Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Hazel wrote: "Also, I agree its an arbitrary rule. Except in rough schools with kids that have a tendency to destruction and burning things. I'd be interested to know how much of the challenging of this rule was for religious reasons, and how much was for the sheer arbitriness of it.....if I recall one thing from the deep dark recesses of my meomories of school it was that arbitrary rules were the ones that got challenged constantly, even if we could barely articulate at the time why....kids are smart enough (and my own kids remind me of this daily) to spot arbitrary rules and challenge them for just the hell of it.....
Cerebus wrote: "cHriS/cs wrote: "Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example. "
I'll actually agree with you on this cs, but not for the reasons you imply.....a..."
Actually, Cerebus, I have seen intolerance, in my opinion ... and, as people are aware. I addressed it at the time and have no intention of rehashing it. You could, though, re-read previous discussions, if you haven't read everything.
I'll actually agree with you on this cs, but not for the reasons you imply.....a..."
Actually, Cerebus, I have seen intolerance, in my opinion ... and, as people are aware. I addressed it at the time and have no intention of rehashing it. You could, though, re-read previous discussions, if you haven't read everything.
Shannon wrote: "Actually, Cerebus, I have seen intolerance, in my opinion ... and, as people are aware. I addressed it at the time and have no intention of rehashing it. You could, though, re-read previous discussions, if you haven't read everything.."I won't claim to have read everything, but have read most.....and would be interested if you can refresh my memory, especially if you felt I was one of the guilty parties....
And, I don't consider you to be heathens nor do I attribute any other mean names to you or the other atheists here.
I actually value atheists and religious folk alike. I value people as human beings, in general. I also value and support people's ability to make their own choices and believe what they will or not believe.
I don't live for the day when one group, atheists or religious folk, cease to exist.
You're not heathens. You're people.
Some are tolerant. Some are tolerant most of the time. Some have shown intolerance.
On both sides of the issue.
I've also addressed, over and over, the intolerance and ridiculous statements of religious folk on this thread.
Intolerance, in my opinion, is a trait of humans, believer and atheist alike.
(No need for someone to write back and give me the definition of the word "heathen" and tell me I'm wrong. "Heathen" isn't a "mean" name ... it just means a person who doesn't belong to a religion. Yeah, I'm aware. My Mohawk and Blackfoot blood tells a different story. You have textbook definitions and you have how words are used in society and the meanings they hold. Think ... "ignorant" ... and comments like ... "You're the most ignorant person ..." Yeah...)
I actually value atheists and religious folk alike. I value people as human beings, in general. I also value and support people's ability to make their own choices and believe what they will or not believe.
I don't live for the day when one group, atheists or religious folk, cease to exist.
You're not heathens. You're people.
Some are tolerant. Some are tolerant most of the time. Some have shown intolerance.
On both sides of the issue.
I've also addressed, over and over, the intolerance and ridiculous statements of religious folk on this thread.
Intolerance, in my opinion, is a trait of humans, believer and atheist alike.
(No need for someone to write back and give me the definition of the word "heathen" and tell me I'm wrong. "Heathen" isn't a "mean" name ... it just means a person who doesn't belong to a religion. Yeah, I'm aware. My Mohawk and Blackfoot blood tells a different story. You have textbook definitions and you have how words are used in society and the meanings they hold. Think ... "ignorant" ... and comments like ... "You're the most ignorant person ..." Yeah...)
Drew wrote: " Where have I been intolerant Here when you said this.....
religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, and many times race.
Cerebus wrote: "cHriS/cs wrote: "No not intolerant, many people religious or not, do not agree with homosexuality, not the people, the act. Are you saying they have to agree with it? ."
Of course not, so long as y..."
I agree with you on this. As long as we're talking about consenting adults, in my opinion, it's not my right or place to judge the sexual practices of others ... heterosexual or homosexual.
I mean, frankly, I'm horrified when I read articles about the fact that stores in NYC are running out of rope and grey ties ... items being purchased by women ... women who have read 50 Shades. I was pretty shocked, as I sat at a party with grown and strong women, that they were reading and loving that book.
"But, don't they have a contract?" I asked. "A contract?! And, doesn't he control her. What she wears and when she eats? You like this stuff. How is that ... romantic?"
Do you know what they told me?
"But, Shannon, he's filthy rich! I wouldn't care what he wanted me to sign or do. I wouldn't care what he wanted to do to me. He's rich."
I almost threw up.
So, are women across America turned on by power and control and bondage? Or, are they turned on by the fact that he's rich and showers her with gifts and will do anything for money?
For me, this type of thing is disturbing. A homosexual couple who love one another? Not so much.
