Ratzinger - "Christians most persecuted religious group in the world"

Marcus.Aurelius

monosharp wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not entirely true. He likes to say things like this are true to get others to hop on the propaganda bandwagon.

It's not true in all provinces in China, or at very least it is ignored in some. The Chinese girl I work with isn't sure if it's illegal or not, she just knows she went to sunday school when she was in her mid-teens.

Darn.

:pac:

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, it is reasonable to allow an exception where the exercise of a religious belief or practice would cause a greater infringement of human rights for someone else. Female genital mutilation performed on children would be a good example of this.

So if a religious belief is against human rights for example, the right for a woman to choose abortion if pregnancy endangers her life, then it is not persecution to have a law against it ?

No, because it is a dumb question and a red herring. I think Phelps is an ass and have no interest in indulging your fascination with him. Although, given your anti-libertarian comments so far, I can see why you like him.

Translation: I don't like Christian X so I won't support him but I like Christians Y so I'll support them.

You have actually lived in Ireland, have you? You don't need to be registered with any government department to do any of those things.

Well first of all I didn't say register with the government. I said register with anyone. And secondly I'm pretty sure you have to register yourself with the government on some level.

Open to correction though.

Your true colours are really shing through now, aren't they? You think it fair that no-one should be allowed to preach in a church unless they have been approved by the State?

Why not ? With the amount of crazies preaching from pulpits some kind of filter is needed.

Now you're deliberately pretending to be stupid. You really think that something is not a religious belief unless you can show what page of the Bible it is on?

No I think that you pick and choose whatever your religious beliefs are or are not depending on what you want to gain.

It is a denial of a basic human right. I should be free to pray and discuss the Bible with others in my home if I wish. I am amazed that anyone except a fascist would think otherwise.

Tell me something PDN.

Do I or do I not have the right to go about my daily business without having to listen to some nonsense monger going on about his or her imaginary friends ?

Just answer this honestly will you.

I have never made such a claim, and you a liar for implying that I have.

You refuse to answer the question about religious beliefs violating other laws such as spousal abuse in the UK and whether or not those laws are then persecution laws.

JimiTime

smokingman wrote: »

...dim? Really?

Yep, astoundingly so. That and blinkered. Report away.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So if a religious belief is against human rights for example, the right for a woman to choose abortion if pregnancy endangers her life, then it is not persecution to have a law against it ?

Persecution to have a law permitting abortion? Of course not.

Translation: I don't like Christian X so I won't support him but I like Christians Y so I'll support them.

No, the translation is that I'm discussing the topic of this thread, namely the case of Christians who are being persecuted - not Fred Phelps.

Well first of all I didn't say register with the government. I said register with anyone. And secondly I'm pretty sure you have to register yourself with the government on some level.

Open to correction though.

Well apparently you're not open to correction since I've told you the facts and I should know since I've established a number of churches in Ireland. Our laws are what you would expect in a liberal secular democracy. There is no more registration required to establish a church than there is to establish a Mary Harney fan club or a fantasy football league.

Why not ? With the amount of crazies preaching from pulpits some kind of filter is needed.

Because of free speech. Most of us, but apparently not you, think even crazies should have the right to speak if others are willing to listen to them.

Tell me something PDN.

Do I or do I not have the right to go about my daily business without having to listen to some nonsense monger going on about his or her imaginary friends ?

Just answer this honestly will you.

That depends where you are. If you are in your own home, or another private place, then you or whoever owns the place has the right to determine what is or is not spoken there.

But you do not have the right to censor others in public settings, not unless you are willing for others to equally silence you if they don't agree with your what you have to say.

And, what is much more relevant to what we are talking about, you absolutely do not have the right to enter someone else's property and demand that they refrain from discussing whatever they want to talk about.

It's quite simple really. Some of us support free speech and others support the totalitarian suppression of any speech they find annoying or disagreeable.

You refuse to answer the question about religious beliefs violating other laws such as spousal abuse in the UK and whether or not those laws are then persecution laws.

I haven't refused at all.

