Respect for the religious + religion - where does it start/stop?

Shrap

jank wrote: »

That somewhat proves my point.

Not in the slightest. Robin has the right of it.

robindch wrote: »

First person: I'm passionate
Second person: You're entrenched
Third person: He's militant

I'll spell it out for you Jank, in these those terms.

I passionately believe that if injustice and discrimination is being promoted in front of me then I should take a stand and protest. This is entrenched in me, yes.

I was actually not expecting to hear an attitude that I ordinarily would contradict, or at the very least show my disgust about, being inappropriately promoted at that mass, but now that I see I can expect it, I choose never again to put myself in the position of being unable to protest it out of my respect for other people. This makes me feel sad, not militant. You are wrong.

robindch

A simple graphic might help explain it better - the meaning of "militancy" varies enormously depending on who's using the term. When used to describe atheists, the meaning is almost exclusively pejorative. When used to describe religionists, it can be a compliment, as in "The Church Militant".

iguana

What an interesting day to be reading this thread with what appears to be five men dead for not showing respect for the religious ideals of their murders. Two dead for trying to protect them. Five others dead for being in the vicinity. And many more injured.

MrPudding

iguana wrote: »

What an interesting day to be reading this thread with what appears to be five men dead for not showing respect for the religious ideals of their murders. Two dead for trying to protect them. Five others dead for being in the vicinity. And many more injured.

Quite. I would suggest that respect for the religious should stop at some point before they think they have the right to kill 12 people because their supposedly all powerful god has been offended.

MrP

Kidchameleon

JaseHeath wrote: »

Lucifer Morning Star put this in After Hours. Next time I'm forced to go to mass, I'm definitely mumbling this as everyone else says the "Our Father".

How about grow a pair and don't go.

katydid

JaseHeath wrote: »

Lucifer Morning Star put this in After Hours. Next time I'm forced to go to mass, I'm definitely mumbling this as everyone else says the "Our Father".

Who forces you to go to mass?

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

Quite. I would suggest that respect for the religious should stop at some point before they think they have the right to kill 12 people because their supposedly all powerful god has been offended.

MrP

How about growing up and learning to differentiate between "the religious" and those who abuse religion?

katydid

jank wrote: »

. Hell, even Dawkins go the church sometimes.

Dawkins was married in a church. Here in Ireland...

robindch

MOD:

katydid wrote: »

How about growing up and learning to differentiate between "the religious" and those who abuse religion?

How about not making unhelpful personal comments? Cards + bans await for posters who do.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

MOD:How about not making unhelpful personal comments? Cards + bans await for posters who do.

So it's ok to make facile assumptions about religion, and not to tell someone to grow up and try to see things from an adult perspective? Kidchameleon suggested someone "grow a pair", and not a word said...

katydid

iguana wrote: »

But child indoctrination ceremonies, particularly baptisms, make me feel very, very uncomfortable for numerous reasons and I avoid them. .

Since most infants are too small to understand what's going on, it''s hard to imagine how their christening is an "indoctrination ceremony".

Turtwig

katydid wrote: »

So it's ok to make facile assumptions about religion, and not to tell someone to grow up and try to see things from an adult perspective? Kidchameleon suggested someone "grow a pair", and not a word said...

The clue is in the name chameleon.:pac:

I think you'll find if you read the thread that the op was being facetious.

katydid

Turtwig wrote: »

The clue is in the name chameleon.:pac:

I think you'll find if you read the thread that the op was being facetious.

Yeah right.

Icepick

Bandana boy wrote: »

Not even remotely the same.

We have all of us had to go through something similar

A parent who believes wants the family together at a cermony at certain times of the year, be it a wedding , a funeral a christening or even an Xmas mass when the whole family is home for the holidays.
They put pressure through guilt for a member of the family to atttend.

I would equate this to pressure from your partner to see a band or movie you do not care for but they want to see and want to see it with you.

It might be a pain in the ass but hardly disrespectful for a family member/partner to want to include you in something special to them.

On the other hand whispering a Satanic prayer ( I am asuuming you are not a satanist and do not believe in him either) as some kind of juvenile protest is very disrepectful .

Do what we all do ,replay Simpson epsiodes in your head till its over and give your mammy a big hug before you leave at the end of the day.

So religion nowadays is equivalent to a random concert or film.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

Since most infants are too small to understand what's going on, it''s hard to imagine how their christening is an "indoctrination ceremony".

What else is it but indoctrination?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

What else is it but indoctrination?