However, I'm aware that my feelings on this matter are mine. My opinion. And, ropes and contracts or not, if we're talking about consenting adults, it's really not my business.
Of course not, so long as y..."
I agree with you on this. As long as we're talking about consenting adults, in my opinion, it's not my right or place to judge the sexual practices of others ... heterosexual or homosexual.
I mean, frankly, I'm horrified when I read articles about the fact that stores in NYC are running out of rope and grey ties ... items being purchased by women ... women who have read 50 Shades. I was pretty shocked, as I sat at a party with grown and strong women, that they were reading and loving that book.
"But, don't they have a contract?" I asked. "A contract?! And, doesn't he control her. What she wears and when she eats? You like this stuff. How is that ... romantic?"
Do you know what they told me?
"But, Shannon, he's filthy rich! I wouldn't care what he wanted me to sign or do. I wouldn't care what he wanted to do to me. He's rich."
I almost threw up.
So, are women across America turned on by power and control and bondage? Or, are they turned on by the fact that he's rich and showers her with gifts and will do anything for money?
For me, this type of thing is disturbing. A homosexual couple who love one another? Not so much.
However, I'm aware that my feelings on this matter are mine. My opinion. And, ropes and contracts or not, if we're talking about consenting adults, it's really not my business.
Interesting snippet for you Shannon, the term heathen is a christian term, originally used to describe christians who lived "on the heath" or rurally, too far away from church to be able to attend on a regular basis. A heathen was originally a Christian.And you're absolutely right, the whole idea of "screw what the persons like, as long as they can keep me in material goods" is sickening.
Shannon wrote: "However, I'm aware that my feelings on this matter are mine. My opinion. And, ropes and contracts or not, if we're talking about consenting adults, it's really not my business. ."Let me start this by saying i agree with what you are saying, but permit me to use your response to show where I feel others are going wrong....nobody (well, nobody rational) expects you to not have an opinion...you are entitled to that opinion....where people may raise their voices to query that opinion (and this is something you have explicitly said you do not do, so I use 'you' here in the generic form) is when you say 'and my opinion means you cannot do...." whatever. No matter what that opinion, no matter how objectionable, there will be someone, or some number of people, who will disagree. If you picture the most objectionable thing you can think of, double it, and there will be people who think it is acceptable.....does that make it so? Of course not....But I defy anyone to come up with a rational reason why something two consenting adults do (and when I say two consenting adults, I mean two consenting adults, not two consenting adults and x....so nobody twist my words) is a) none of my business nor b) a reason to restrict their rights. I may not want to do it, I may not understand it, but if all concerned can give informed consent, my opinion is irrelevant. I can hold that opinion.....I can frame it and hang it on my wall, but it is irrelevant.
Hazel wrote: "Frankly Shannon, there is no reason it would be necessary for her to wear it, if she needs special consideration for a parent having died, that means letting her have time if she needs it, offering..."
Again, we don't know that Hazel. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not.
If she or another child had a hard time dealing with the death of a parent and was given this as a last gift, it might be a "security blanket" of sorts. I don't care that it was a cross. It could have been a rose necklace or a Minnie Mouse necklace. The symbol isn't important. Nor, in my opinion, is the rule. The important thing would be making her feel safe and secure at a time in her life when she felt quite the opposite. IF ... that was the case.
Hannah is right, to a certain extent, that rules are broken and special considerations are given ... all the time. No fooling. When I say that, I'm not talking about free and reduced lunch. I'm not talking about special education accommodations.
I'm talking ....
The kid who says bright lights hurt his eyes but doesn't have a doctor's note saying s/he has a medical condition. But, the parent makes a stink. So ... that child gets special permission to wear sunglasses or a hat with a brim even though none of the other children can since it's against the rules.
Or ... the child whose parent makes a stink and says little Johnny or little Jane needs to wear ear plugs during whatever time period in order to help him/her concentrate ... and is allowed to do so ... even though it's against the rules and no one else can.
Or ... better yet ... this is from years ago ... but ... it's a true story. Or... the sports players getting in a fight right before a big game and not getting suspended immediately ... since, by the rules, they'd not be able to play in the big game ... BUT ... the non-sports players did get suspended immediately. Non-sports players suspended on that Friday. Per the rules. Immediate suspension. Sports players suspended on Monday ... so they could play on Saturday. Violation of the rules in order to, hopefully, win a championship game.
That kind of stuff happens ... all. the. time.
So, for me, if a child had emotional and psychological reasons for needing to wear a necklace, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me to allow that and, oh, my, violate that rule ... than to break half of the other rules I've seen broken for the most asinine of reasons.
In addition, as teacher, though in a public school, I can tell you ....