Domestic abuse is in itself a denial of someone's basic human rights, Therefore laws to prohibit domestic abuse are not persecution, even if the abuser claims a religious motivation.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

smokingman wrote: »

...dim? Really?

Yep, astoundingly so. That and blinkered.

Do try to avoid the arm-waving personal insults.

Mark Hamill

So looking over this thread, something occured to me with respect to what PDN said the pope actually meant. The pope said:

It should be clear that religious fundamentalism and secularism are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity.

If he was using the normal, modern meaning, that would imply that the pope was claiming that secularism in politics is the equivilent of fundamentalist religious oppression ie christians no longer have complete power, therefore they are being oppressed.
However, PDN says he is using ye olde meaninge of secularism(e), it being defined as:

being the principle that life is best lived without any reference to religion or deities whatsoever.

ie secularism as a personal thing, individuals removing religion from their own life.

So according to PDN, the pope is saying that 200-300million christians are persecuting themselves.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Do try to avoid the arm-waving personal insults.

Ok, some of the posts have come across as dim and blinkered. Can I use that loop hole :pac:

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, some of the posts have come across as dim and blinkered. Can I use that loop hole :pac:

Not a loophole -- do check the rules. By all means, call a post dim and blinkered, but not a poster.

Let off this time for good behaviour, and the fact that it's winterval week

Nodin

Seeing as we're now into the Christmas game 'Decipher the Pope', heres the actual message, in full.
http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/26567.php?index=26567&lang=en#TESTO IN LINGUA INGLESE

smokingman

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, some of the posts have come across as dim and blinkered. Can I use that loop hole :pac:

This just in, Religious post in "loophole" shocker!
:pac:

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So looking over this thread, something occured to me with respect to what PDN said the pope actually meant. The pope said:

If he was using the normal, modern meaning, that would imply that the pope was claiming that secularism in politics is the equivilent of fundamentalist religious oppression ie christians no longer have complete power, therefore they are being oppressed.
However, PDN says he is using ye olde meaninge of secularism(e), it being defined as:

ie secularism as a personal thing, individuals removing religion from their own life.

So according to PDN, the pope is saying that 200-300million christians are persecuting themselves.

It's not even that clear cut - take the Pope's quote:

the pope wrote:

It should be clear that religious fundamentalism and secularism are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity.

Note how he equated religious fundamentalism with secularism.

Even if you take this definition of secularism:

special definition of secularism wrote:

being the principle that life is best lived without any reference to religion or deities whatsoever.

I fail to see how you can equate that with religious fundamentalism only, I would have said that most religious people (not just the fundamentalists) would agree with the statement:

life is best lived with a reference to religion or deities.

So even this "outrageous" definition of secularism is in no way stronger than any practicing Catholic would believe for their own faith, once again the religious are quick to call beliefs "extreme" when they are merely mirrors of their own beliefs.

It's perfectly possible to hold the belief "life is best lived without any reference to religion or deities whatsoever" while being respectful of others practicing their religion.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Well apparently you're not open to correction since I've told you the facts and I should know since I've established a number of churches in Ireland. Our laws are what you would expect in a liberal secular democracy. There is no more registration required to establish a church than there is to establish a Mary Harney fan club or a fantasy football league.

Again. I refer you back to my question, I didn't say register yourself as a church or as a religious body. I simply said register yourself to anyone.

Because of free speech. Most of us, but apparently not you, think even crazies should have the right to speak if others are willing to listen to them.

Like Jim Jones ? You don't think it would have been nice to have some kind of filter there to stop people like him been allowed to gain such a position ?

But you do not have the right to censor others in public settings, not unless you are willing for others to equally silence you if they don't agree with your what you have to say.

So according to you I must listen to this nonsense on public transport and in public parks etc. ?

Forgive me If I'd be more then happy to have something similar to China's law in this respect implemented worldwide.

And, what is much more relevant to what we are talking about, you absolutely do not have the right to enter someone else's property and demand that they refrain from discussing whatever they want to talk about.

Absolutely agree. But it isn't religious persecution.

It's quite simple really. Some of us support free speech and others support the totalitarian suppression of any speech they find annoying or disagreeable.

