - but then, it surprises me not at all, and that is why I am so hostile to religions whenever they raise their head. But relativize their freedom to the same levels others have, and they immediately accuse you of being intolerant and attacking religion, not seeing the double standards they operate by.

And you are surprised when raising opposition? Maybe you just claim and demand too much for yourself...?

Your radio is then not too loud when you do not demand your tune finding the state's support in being mandatory played or being played in schools and at courts, the volume set to a level that the people in the neighbouring flat can live their lives not needing to listen to it whenever you turn it on, and not needing to come to you and ask you to reduce the volume. You also can paint your flat in a colour that I find distasteful - as long as I am not getting asked to paint mine the same way.

You indeed repeatedly display an attitude that takes it for granted that you have the right to put your freedoms and rights over the rights and freedoms of those not agreeing with your belief. And that is why you raise the resistance from people like me.

Your freedom ends where you demand your freedom executed at the cost of others' freedom. And you are expected to make sure all by yourself that you do not push that far that others need to be bothered. You have the same freedoms and rights - and not more. But the truth is that atheists are discriminated in your country. Are excluded from holding public office in certain states (by states' constitutions) although this violates opposite rules be federal law and court sentences. Plus in many schools - or all? - they are confronted with religious references without them being able to avoid them.

The pledge of allegiance originally was without reference to "under God". Religious campaigning tricked the state into introducing this, a Catholic order. The constitutional legality can be questioned. The same is true for that certain text added to your bank notes.

The stronger you push,m the more force returns. Bother others, they will bother you in return. Reduce their freedom, and see them questioning yours.

Leave them as they are, and they well leave you what you are.

You just do not understand this, because to religion, freedom means not unconditional freedom, but freedom for itself, freedom like said religion understands it - with the others expected to play by its rules, no matter their own attitudes. But the US is not an explicitly Christian or religious state, and it never was founded as that. Not even the inetion was there to acchieve that. The US was funded as an country with explicit freedom for all - not accepting priviliged freedoms for any religions.

Your view may be religious. But it is not secular. And to me, secularism is of more importance than religions' claim for special benefits given to them. Where you put religion, no matter which one, over freedom, you are every free man's enemy. And free people like me will set up a fight. Every time.

That's why I am unforgiving about Islam. Totalitarianism in general. And the churches. Jewish orthodox. And Christian zealots as well.

Your belief is your private thing, an intimate relation between you and the object your belief is about. Other should need to be concerned as much by it as by the color of your underwear. Keep it where it belongs, that is: to thyself, and we all are fine. Bother or annoy others with expecting them to witness it time and again when you try to spread it's influence, or missionize, or try to anchor it in legislation and public education, or in global politics, and don't be surprised about being greeted by hostility. It does not matter whether you are Jewish or Christian or Muhammeddan, I don't care. The message is the same for all three of you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You indeed repeatedly display an attitude that takes it for granted that you have the right to put your freedoms and rights over those not agreeing with your belief. And that is why you raise the resistence from people like me.

Then you have homework. I am giving you 24 hours to find anywhere where I have said that my religion is to be forced upon anyone. You can find my complete post history in my profile. Be sure to include date and context. Footnote with commentary if necessary.

The stronger you push,m the more force returns.

The second part of your assignment, also due tomorrow. Find where I have pushed for public religious inclusion. Again, be sure to include date and context. Footnotes are also optional but encouraged.

Get cracking.

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well, it is pretty hard to be mad at Buddhists

Well, I know one Buddhist that I'm not real crazy about.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Then you have homework. I am giving you 24 hours to find anywhere where I have said that my religion is to be forced upon anyone. You can find my complete post history in my profile. Be sure to include date and context. Footnote with commentary if necessary.

Your implications, and displayed attitude as to be concluded on by your arguments. Last be seen in right this thread. Save that lawyer trickery for other opportunities, I do not buy that.

The second part of your assignment, also due tomorrow. Find where I have pushed for public religious inclusion. Again, be sure to include date and context. Footnotes are also optional but encouraged.

See above.

I take you by your words, Takeda, and I go for the meaning they deliver. And different to what August and you recently tried on me, I do not even take yours out of context. I even still give you the benefit of doubt, though it is somewhat fading.

But Jim is right. It's a dead end at best here. Since it now shifts to a personal level, it can only become ugly.

Some years ago I repeatedly suggested to Neal that topics on religion and certain political things just should be banned, by forum rules. I suggested that even repeatedly. But noooo....

P.S. Just for the record: I did not start this thread. Like everybody in here, I reacted. No trigger - no reaction.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your implications, and displayed attitude as to be concluded on by your arguments. Last be seen in right this thread. Save that lawyer trickery for other opportunities, I do not buy that.



See above.

I take you by your words, Takeda, and I go for the meaning they deliver. And different to what August and you recently tried on me, I do not even take yours out of context. I even still give you the benefit of doubt, though it is somewhat fading.

But Jim is right. It's a dead end at best here. Since it now shifts to a personal level, it can only become ugly.

Some years ago I repeatedly suggested to Neal that topics on religion and certain political things just should be banned, by forum rules. I suggested that even repeatedly. But noooo....

P.S. Just for the record: I did not start this thread. Like everybody in here, I reacted. No trigger - no reaction.

You are the one that has engaged in a logical fallacy (strawman variant), and so you are now enrolled in the Takeda School of Internet Discourse. You have been started on a simple 100-level course on the technique of argument, but you refuse to complete the assignment. Poor form.

No, instead of simple acknowledgement of the fact that you placed words in my mouth to alter the meaning of my posts, you prefer to slink away with your ball. You have no ground to stand upon in your claim of superiority.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You are the one that has engaged in a logical fallacy (strawman variant), and so you are now enrolled in the Takeda School of Internet Discourse. You have been started on a simple 100-level course on the technique of argument, but you refuse to complete the assignment. Poor form.

No, instead of simple acknowledgement of the fact that you placed words in my mouth to alter the meaning of my posts, you prefer to slink away with your ball. You have no ground to stand upon in your claim of superiority.

Should I reply by a diagnosis now focussing on symptoms of refusing reality, functional short-term-memory deficits that deserve a neurological examination, and a neurotic syndrome that in the main manifests itself in projections and a complex layer of latent auto-aggression that must probably be adressed by a psychoanalytical therapy?

I suggest we leave that infantile gameplaying here and simply stop. I promise I will not feel bothered tomorrow morning by the churchbells ringing.

The noise of a muezzin balking however would stress my tolerance too much, I fear - too ugly.

well, it is pretty hard to be mad at Buddhists

Tell that to China or Burma..

You are blinded by your anger. I have not bashed religion in general here, until here I namely addressed fanatism, zealots, and fundamentalism instead.

Is that from the person who is so blinded by their anger they repeat worn out lies again and again due to their fanatical fundamentalist zealotry against religion?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There are many people in your country that are afraid that their neighbours could find out that they are atheists, fearing for their jobs, the safety of their children when the are at school, their social life.

In my 56 years living here I have never been subject to any fear, or retribution for being an agnostic turned atheist. This type of stuff does happen, not in major metropolitan areas but in the smaller rural communities and I don't believe it's very widespread at that. I also think that is an attitude that was more prevalent a few decades ago before women's liberation changed the work force and standard family unit.

EDIT: This just in from the religion of peace.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ir...om-jail-81291/