This type of exception would be made ... if there were psychological reasons to do so ... and I can see that being a possibility ...
Again, we don't know that Hazel. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not.
If she or another child had a hard time dealing with the death of a parent and was given this as a last gift, it might be a "security blanket" of sorts. I don't care that it was a cross. It could have been a rose necklace or a Minnie Mouse necklace. The symbol isn't important. Nor, in my opinion, is the rule. The important thing would be making her feel safe and secure at a time in her life when she felt quite the opposite. IF ... that was the case.
Hannah is right, to a certain extent, that rules are broken and special considerations are given ... all the time. No fooling. When I say that, I'm not talking about free and reduced lunch. I'm not talking about special education accommodations.
I'm talking ....
The kid who says bright lights hurt his eyes but doesn't have a doctor's note saying s/he has a medical condition. But, the parent makes a stink. So ... that child gets special permission to wear sunglasses or a hat with a brim even though none of the other children can since it's against the rules.
Or ... the child whose parent makes a stink and says little Johnny or little Jane needs to wear ear plugs during whatever time period in order to help him/her concentrate ... and is allowed to do so ... even though it's against the rules and no one else can.
Or ... better yet ... this is from years ago ... but ... it's a true story. Or... the sports players getting in a fight right before a big game and not getting suspended immediately ... since, by the rules, they'd not be able to play in the big game ... BUT ... the non-sports players did get suspended immediately. Non-sports players suspended on that Friday. Per the rules. Immediate suspension. Sports players suspended on Monday ... so they could play on Saturday. Violation of the rules in order to, hopefully, win a championship game.
That kind of stuff happens ... all. the. time.
So, for me, if a child had emotional and psychological reasons for needing to wear a necklace, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me to allow that and, oh, my, violate that rule ... than to break half of the other rules I've seen broken for the most asinine of reasons.
In addition, as teacher, though in a public school, I can tell you ....
This type of exception would be made ... if there were psychological reasons to do so ... and I can see that being a possibility ...
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: " Where have I been intolerant Here when you said this.....
religious people, most not all, are very intolerant of other people's ideas, beliefs, backgrounds, sexual orientation, an..."
Nope, cs that is not being intolerant, that is just stating an opinion based on observation.
You are an obnoxious troll, now that's being intolerant.
Cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I may not want to do it, I may not understand it, but if all concerned can give informed consent, my opinion is irrelevant. I can hold that opinion.....I can frame it and hang it on my wall, but it is irrelevant."
I totally agree.
I totally agree.
I'm sorry, I don't think the sports player should have had their punishment suspended. Not being able to play should have been part of the punishment, it would have taught them that there are real consequences to their actions, instead of teaching that they will get preferential treatment for being on a sports team.
she or another child had a hard time dealing with the death of a parent and was given this as a last gift, it might be a "security blanket" of sorts. I don't care that it was a cross. It could have been a rose necklace or a Minnie Mouse necklace. The symbol isn't important. Nor, in my opinion, is the rule. The important thing would be making her feel safe and secure at a time in her life when she felt quite the opposite. IF ... that was the case.It could have been a pen knife, or their first hunting rifle, or a baseball bat. Would you make the same exception?
Hazel wrote: "I'm sorry, I don't think the sports player should have had their punishment suspended. Not being able to play should have been part of the punishment, it would have taught them that there are real ..."I'm going to assume you mean the Saints players. I understand what you are saying but here's the thing, they got singled out when actually many teams used the bounty system, it was a common practice in the NFL. I'm not saying it shouldn't be eliminated, just that they shouldn't have singled the Saints out.
what's the bounty system? I'm not familiar with this term.
Hazel wrote: "what's the bounty system? I'm not familiar with this term."It's where someone of authority on a team (coach, president, owner) will provide bonuses to their players who intentionally do harm to players from opposing teams. As in they have a bounty on their heads.
wait, you're saying they get paid extra for taking out and damaging opposing players?
Hazel wrote: "wait, you're saying they get paid extra for taking out and damaging opposing players?"That's correct!
Shannon wrote: "I totally agree. ."And to me this is why the whole religious vs atheist thing is mostly bull....religious people can have morals which agree with atheists. As an atheist I don't care about converting anyone, but if your (see earlier disclaimer about the use of 'you') 'morals' are questionable, guess what, they'll be questioned.
Drew wrote: "Hazel wrote: "wait, you're saying they get paid extra for taking out and damaging opposing players?"That's correct!"
and this is sportmanship, how?
Drew wrote: "Hazel wrote: "wait, you're saying they get paid extra for taking out and damaging opposing players?"That's correct!"
the great american past time, beating the crap out of each other.