Some religious evangelists in public areas are some of the most rude people I have ever met. They will not leave people alone. They need to be told several times to go away.

You really think it's perfectly fine for religious people to go around like this mentally abusing people ?

Domestic abuse is in itself a denial of someone's basic human rights, Therefore laws to prohibit domestic abuse are not persecution, even if the abuser claims a religious motivation.

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights trumps any religious text or religious view ?

aidan24326

[...between 200 million and 300 million Christians...] face daily threats of murder, beating, imprisonment and murder and a further 350-400 million encounter discrimination in areas such as jobs and housing.

Surely a wild exaggeration? What on earth is he on about,

I know it wasn't JR who said the quote above, but I so think Ratzinger is going senile at this stage. Talks increasing amounts of gibberish every time he opens his mouth these days.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Again. I refer you back to my question, I didn't say register yourself as a church or as a religious body. I simply said register yourself to anyone.

Then you're just playing silly word games since we were discussing the laws in China that require churches to register with the Government, not with the milkman.

Like Jim Jones ? You don't think it would have been nice to have some kind of filter there to stop people like him been allowed to gain such a position ?

No, I think that governmental restriction of free speech such as you advocate is totalitarian. This is not just in respect to religion, but also to politics, vegetarianism, and a host of other subjects.

The best antidote to people like jim Jones is open and honest debate, not govermental control.

So according to you I must listen to this nonsense on public transport and in public parks etc. ?

If you prefer you can have a system where nobody is alllowed to talk to anyone about anything on public transport or in parks. But to advocate that you should be free to talk about what you like, but that others should be restricted from doing so, is the hallmark of a bigot.

Forgive me If I'd be more then happy to have something similar to China's law in this respect implemented worldwide.

Of course you would. That wish you've just expressed is entirely consistent with your totalitarian tendencies and bigotry. I wouldn't expect anything different from you.

Absolutely agree. But it isn't religious persecution.

It is religious persecution if you allow people to meet in their homes for other purposes but not for religious activities. It definitely becomes religious persecution when you set up a Religious Affairs Bureau to regulate such activities by force.

Some religious evangelists in public areas are some of the most rude people I have ever met. They will not leave people alone. They need to be told several times to go away.

Well don't worry, you'll soon be in China where you can report them to the police and soothe your poor offended feelings by imagining how sorry they'll feel once their toenails are pulled out.

You really think it's perfectly fine for religious people to go around like this mentally abusing people ?

No, nor do I think it's fine for you to post ****e on the internet. But I think the principle of free speech is important enough to defend their right to mentally abuse you and also to defend your right to mentally abuse the people on boards.ie who don't like listening to apologists for the Communist regime in China.

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights trumps any religious text or religious view ?

It should when it comes to framing the laws of a nation State, yes. That's why I believe in a secular society with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Unlike you I would not advocate or support laws to silence those with whom I disagree.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Then you're just playing silly word games since we were discussing the laws in China that require churches to register with the Government, not with the milkman.

Well then you didn't understand my point.

There are some people who think any kind of registration is against their beliefs, yet the government isn't going to allow me to build a house tomorrow without planning permission.

Is that religious persecution ?

No, I think that governmental restriction of free speech such as you advocate is totalitarian. This is not just in respect to religion, but also to politics, vegetarianism, and a host of other subjects.

I have the right to go about my day in peace, not having to listen to deluded fools holding crosses. It's a violation of my rights to a peaceful existence.

The best antidote to people like jim Jones is open and honest debate, not govermental control.

That's quite arguable.

If you prefer you can have a system where nobody is alllowed to talk to anyone about anything on public transport or in parks.

I didn't say that. I said I had the right to go about my day in peace.

Purposely soliciting people to join cult X or trying to sell people product Y in public places such as the subway should not be allowed. I am just as much against the people trying to get you to buy things as I am against the christian evangelist.

There's a difference between free speech and trying to lure people into a cult/religion or getting them to buy things.

Of course you would. That wish you've just expressed is entirely consistent with your totalitarian tendencies and bigotry. I wouldn't expect anything different from you.

Trying to lure people into various religions by walking up to them in public areas is basically spamming, just face to face. That should not be allowed.