How can you indoctrinate a two month old baby?

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

How can you indoctrinate a two month old baby?

Very easily. If they're baptised Catholic the parents are promising to make sure they're raised in the faith, godparents are promising the same and the infant can't ever leave the faith. Of course it's indoctrination what else would you call it? Welcoming them into the church community or some such rubbish?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Very easily. If they're baptised Catholic the parents are promising to make sure they're raised in the faith, godparents are promising the same and the infant can't ever leave the faith. Of course it's indoctrination what else would you call it? Welcoming them into the church community or some such rubbish?

It only becomes "indoctrination" later on, IF, and it's a big IF, the parents actually follow up what they promise.

There is no indoctrination at the ceremony .

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

It only becomes "indoctrination" later on, IF, and it's a big IF, the parents actually follow up what they promise.

There is no indoctrination at the ceremony .

Oh yes there is. Association of the child with sin, rejection of Satan and all his work and prayers to beat the band, not to mention the pouring of the magic water and signs of the cross on the child. Just because the child does not understand it does not mean its not indoctrination. Would you put a mentally disabled adult through a baptism without their consent even if they didn't know it was happening?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

Oh yes there is. Association of the child with sin, rejection of Satan and all his work and prayers to beat the band, not to mention the pouring of the magic water and signs of the cross on the child. Just because the child does not understand it does not mean its not indoctrination. Would you put a mentally disabled adult through a baptism without their consent even if they didn't know it was happening?

There can't be indoctrination if the person has no concept of what is happening. Any promises etc. are done by proxy. Maybe there's another word for it, but it's not indoctrination.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

There can't be indoctrination if the person has no concept of what is happening. Any promises etc. are done by proxy. Maybe there's another word for it, but it's not indoctrination.

What aspects of it aren't indoctrination?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

What aspects of it aren't indoctrination?

None of it. The child isn't being indoctrinated. As far as its concerned, someone is wetting its head.

lazygal

katydid wrote: »

None of it. The child isn't being indoctrinated. As far as its concerned, someone is wetting its head.

What does the ceremony mean then? Promising to indoctrinate?

robindch

katydid wrote: »

There can't be indoctrination if the person has no concept of what is happening.

You mean it's not indoctrination when adults lie to children about religion to get the kids to believe it?

katydid

lazygal wrote: »

What does the ceremony mean then? Promising to indoctrinate?

In a way.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

In a way.

Then even giving you that, and I am not convinced we should, isn't that bad enough?
'I promise to brainwash this infant in to believing things which have not a shred of evidence for them'.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

So it's ok to make facile assumptions about religion, and not to tell someone to grow up and try to see things from an adult perspective? Kidchameleon suggested someone "grow a pair", and not a word said...

I was not making a facile assumption about religion. Saying that my respect for a person's religious belief stop at the point where they think it allows them to murder 12 people is perfectly valid. Whilst I don't particularly like religion I am on record here on many occasions saying that I am happy for people to have a religious belief, and to follow they belief. I also, up to a point, have no issue with people manifesting that belief, but I draw the line where that manifestation begins to impact the rights of others. This is a view I have held for some time, and I think it is not unreasonable.

The men that killed those journalists did so in the belief that their god was slighted. They are perfectly entitled to believe that. They are not, I believe, entitled to use that belief as an excuse for murdering 12 people. Hence my comment that respect for a person's religious belief stops at the point where they feel it entitles them to murder a bunch of people. That comment is clearly not aimed at every religious person on earth, only those that think their particular belief in their particular religion entitled them to murder someone.

Might I suggest that rather than telling someone to grow up you might want to try reading and understanding posts. If the concept is a little above you, or needs clarification, I would further suggest that a polite request for further explanation show a little more maturity and intelligence than a kak handed and misplaced insult that does nothing but highlight your complete missing of the point.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

I was not making a facile assumption about religion. Saying that my respect for a person's religious belief stop at the point where they think it allows them to murder 12 people is perfectly valid. Whilst I don't particularly like religion I am on record here on many occasions saying that I am happy for people to have a religious belief, and to follow they belief. I also, up to a point, have no issue with people manifesting that belief, but I draw the line where that manifestation begins to impact the rights of others. This is a view I have held for some time, and I think it is not unreasonable.

The men that killed those journalists did so in the belief that their god was slighted. They are perfectly entitled to believe that. They are not, I believe, entitled to use that belief as an excuse for murdering 12 people. Hence my comment that respect for a person's religious belief stops at the point where they feel it entitles them to murder a bunch of people. That comment is clearly not aimed at every religious person on earth, only those that think their particular belief in their particular religion entitled them to murder someone.