Hazel wrote: "It could have been a pen knife, or their first hunting rifle, or a baseball bat. Would you make the same exception? "
Indeed. It could have been. But .... It wasn't. I suppose we could say it could have been a grenade or a t-shirt saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." We could go to all sorts of extremes.
The reality ... it was just a necklace. And, if there were psychological reasons for the wearing of the necklace, .... An exception would be made ... if I worked in a school with such an asinine rule.
Regarding the sports players, I agree. It was wrong for them to be given a delayed consequence, especially when the non-sports players weren't given the same consideration. It was also wrong for the school. Anything for a possible championship. Lost credibility on that one.
I didn't share that story, in case anyone thinks I did, in order to say ...
And, ... this was the right thing to do.
I think it was wrong.
It happened, though. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
My point ... if schools break the rules for stuff like this ... to win championship games ...
Giving a grieving child a "special consideration" and allowing her to wear a necklace that her father gave to her ... his last gift ... should be allowed ... if there were psychological reasons for it being done. That, in my mind, would be a time when we should break a rule. Hello! There would be an actual purpose, one that would be in the best interests of the child, if there were emotional and psychological reasons at play. Whereas, in the sports/non-sports incident, it wasn't, in my opinion, in the true best interests of the child. It was all to win a damned game.
Indeed. It could have been. But .... It wasn't. I suppose we could say it could have been a grenade or a t-shirt saying, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." We could go to all sorts of extremes.
The reality ... it was just a necklace. And, if there were psychological reasons for the wearing of the necklace, .... An exception would be made ... if I worked in a school with such an asinine rule.
Regarding the sports players, I agree. It was wrong for them to be given a delayed consequence, especially when the non-sports players weren't given the same consideration. It was also wrong for the school. Anything for a possible championship. Lost credibility on that one.
I didn't share that story, in case anyone thinks I did, in order to say ...
And, ... this was the right thing to do.
I think it was wrong.
It happened, though. That kind of stuff happens all the time.
My point ... if schools break the rules for stuff like this ... to win championship games ...
Giving a grieving child a "special consideration" and allowing her to wear a necklace that her father gave to her ... his last gift ... should be allowed ... if there were psychological reasons for it being done. That, in my mind, would be a time when we should break a rule. Hello! There would be an actual purpose, one that would be in the best interests of the child, if there were emotional and psychological reasons at play. Whereas, in the sports/non-sports incident, it wasn't, in my opinion, in the true best interests of the child. It was all to win a damned game.
the reality is Shannon, that if you won't make exceptions for all, then you shouldn't make exceptions for any.
Cerebus wrote: "guess what, they'll be questioned. "
And, as I've said before, ... the real I and not "I" ....
I'm perfectly okay with being questioned.
The key would be ...
Are the questions asked in a respectful manner?
And ... if the answers aren't acceptable to the questioner ... does the questioner say,
"I disagree."
Or ...
Does the questioner say ...
"You're the most ignorant person who has ever posted to this thread."
Or something like that ....
Don't think, please, for one moment that I'm against being questioned. Also, I've changed my views on questioning religious beliefs. As I said several months ago ... maybe a year ago, I was raised not to question people's religious beliefs. In my culture, it's not done. It's the height of disrespect and in very bad form. After listening to the arguments of atheists on this thread regarding this point, ....
Despite my culture and upbringing, I, now, firmly believe that the atheists are right ... when it comes to this issue. That's hard for me ... due to my upbringing and the beliefs regarding respect that exist within my people. Regardless of this, I've come to think nothing should be beyond question. I've truly changed my mind on this. I've grown.
There is, though, as I said, a difference between respectful questioning and its opposite.
And, as I've said before, ... the real I and not "I" ....
I'm perfectly okay with being questioned.
The key would be ...
Are the questions asked in a respectful manner?
And ... if the answers aren't acceptable to the questioner ... does the questioner say,
"I disagree."
Or ...
Does the questioner say ...
"You're the most ignorant person who has ever posted to this thread."
Or something like that ....
Don't think, please, for one moment that I'm against being questioned. Also, I've changed my views on questioning religious beliefs. As I said several months ago ... maybe a year ago, I was raised not to question people's religious beliefs. In my culture, it's not done. It's the height of disrespect and in very bad form. After listening to the arguments of atheists on this thread regarding this point, ....
Despite my culture and upbringing, I, now, firmly believe that the atheists are right ... when it comes to this issue. That's hard for me ... due to my upbringing and the beliefs regarding respect that exist within my people. Regardless of this, I've come to think nothing should be beyond question. I've truly changed my mind on this. I've grown.
There is, though, as I said, a difference between respectful questioning and its opposite.