It is religious persecution if you allow people to meet in their homes for other purposes but not for religious activities. It definitely becomes religious persecution when you set up a Religious Affairs Bureau to regulate such activities by force.

And yet you still haven't answered any of my questions regarding that FAQ.

So is that woman, the Rev., a communist propagandist or not ?

Well don't worry, you'll soon be in China where you can report them to the police and soothe your poor offended feelings by imagining how sorry they'll feel once their toenails are pulled out.

How many times in your opinion do I have to tell someone to 'please leave me alone I do not want to listen to you' before they should leave me alone ?

Don't you think it should be illegal to continue to annoy someone even after they have asked you to leave them alone ?

It should when it comes to framing the laws of a nation State, yes.

What if it changes next year to disagree with one of your articles of faith ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Well then you didn't understand my point.

There are some people who think any kind of registration is against their beliefs, yet the government isn't going to allow me to build a house tomorrow without planning permission.

Is that religious persecution ?

No-one has said that any kind of registration is against their beliefs. What was stated was that "the requirements for registration" as a church are contrary to their consciences.

Now, instead of admitting that fact, you are going down the route of arguing that, in your opinion, these requirements should not be against their consciences. It's utter crap as an argument. Instead of understanding that people's freedom of religion is being free to live and act according to their religious beliefs and consciences - you are arguing as if freedom of religion actually means that people are free to live and act according to what monosharp, as a very biased atheist, thinks their beliefs and consciences should be.

And that's why there's no point in engaging with the rest of your post. You are trying to hijack this into an argument about whether the Chinese underground churches should hold the beliefs that they do about registration.

So I don't see where there is any point in further discussion. I have expressed my view that there are millions of Christians around the world who live in fear of being beaten, arrested or murdered. Ratzinger, despite his organisation's less than glorious record in the past when it comes to freedom of religion, has said something similar.

Most atheist posters have questioned whether such abuses of freedom of speech and freedom of religion really happen with the frequency alluded to by Ratzinger. That is a fair question, and one with which I have attempted to engage. You, however, have chosen the very different path of arguing that restricting freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a good thing.

To be honest, now that you've done your bit of justifying the Chinese government's actions, and even expressed your wish that their policies could be extended worldwide, I don't see any value in discussing any of this further with you. It would be no different from trying to discuss race relations policy with someone from the English Defence League.

Now, no doubt you will start up with, "Ah look, PDN is refusing to answer my questions." If that's the way you want to read this then I guess I can't do anything about that. But I genuinely want to have as little interaction with people like you as possible.

kaiser sauze

The pope may be right, but they deserve it.

Religion, and christianity in particular, has been the underlying cause for every war. The sooner we all move to atheism and simple mutual respect, the better we will all be. Religion is nothing more than accepted cults.

Improbable

Living in fear of being persecuted is not the same thing as actually being persecuted. All I can see is the thread being derailed onto a different issue altogether. At the end of the day, the pope and the spokesperson both made erroneous sanctimonious announcements and given that they hold themselves in such high regard, these mistakes should be pointed out and criticised.

Improbable

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The pope may be right, but they deserve it.

I don't know how you could actually believe that...

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Religion, and christianity in particular, has been the underlying cause for every war.

This is simply factually wrong.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The sooner we all move to atheism and simple mutual respect, the better we will all be. Religion is nothing more than accepted cults.

Not really. If religion were to be kept a private thing and didn't interfere negatively in other peoples lives, there is nothing wrong with it. I still wouldn't be religious but I wouldn't care if other people were.

Retarded posts like these give ammunition to theists when it is an opinion held only by a few atheists who do not represent the majority.

kaiser sauze

Improbable wrote: »

I don't know how you could actually believe that...

Quite easily.

Improbable wrote: »

This is simply factually wrong.

Try and specify a war that does not have a religious undertone, you will struggle.

Improbable wrote: »

Not really. If religion were to be kept a private thing and didn't interfere negatively in other peoples lives, there is nothing wrong with it. I still wouldn't be religious but I wouldn't care if other people were.

I don't care either.