Might I suggest that rather than telling someone to grow up you might want to try reading and understanding posts. If the concept is a little above you, or needs clarification, I would further suggest that a polite request for further explanation show a little more maturity and intelligence than a kak handed and misplaced insult that does nothing but highlight your complete missing of the point.

MrP

No, that would not be facile. But that was not the point I was addressing. The reference was to "the religious", making no attempt to differentiate between those who hold a genuine religious belief but don't believe for a second that it gives them the right to impose it on anyone or to act in a violent way because of it, and people who use religion as an excuse to act violently.

We have no idea what drove these men. Genuine if misguided belief, or just pure thrill seeking. But one way or another, they do not represent "the religious" as an entire group.

By all means address the issue of these individuals and their ilk, and how they interpret religion in a particular way, but also learn that things are not as black and white as you seem to think.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

No, that would not be facile. But that was not the point you were making. Your point was about "the religious", making no attempt to differentiate between those who hold a genuine religious belief but don't believe for a second that it gives them the right to impose it on anyone or to act in a violent way because of it, and people who use religion as an excuse to act violently.

We have no idea what drove these men. Genuine if misguided belief, or just pure thrill seeking. But one way or another, they do not represent "the religious" as an entire group.

By all means address the issue of these individuals and their ilk, and how they interpret religion in a particular way, but also learn that things are not as black and white as you seem to think.

MrPudding wrote: »

Quite. I would suggest that respect for the religious should stop at some point before they think they have the right to kill 12 people because their supposedly all powerful god has been offended.

MrP

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

No, that would not be facile. But that was not the point I was addressing. The reference was to "the religious", making no attempt to differentiate between those who hold a genuine religious belief but don't believe for a second that it gives them the right to impose it on anyone or to act in a violent way because of it, and people who use religion as an excuse to act violently.

We have no idea what drove these men. Genuine if misguided belief, or just pure thrill seeking. But one way or another, they do not represent "the religious" as an entire group.

By all means address the issue of these individuals and their ilk, and how they interpret religion in a particular way, but also learn that things are not as black and white as you seem to think.

Are you serious? In your clamour to be offended you have, again, completely missed the point.

Take a keep breath and read it again.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you serious? In your clamour to be offended you have, again, completely missed the point.

Take a keep breath and read it again.

MrP

I can read something ten times, the meaning will be the same.

If there's something I've missed, please clarify.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

I can read something ten times, the meaning will be the same.

If there's something I've missed, please clarify.

Ok. You take offence at my use of the term 'the religious' and then accuse me of not differentiating between the 'nice' religious and the 'not nice' religious, specifically 'those who hold a genuine religious belief but don't beleive it entitles them to impose it on anyone or act in a violent way because it it'.* With me so far? Now, what I said was at the point, or just before it, when a religious person decides that his religious belief entitled him to commit murder in the name of that belief, that is where my tolerance ends. By stating that they beleive their religion entitled them to commit acts of murder, I am, very obviously differentiating between the nice and not nice religious. I am not sure why this is so difficult to see, I thought I explained it reasonably well.

MrP

*Also, just to point out, whether one's belief is genuine or not is not a good indicator as to whether one might beleive they are entitled to use force or violence.

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok. You take offence at my use of the term 'the religious' and then accuse me of not differentiating between the 'nice' religious and the 'not nice' religious, specifically 'those who hold a genuine religious belief but don't beleive it entitles them to impose it on anyone or act in a violent way because it it'.* With me so far? Now, what I said was at the point, or just before it, when a religious person decides that his religious belief entitled him to commit murder in the name of that belief, that is where my tolerance ends. By stating that they beleive their religion entitled them to commit acts of murder, I am, very obviously differentiating between the nice and not nice religious. I am not sure why this is so difficult to see, I thought I explained it reasonably well.

MrP

*Also, just to point out, whether one's belief is genuine or not is not a good indicator as to whether one might beleive they are entitled to use force or violence.

"The religious" do stop. Those who go on and do such things are not religious...

smacl

katydid wrote: »

"The religious" do stop. Those who go on and do such things are not religious...

What if your religion mandates you to act in a truly barbaric manner? Say stoning an adulterer or executing an apostate? If the reason for the barbarity is solely religion, surely it is the religious in this instance who are the barbarians.