Hazel wrote: "the reality is Shannon, that if you won't make exceptions for all, then you shouldn't make exceptions for any."
When I live in that world, Hazel, as an actual reality, I'll agree with you. Unless and until that happens ....
When I live in that world, Hazel, as an actual reality, I'll agree with you. Unless and until that happens ....
Hazel wrote: "the reality is Shannon, that if you won't make exceptions for all, then you shouldn't make exceptions for any."
One other thing about this ... the necklace ... in order to try for understanding ....
Within education, there are some educators who, still, don't believe in accommodations for special education students.
I went to a conference once on differentiation. The facilitator asked people to raise their hands if they needed glasses in order to read. Several people raised their hands. Next, she asked for one of those people to come forward and for a person who doesn't need glasses in order to read to come forward. Both did. She asked, I'm sure you can guess where this is going, for the person who needed her glasses to read to remove them. Then, she gave both a sheet of paper to read. The teacher who didn't need glasses was able to do so. The person who needed glasses couldn't. The facilitator said something like ... If anyone in this room doesn't think it's fair that special education students need accommodations, have you changed your mind?
Not all people are the same. Yes, rules, as such, are "meant" to be followed and are "supposed" to be the same for all.
However, we know that not everyone is the same. There are special circumstances. If ... IF ... the wearing of the necklace would have helped emotionally/psychologically, I can see that the rule should be broken. Some need glasses. Some have dyslexia and need extra time. Some need books to be written in braille. There are also some students who have emotional and psychological issues at play. They also need special considerations. Counseling? Wearing a necklace?
Those are the types of conversations that would happen in the schools I've worked in.
One other thing about this ... the necklace ... in order to try for understanding ....
Within education, there are some educators who, still, don't believe in accommodations for special education students.
I went to a conference once on differentiation. The facilitator asked people to raise their hands if they needed glasses in order to read. Several people raised their hands. Next, she asked for one of those people to come forward and for a person who doesn't need glasses in order to read to come forward. Both did. She asked, I'm sure you can guess where this is going, for the person who needed her glasses to read to remove them. Then, she gave both a sheet of paper to read. The teacher who didn't need glasses was able to do so. The person who needed glasses couldn't. The facilitator said something like ... If anyone in this room doesn't think it's fair that special education students need accommodations, have you changed your mind?
Not all people are the same. Yes, rules, as such, are "meant" to be followed and are "supposed" to be the same for all.
However, we know that not everyone is the same. There are special circumstances. If ... IF ... the wearing of the necklace would have helped emotionally/psychologically, I can see that the rule should be broken. Some need glasses. Some have dyslexia and need extra time. Some need books to be written in braille. There are also some students who have emotional and psychological issues at play. They also need special considerations. Counseling? Wearing a necklace?
Those are the types of conversations that would happen in the schools I've worked in.
Hazel wrote: "Drew wrote: "Hazel wrote: "wait, you're saying they get paid extra for taking out and damaging opposing players?"That's correct!"
and this is sportmanship, how?"
Its not and that's why it needs to be eliminated but singling out one team when it is a league-wide problem is wrong.
Drew wrote: cs that is not being intolerant, that is just stating an opinion based on observation. Ok I will let you have that one......... if you can say how many religious people you observed and if they were from the same religion, and did your observation include a good cross section. Also did you exclude athiests or did they all pass this observation.
You are an obnoxious troll, now that's being intolerant.."
You are right, intolerant because you are unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions.
Cerebus wrote: "cHriS/cs wrote: "Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example. "I'll actually agree with you on this cs, but not for the reasons you imply.....a..."
Why do I feel that I have been lured into a trap?....
There are plenty of believers in this thread, whose position I disagree with but whose honest involvement with the discussion I have no issue with...but I would love to hear from any of those who feel we have been intolerant.
Intolerant; that may be a bit strong a word to use as a default word for every athiest and every athiest post here, but there is certainly some hint of intolerance, but then I believe the person posting does not always see that they are showing signs of intolerance.... maybe you could argue that it is then not intolerance. C-Cose did detect this in Gary's replies.
To be fair to Gary, he has hit the nail on the head when he said......
People tend to use the word "belief" to mean either a temporary opinion, or an outright unquestioning concept they have faith in. Then when one person uses the word to mean the former, others assume that they mean the latter and equate it to their own level of faith. Therefore I try to avoid the word belief except in the context of the general definition which is an opinion held in absence of, or in despite of, evidence.
It does come down to how the athiest thinks the other side is using the word "belief".
Cerebus wrote: "cHriS/cs wrote: "Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example. "I'll actually agree with you on this cs, but not for the reasons you imply.....a..."