Improbable wrote: »

Retarded posts like these give ammunition to theists when it is an opinion held only by a few atheists who do not represent the majority.

I could care less what theists think of my statement, they've been getting it wrong for over 3,000 years.

Improbable

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Try and specify a war that does not have a religious undertone, you will struggle.

Genghis Khan

Edit: Certainly religions have been used as a label to identify one side or another or both in wars. And certainly there have been many wars caused by religion. But by the same token, there have been ethnic cleansings and genocides which have been perpetrated in the name of religion but only as a cover for greed and desire for power. Religion is extremely capable of uniting people in a common goal and as such, is a powerful tool for leaders to use.

smokingman

With regard to registration of churches, I would imagine if a collection plate was passed around during a mass, then they should most definitely be registered with a government just the same as a charity organisation.

...or is it one law for scientology (a perfectly valid religion) and none for christianity?

kaiser sauze

smokingman wrote: »

With regard to registration of churches, I would imagine if a collection plate was passed around during a mass, then they should most definitely be registered with a government just the same as a charity organisation.

...or is it one law for scientology (a perfectly valid religion) and none for christianity?

No.

They are the worst cult of them all, in fact, they are out of this world, literally and metaphorically.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

With regard to registration of churches, I would imagine if a collection plate was passed around during a mass, then they should most definitely be registered with a government just the same as a charity organisation.

...or is it one law for scientology (a perfectly valid religion) and none for christianity?

If they want to be recognised as a charity, with the attendant tax benefits, then they register as such. But you don't need to be registered in order to pass round a collection plate on private property.

After all, there's nothing to stop you meeting with a few mates in your living room tonight, deciding you're all going to attend a rugby match next week, and passing round a hat so everyone can drop a few euro in to cover the cost of the petrol.

That's all a church is in legal terms in Ireland. It is a voluntary gathering of like-minded individuals on private property who choose to pool some of their financial resources to do stuff collectively.

Now, if one person (either a pastor or the driver to the rugby match) is making a profit on the arrangement, then they have a personal obligation to declare that as income - but there is no obligation or necessity for the group contributing that money to be registered as a legal entity.

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

Now, if one person (either a pastor or the driver to the rugby match) is making a profit on the arrangement, then they have a personal obligation to declare that as income - but there is no obligation or necessity for the group contributing that money to be registered as a legal entity.

So what you're saying is that all pastors/priests/medicine men in Ireland give away all the money they take in? That's the only way that could make your point valid as, from what I can see, a lot of it is used for upkeep to the private property religious people meet in and to keep said leaders of that particular church in wine and bread.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

So what you're saying is that all pastors/priests/medicine men in Ireland give away all the money they take in? That's the only way that could make your point valid as, from what I can see, a lot of it is used for upkeep to the private property religious people meet in and to keep said leaders of that particular church in wine and bread.

No, that's nothing like what I said.

I'm saying that there is no legal obligation for a group of people meeting on private property to register as a legal entity. So, for example, there are hundreds of small churches around Ireland that meet in private homes or rent function rooms from hotels. In many of these the members, not the pastors, decide how the money is spent. The legal position is still no different from you and your mates pooling money to go to a football match. So, in these churches, the people who have pooled that money agree how it is to be spent. They might spend some on a guitar so they can sing together. They might agree to use some of it to sponsor a child in Malawi.

Now, most churches do indeed register as a company and/or as a charity because they find that more convenient, particularly if they want to conduct a legal transaction such as purchasing property. And, as a charity, they will be exempt from rates or stamp duty and members can then claim tax relief on their donations. But there is no legal obligation for them to so register if they don't want to.

robindch

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Religion, and christianity in particular, has been the underlying cause for every war.

And Michael Noonan understands economics.

Honestly, even religious truth-claims seem only slightly false in comparison.

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

The legal position is still no different from you and your mates pooling money to go to a football match. So, in these churches, the people who have pooled that money agree how it is to be spent. They might spend some on a guitar so they can sing together. They might agree to use some of it to sponsor a child in Malawi.

Much like a credit union then so?....which are registered and regulated in this country.