Just because there are very many religious people who are 'good people' doesn't excuse much of organised religion from being barbaric in nature. I think this is why we have the phenomenon of the a-la-carte Catholic in Ireland, in that they want to keep the community and tradition while ditching the anachronistic and highly offensive baggage that goes with it.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

"The religious" do stop. Those who go on and do such things are not religious...

So they stop praying and all other religious practices? They stop identifying as Jewish/Christian/Muslim? Find that very hard to believe.

Think it's more likely you're falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.

katydid

SW wrote: »

So they stop praying and all other religious practices? They stop identifying as Jewish/Christian/Muslim? Find that very hard to believe.

Think it's more likely you're falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, they stop being religious. If they stop believing in the teachings of their religion, engaging in religious practices doesn't make them religious. It makes them hypocrites or misguided fools.

That bears no relation to the Scotsman fallacy. It's a simple fact that being "religious" is not the same as following the practices of a religion, because being religious means having a true faith and adhering to the PRINCIPLES of the faith, not its outward manifestations. I'm sure you'll come up with a dictionary definition that says otherwise, but I'm not talking dictionary definitions but what words really mean.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

"The religious" do stop. Those who go on and do such things are not religious...

Ah, ok, now I understand. You did not misunderstand, you are just talking sh1t. Got it.

MrP

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

No, they stop being religious. If they stop believing in the teachings of their religion, engaging in religious practices doesn't make them religious. It makes them hypocrites or misguided fools.

That bears no relation to the Scotsman fallacy. It's a simple fact that being "religious" is not the same as following the practices of a religion, because being religious means having a true faith and adhering to the PRINCIPLES of the faith, not its outward manifestations. I'm sure you'll come up with a dictionary definition that says otherwise, but I'm not talking dictionary definitions but what words really mean.

But that's not how religion works, history is littered with groups fracturing to separate groups to form new branches of their respective religion. You're suggesting that one or more of the groups are no longer religious because they have rejected some of their tenets of the religion by forming a new branch of that religion.

So it does not follow that a person is no longer religious if they live contrary to their religion. They may hypocrites but they're still religious.

katydid

SW wrote: »

But that's not how religion works, history is littered with groups fracturing to separate groups to form new branches of their respective religion. You're suggesting that one or more of the groups are no longer religious because they have rejected some of their tenets of the religion by forming a new branch of that religion.

So it does not follow that a person is no longer religious if they live contrary to their religion. They may hypocrites but they're still religious.

If they reject any of the tenets of their religion, they are members in name only. They are religious in name only.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

If they reject any of the tenets of their religion, they are members in name only. They are religious in name only.

But what if the act they are carrying out are approved of by the leaders of their religion? Who are you to decide whether they are actually following the tenants of their religion? That is just your incorrect interpretation.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

But what if the act they are carrying out are approved of by the leaders of their religion? Who are you to decide whether they are actually following the tenants of their religion? That is just your incorrect interpretation.

MrP

If they reject the basic tenets...

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

If they reject the basic tenets...

that only means they're at odds with their particular religion. It doesn't mean they're not religious.

For example, say a religion prohibited giving charity to people. but a member couldn't square that with their understanding of their faith, so they start helping out with charity work. They believe they are doing Gods work.

You're saying this believer is no longer religious?

katydid

SW wrote: »

that only means they're at odds with their particular religion. It doesn't mean they're not religious.

For example, say a religion prohibited giving charity to people. but a member couldn't square that with their understanding of their faith, so they start helping out with charity work. They believe they are doing Gods work.

You're saying this believer is no longer religious?

You can be religious without belonging to a religion. And you can belong to a religion without being religious.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

You can be religious without belonging to a religion. And you can belong to a religion without being religious.

that's not what I asked you. care to answer the question? Is the person giving charity still religious?

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

If they reject the basic tenets...

But they don't... That is the point.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

But they don't... That is the point.

MrP

Yes, they do. Christians who don't love and respect one another are going against the basic tenet of Christianity.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

If they reject the basic tenets...

What if they follow the basic tenets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

Crucified: "Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment." [5: 33]

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

I can produce more quotes and links.

katydid

obplayer wrote: »

What if they follow the basic tenets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir



http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm



I can produce more quotes and links.

Not tenets.

obplayer

katydid wrote: »

Not tenets.

They are instructions in their "holy" books, how do you define tenets in the context of religion then?

swampgas

Katydid, it seems your definition of "religious" behaviour is what nice people with a religion do. Surely nasty people acting nastily while following their religion is also "religious"?