Greetings Cerebus,
Your wrote, "I'll do a straw poll here, who from the non-atheist side, who is still following this thread, has found us heathens on the atheist side intolerant?"
I don't know whether its another case of common usage v. dictionary definition but I find your use of "heathens" as interesting. "Heathen" has historically been described to categorize those that are not Christian or Jewish; only later did it expand to encompass those with no religious belief.
To answer your question .... yes, I have seen varying levels of intolerance from atheists--strict or otherwise--in this discussion. They have taken the form of interchanging discrete terms to fit the posters' argument: "requesting" (i.e. enforcing the need) that one compose dissenting arguments with thesis, facts, and finite terms; insisting that the opposing argument is wrong because it doesn't follow a certain line of thought.
Those few examples when traditions other than Judeo / Christian / Islam have been offered have either been met with indifference to their importance in this discussion or ignored completely. Fairly intolerant behaviour imo.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: cs that is not being intolerant, that is just stating an opinion based on observation. Ok I will let you have that one......... if you can say how many religious people you observed a..."
You're pretty good at this troll thing, you actually made me laugh at that first paragraph. Oh yes, I absolutely keep track of every religious person I've observed, I keep them all listed in a journal I call "Crackpot Religious People and their Intolerances that I've Observed". Catchy right?
Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: ". I keep them all listed in a journal I call "Crackpot Religious People and their Intolerances that I've Observed". Catchy right? I take that as a 'no' then?
Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: cs that is not being intolerant, that is just stating an opinion based on observation. Ok I will let you have that one......... if you can say how many religious people ..."
Hey, I've got that same journal! You must have gone to same sale at the atheists book fair.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: ". I keep them all listed in a journal I call "Crackpot Religious People and their Intolerances that I've Observed". Catchy right? I take that as a 'no' then?"
No cs, I can't tell you HOW many I've observed but I can tell you it is a large number and not just from Christianity, most religions are intolerant of one thing or another. Christianity is intolerant of a great many things and it all depends on what kind of Christian religion it is, some are intolerant where others aren't. For the most part, all of Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality and abortion. Some are intolerant of certain kinds of books, movies, music, or video games. Some are intolerant of sex education, women's rights, and even science.
Travis wrote: "Drew wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: cs that is not being intolerant, that is just stating an opinion based on observation. Ok I will let you have that one......... if you can say how many reli..."
Hey, that was my journal, how did the atheists book fair get it and where are my royalties? :D
Drew wrote: "most religions are intolerant of one thing or another"I think the most obvious intolerance that religions propogate is "each other".
Drew wrote: " For the most part, all of Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality and abortion "You are using the word intolerant out of context. You may not agree with the Christian view on abortion, for example, but that is not christians being intolerant that is you having a different view on abortion.
It would not be a good thing if we all used the word intolerant for everything we disagreed with.
........ and you don,t have to be a Christian to disagree with abortion, you can also be a Christian and agree with abortion in some cases.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: " For the most part, all of Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality and abortion "
You are using the word intolerant out of context. You may not agree with the Christian view on ab..."
There is intolerance within religion, though. Wouldn't you agree, cHriS? I mean, as I've said, I think intolerance is a human trait. Just as believers don't have the market on morality, atheists aren't always the models of tolerance .... We've seen both play out on this very thread. However, having said that, religions and the religious aren't "immune" to intolerance.
For example, I know of a family who found out their teenager was gay. They were highly religious; I'd rather not say which religion. I'm not protecting the religion, but I am protecting the family. Identifying information, especially given everything I've shared about myself on this thread. At any rate, they ... allegedly ... kicked him/her out of the house that very night. Kicked him/her out with nothing. Told the teen s/he was no longer their child. Now, you could argue that they might have had the same reaction if they weren't religious. We'll never know; they were in the extreme. But, I think we can agree this crossed the line ... the line of having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong ... to being intolerant.
Now, I've personally experienced intolerance from my Mormon relatives. I'm a woman who hasn't married. Every since I was 22, I've heard things from them and from missionaries in their home like .... "You'd better hurry up and get married before no man will have you." (That was when I was 22.) "You know your life doesn't hold meaning ...." "Single women can be used by the devil. We can't tell you certain things about our family, because the devil is close to you, since you're a single woman, and while you might not want to give him information about us, he could get it from you. Then, he'd use it against us." And .... "It makes me sad that you won't convert, because I won't be able to see you in heaven." And ... "Why won't you convert?" That was voiced over and over and over and over. In fact, as I've said before, we no longer have contact, for various reasons ... including the fact that I was sick and tired of being treated as if I were less than ... that I was somehow deficient ... it was unhealthy.