I would imagine in that kind of situation, it would be wise to have registration simply for the financial records of the participants. When I give money to a charity or registered organisation, I like to make sure my financial records reflect this in some official capacity. Regulation would also prevent the occurances of the pastor/priest/medicine man running away with the funds as has happened before several times.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should listen to what people actually say before you go off on one of your hobby-horse rants?

So, on the planet where you live it is disingenuous for me to state a fact

Er, OK, if you think that's a point worth making then all power to your elbow!

Everything else you think I said is, sadly, in your own head.

Jeez, I understand group solidarity and all that, but don't you think that's a rather pathetic scraping of the bottom of the barrel?

Only in your head.

I cannot be held responsible for the marvellous things that occur in your imagination.

More irrelevant twaddle.

Logic obviously isn't your strong point.

It really isn't easy to deal with such muddle-headed questions

Ok, try to concentrate really hard now.

so I suggest you take your silly little accusations of sensitivity and put them back into your arsenal of strawmen.

In fact I'm rather baffled as to why you feel the need to argue about something (philosophy) that you obviously don't understand very well.

For goodness sake, take off your ideological blinkers and try reading a bloody dictionary:

Now, you're just making stuff up, aren't you?

Thank you for that measured contribution to the debate.

And I cannot believe that anyone would advance the chillingly bone-headed argument

You need to stand in front of a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself, mate.

You really are coming across as a stooge and a shill for the Communists.

And it was a poor point that was poorly put.

That red herring is really starting to smell bad at this stage. Give it a rest.

I really can't be held responsible for what you 'take' due to your poor understanding of logic

But congratulations, that is certainly a very original red herring.

You really don't get this concept of separate forums, do you?

But I think you are laboring under a bit of misapprehension, probably caused by posting before reading.

Is there a College somewhere that teaches you how to do that?

Because it's a dumb question and a red herring.

No, because it is a dumb question and a red herring.

You have actually lived in Ireland, have you?

Now you're deliberately pretending to be stupid.

I am amazed that anyone except a fascist would think otherwise.

Then you're just playing silly word games

But to advocate....is the hallmark of a bigot.

That wish you've just expressed is entirely consistent with your totalitarian tendencies and bigotry. I wouldn't expect anything different from you.

No, nor do I think it's fine for you to post ****e on the internet.

It's utter crap as an argument

The expression 'You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar' comes to mind here.

I often find that people are more receptive to differing points of view and open to opposing arguments when they are put politely but firmly, and not laced with condecending sarcasm and insults.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

The expression 'You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar' comes to mind here.

I often find that people are more receptive to differing points of view and open to opposing arguments when they are put politely but firmly, and not laced with condecending sarcasm and insults.

Welcome to the internet.

I'm not a fan of your posting style either, but I let the mods determine whether it's acceptable or not.

So did you have any comments to make concerning the topic of the thread?

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

Much like a credit union then so?....which are registered and regulated in this country.

No, a credit union lend money at interest. It's a long time since I worked in financial services, but I do know that in the UK that would certainly have required a Consumer Credit Licence.

I would imagine in that kind of situation, it would be wise to have registration simply for the financial records of the participants. When I give money to a charity or registered organisation, I like to make sure my financial records reflect this in some official capacity. Regulation would also prevent the occurances of the pastor/priest/medicine man running away with the funds as has happened before several times.

Yes, I think it would be wise too. Similarly, if you and your mates are going to regularly club together to football matches, it would make sense to register as a club and to keep records. It might prevent one of your mates/acquaintances/pimps spending the petrol money on booze (as has happened before several times).

But it still is not a legal requirement.

Dades

achtungbarry wrote: »

I often find that people are more receptive to differing points of view and open to opposing arguments when they are put politely but firmly, and not laced with condecending sarcasm and insults.

I have to say, PDN, you are up there in my top five "most indignant posters" - in A&A at least.

i.e. Indignant at the thought that some knucklehead won't concede to your well reasoned and backed up arguments.

I wonder does it remind you of your time as an atheist?

pH

achtungbarry wrote: »

I often find that people are more receptive to differing points of view and open to opposing arguments when they are put politely but firmly, and not laced with condecending sarcasm and insults.

He has no interest in others' points of view, when his tortured logic is rejected he resorts to petty jibes and insults - mainly to derail threads, the mods here being enamored of him refuse to deal with it.

The last time I and others complained he then posted our infraction history in the thread - and complaints about that to the mods here weren't dealt with either.

PDN

pH wrote: »

He has no interest in others' points of view, when his tortured logic is rejected he resorts to petty jibes and insults - mainly to derail threads, the mods here being enamored of him refuse to deal with it.

The last time I and others complained he then posted our infraction history in the thread - and complaints about that to the mods here weren't dealt with either.

So how's the view from the backseat?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So how's the view from the backseat?

Ah, that's the spirit!

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

But it still is not a legal requirement.

Should be though, if an organised group have nothing to hide then why be against registration to begin with?

With regard to your football match analogy, there's a world of difference between that and an organised church. While Everton are worthy of worship, I'm not going to live my life according to their boards views on life!

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I have to say, PDN, you are up there in my top five "most indignant posters" - in A&A at least.

i.e. Indignant at the thought that some knucklehead won't concede to your well reasoned and backed up arguments.

I wonder does it remind you of your time as an atheist?

Actually, Dades, if I think someone is honest and interested in having a discussion with a genuine desire to hear what others think then I've got more honey than Boyne Valley Foods.

However, if a poster wants to lie, score petty points, deliberately attempt to rile other posters with comments about 'medicine-men or sky-fairies', or try to get revenge over some perceived slight in the moderating of another forum, then I have a huge bottle of vinegar that I keep reserved for just such occasions.

My deepest scorn, however, is reserved for those few individuals who try to be as insulting to theists as possible, but when they discover that turning the other cheek doesn't apply to internet discussions suddenly start bleating, "My feelings have been hurt by a horrible theist bogey-man. Why won't the mods do something?"

Dades

pH wrote: »

He has no interest in others' points of view, when his tortured logic is rejected he resorts to petty jibes and insults - mainly to derail threads, the mods here being enamored of him refuse to deal with it.

If posters here want to be treated like children and chided everytime someone offends their sensibilities then maybe you're in the wrong place. The leeway you all enjoy to challenge and bait religious posters goes both ways.

That someone's online personality grates on you is not enough for us to 'move in'.

pH wrote: »

The last time I and others complained he then posted our infraction history in the thread - and complaints about that to the mods here weren't dealt with either.

That doesn't mean you just quit reporting posts. If it's worth dealing with it - i.e. not just handbags - it will be dealt with. (I have no recollection of the infraction incident you talk of - do you have a link?)

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

Should be though, if an organised group have nothing to hide then why be against registration to begin with

Ah, the 'nothing to hide' argument. Of course it only works if everybody fully trusts those with whom you register.

"After all, Herr Schmidt, if the Jews have nothing to hide then why shouldn't they register with the Gestapo." (with apologies to Godwin)

With regard to your football match analogy, there's a world of difference between that and an organised church. While Everton are worthy of worship, I'm not going to live my life according to their boards views on life!

Ah, but now we're getting back to the whole meaning of secularism again, aren't we?

It doesn't matter whether a voluntary gathering of individuals or not. It doesn't matter how seriously they take their common interest. The whole point behind secularism is that religion should be treated the same as other voluntary associations and gatherings - not as a special case.

By implying that religion (because it involves worship and people deciding how to live their lives) should be treated differently and as a special case, you are in fact undermining the entire principle of secularism. So, it would appear that you are closer to the Pope's views than I am!

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

comments about 'medicine-men or sky-fairies'

Medicine men are the "priests/pastors" of a lot of villages in Africa. Are you saying they have less validity than yourself?

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

Medicine men are the "priests/pastors" of a lot of villages in Africa. Are you saying they have less validity than yourself?

Not so common in churches in Ireland, though, which is the context in which you chose to raise them.

Those who indulge in muppetry hardly have room to complain when they find that those who live by the sword can also die by the sword (now there's a mixed metaphor and a good biblical quote for you).

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

Not so common in churches in Ireland, though, which is the context in which you chose to raise them.