Thrown in the mix of that would be their insistence that women have certain roles within the family and within society. Period. It might be okay for women to have certain jobs ... nurse, teacher, day care provider, etc.... But! They shouldn't be police officers, pilots, soldiers, etc.... My uncle, who was a walking threat to his company due to harassment laws, counseled at least one female pilot, who was married with children, that it was wrong for her to take assignments out of the country since she'd miss time with her husband and children. And ... he got upset when he was continually passed over for supervisory roles.
Many of the above instances speak of intolerance, in my opinion. Now, I'm a little .... I don't know that I'm willing to blame it all on religion, on Mormonism. I don't know enough to make that determination. They changed, in a huge way, when they moved to the South. From New England to the South .... It's widely acknowledged that many, not all, many in New England have more liberal views than many of the people in the South. Some might jump to the conclusion that more people in the South attend church, and it must be about religion!
I'm not willing to go there, being from Puritan New England. I mean, come on, we still have the vestiges of "Puritanism" here. You can see it play out every day in the way we act with people. In general ... this is in part a stereotype ... but ... I've also seen it play out, New Englanders tend to be "cooler" than people from other areas of the country, especially with strangers and in public situations. I've been told by multiple people, for example, that they thought I was a cold ... blank ... when they first met me and for awhile after that. Then, they realized I was very warm and caring. But, that isn't easily seen at the beginning. I'm cool and somewhat guarded, like so many New Englanders, when I first meet people. (As opposed to being totally open on GR.... Oh, the irony.) Being from the South, they were much warmer and thrown by my coolness. Many from the South have a hard time when they move here and speak of how different people are in how they relate to others ... New Englanders aren't as open, don't touch people as much, etc.... Yet, we New Englanders tend to have more liberal views, despite having roots in an EXTREME religion ... a religion and lifestyle that still is lived in certain ways to this very day.
We have religion, but we also have geography and cultural differences.
Therefore, I find myself wondering ... how much of their intolerance is their religion and how much of it is geography .... Don't get me wrong. I think their religion played a huge role. And, cHriS, again, I think it crossed the line from opinion to intolerance. It would be one thing if they thought women who had children should be stay-at-home moms. Opinion. It crossed the line into intolerance, for example, when my uncle pressured female pilots not to take assignments to Europe and Asia because it would be wrong ... because they should be at home with their children.
Now, I firmly think that atheists can also be intolerant. The thing is ... they tend to be intolerant about other things, in my experience. I've not known atheists to throw their gay teen out of their home, into the cold and dark, with nothing but the clothes on his/her back. Atheists haven't told me that my life doesn't matter since I'm not married. But, I have seen and experienced different types of intolerance.
We're all people, and we're bound to be intolerant to varying degrees. All of us. To claim otherwise smacks of denial, in my opinion.
You are using the word intolerant out of context. You may not agree with the Christian view on ab..."
There is intolerance within religion, though. Wouldn't you agree, cHriS? I mean, as I've said, I think intolerance is a human trait. Just as believers don't have the market on morality, atheists aren't always the models of tolerance .... We've seen both play out on this very thread. However, having said that, religions and the religious aren't "immune" to intolerance.
For example, I know of a family who found out their teenager was gay. They were highly religious; I'd rather not say which religion. I'm not protecting the religion, but I am protecting the family. Identifying information, especially given everything I've shared about myself on this thread. At any rate, they ... allegedly ... kicked him/her out of the house that very night. Kicked him/her out with nothing. Told the teen s/he was no longer their child. Now, you could argue that they might have had the same reaction if they weren't religious. We'll never know; they were in the extreme. But, I think we can agree this crossed the line ... the line of having the opinion that homosexuality is wrong ... to being intolerant.
Now, I've personally experienced intolerance from my Mormon relatives. I'm a woman who hasn't married. Every since I was 22, I've heard things from them and from missionaries in their home like .... "You'd better hurry up and get married before no man will have you." (That was when I was 22.) "You know your life doesn't hold meaning ...." "Single women can be used by the devil. We can't tell you certain things about our family, because the devil is close to you, since you're a single woman, and while you might not want to give him information about us, he could get it from you. Then, he'd use it against us." And .... "It makes me sad that you won't convert, because I won't be able to see you in heaven." And ... "Why won't you convert?" That was voiced over and over and over and over. In fact, as I've said before, we no longer have contact, for various reasons ... including the fact that I was sick and tired of being treated as if I were less than ... that I was somehow deficient ... it was unhealthy.
Thrown in the mix of that would be their insistence that women have certain roles within the family and within society. Period. It might be okay for women to have certain jobs ... nurse, teacher, day care provider, etc.... But! They shouldn't be police officers, pilots, soldiers, etc.... My uncle, who was a walking threat to his company due to harassment laws, counseled at least one female pilot, who was married with children, that it was wrong for her to take assignments out of the country since she'd miss time with her husband and children. And ... he got upset when he was continually passed over for supervisory roles.