Those who indulge in muppetry hardly have room to complain when they find that those who live by the sword can also die by the sword (now there's a mixed metaphor and a good biblical quote for you).

I'm sure there are plenty of medicine men in Ireland with the immigration of African people and traditions in the last few years and I would see them as perfectly valid in the context, just the same as scientologists.

So taking your wonderfully vague metaphor, I take it you would like to kill me with a sword; is that it? Or does the vagueness of a point only apply when you, yourself, want to twist something?

....and Godwin...seriously? I lol'd!

Dades

I think the bickering, finger pointing and moderation (or lack thereof) has been addressed enough.

Let's move back on topic (or off - does it really matter?) people.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

those who live by the sword can also die by the sword

That'd be the Sword of Truth and the Trusty Shield of Fair Play?(*)

(*) Apologies for stealing the phrase from a certain fundamentalist christian.

Rabble Rabble

Lol. This thread is an example of the historically illiterate, semi-rational, inarticulate modern atheist at his worst. The Pope is almost certainly correct. Christians are discriminated against in most Muslim countries, and in regimes like China ( about 100M Christians there) and muslims are not in most Christian democracies.

The first page, did not only not acknowledge this fact, it got the asperger-syndromed shut-ins of Dawkinism riled up again. Ratzinger said something so it cant be true.

Thats faith based reasoning, right there.

smokingman

Yes, let's get back to the point shall we?

The pope said christians are being persecuted - of that, there is no doubt.
However, persecution in Europe of the group is an idealogical one and that is what riles people here I'm guessing. Should he not have made more of the horrors where the attack is physical?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No-one has said that any kind of registration is against their beliefs. What was stated was that "the requirements for registration" as a church are contrary to their consciences.

And again, I didn't say that. I said 'some people' (not the christians in china) think any kind of registration to the government is against their beliefs and then I asked you was this religious persecution.

And that's why there's no point in engaging with the rest of your post. You are trying to hijack this into an argument about whether the Chinese underground churches should hold the beliefs that they do about registration.

Wrong and more dribble and avoiding my main points.

I am not suggesting they shouldn't hold these views. I am suggesting that laws against these views does not make it religious persecution the same way as laws against any other number of religious beliefs are not religious persecution.

So I don't see where there is any point in further discussion.

Ah yes the PDN timely exit. After avoiding most of the points against you and erecting strawmen to destroy you can happily leave the thread here and claim victory.

You, however, have chosen the very different path of arguing that restricting freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a good thing.

What about my freedom ? I don't have the freedom to not have to listen to your or anyone else's delusional rubbish on public property ?

Now, no doubt you will start up with, "Ah look, PDN is refusing to answer my questions."

It's hard not to say it when it's true!

If that's the way you want to read this then I guess I can't do anything about that. But I genuinely want to have as little interaction with people like you as possible.

Well apparently you can't. You have to listen to me. I apparently have the right to follow you around in public places giving you my opinion and ignoring your requests to leave you alone. Loudspeaker optional of course. :rolleyes:

eamo12

strobe wrote: »

Yeehaaw! We've got a live one.

Well, I'd like you hear your response to the original comment that 'what comes round. goes around'. Pretty idiotic comment that does shine a light on the thinking of atheists.

Dades

eamo12 wrote: »

Pretty idiotic comment that does shine a light on the thinking of atheists.

eamo12, maybe you too should start acting your age and not your username, and quit the robust generalisations.

eblistic

smokingman wrote: »

Yes, let's get back to the point shall we?

The pope said christians are being persecuted - of that, there is no doubt.
However, persecution in Europe of the group is an idealogical one and that is what riles people here I'm guessing. Should he not have made more of the horrors where the attack is physical?

Indeed. What has persecution of Christians in Muslim or communist countries got to do with the OP?

Pope Benedict voiced the Catholic Church's deep concern over "hostility and prejudice" against Christianity in Europe today, saying creeping secularism was just as bad as religious fanaticism.

I'd also like to know where in Europe this goes on:

between 200 million and 300 million Christians "face daily threats of murder, beating, imprisonment and murder and a further 350-400 million encounter discrimination in areas such as jobs and housing"