Many of the above instances speak of intolerance, in my opinion. Now, I'm a little .... I don't know that I'm willing to blame it all on religion, on Mormonism. I don't know enough to make that determination. They changed, in a huge way, when they moved to the South. From New England to the South .... It's widely acknowledged that many, not all, many in New England have more liberal views than many of the people in the South. Some might jump to the conclusion that more people in the South attend church, and it must be about religion!
I'm not willing to go there, being from Puritan New England. I mean, come on, we still have the vestiges of "Puritanism" here. You can see it play out every day in the way we act with people. In general ... this is in part a stereotype ... but ... I've also seen it play out, New Englanders tend to be "cooler" than people from other areas of the country, especially with strangers and in public situations. I've been told by multiple people, for example, that they thought I was a cold ... blank ... when they first met me and for awhile after that. Then, they realized I was very warm and caring. But, that isn't easily seen at the beginning. I'm cool and somewhat guarded, like so many New Englanders, when I first meet people. (As opposed to being totally open on GR.... Oh, the irony.) Being from the South, they were much warmer and thrown by my coolness. Many from the South have a hard time when they move here and speak of how different people are in how they relate to others ... New Englanders aren't as open, don't touch people as much, etc.... Yet, we New Englanders tend to have more liberal views, despite having roots in an EXTREME religion ... a religion and lifestyle that still is lived in certain ways to this very day.
We have religion, but we also have geography and cultural differences.
Therefore, I find myself wondering ... how much of their intolerance is their religion and how much of it is geography .... Don't get me wrong. I think their religion played a huge role. And, cHriS, again, I think it crossed the line from opinion to intolerance. It would be one thing if they thought women who had children should be stay-at-home moms. Opinion. It crossed the line into intolerance, for example, when my uncle pressured female pilots not to take assignments to Europe and Asia because it would be wrong ... because they should be at home with their children.
Now, I firmly think that atheists can also be intolerant. The thing is ... they tend to be intolerant about other things, in my experience. I've not known atheists to throw their gay teen out of their home, into the cold and dark, with nothing but the clothes on his/her back. Atheists haven't told me that my life doesn't matter since I'm not married. But, I have seen and experienced different types of intolerance.
We're all people, and we're bound to be intolerant to varying degrees. All of us. To claim otherwise smacks of denial, in my opinion.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: " For the most part, all of Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality and abortion "You are using the word intolerant out of context. You may not agree with the Christian view on ab..."
I can actually say intolerant when talking about abortion, have you never seen the way many Christians behave when it comes to abortion? Incidents of violence have included vandalism, kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder, arson, and bombings. How are those things not intolerance?
Shannon wrote: " We're all people, and we're bound to be intolerant to varying degrees. "Shannon, you are right we can all be intolerant but we can also just disagree. Sometimes accusing someone or something of being intolerant is used as a putdown.
We all have personal examples we can give but I'm not sure that by giving individual examples this is relevant to the over all intolerance debate. Drew has experienced intolerance in religion so every person who has a religion is intolerable.
Last year I got to know a lady who was caring for my dad. She told
me that she had three daughters. Had, because one was murdered four years ago. The murderer was black. She no longer likes black people in fact she can,t tolerate anyone who is black. You know and I know from our perspective she is wrong. But I have never been in her position so maybe its not for me to say she should not have this intolerant view.
Regarding your uncle and female pilots, this was a talked about issue on the news a couple of years ago. Not so much pilots but woman on the front line. I do no think woman should serve on the frontline if they have children. Nothing to do with me being intolerant.
Also the gay teenager and parent example can be a generation thing. Older people were raised at a time when it was illegal to be gay and they can be slow to adapt.
Drew wrote: " I can actually say intolerant when talking about abortion, have you never seen the way many Christians behave when it comes to abortion? Incidents of violence have included vandalism, kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder, arson, and bombings. How are those things not intolerance? ."Can you give a bit more detail.........
cHriS wrote: "Shannon, you are right we can all be intolerant but we can also just disagree. Sometimes accusing someone or something of being intolerant is used as a putdown. "
You make some interesting points, cHriS. While I have seen and experienced intolerance from believers and atheists alike and have personal anecdotes, as evidenced by my thought process in relating the tales, I don't automatically attribute the incidents to religion or atheism. I realize other things are at play or could be at play. In addition, I don't brand all Mormons as intolerant, for example. I've known some who are quite tolerant. The same goes for atheists. But, that's me, and you're right. Some people, based on very limited experiences, will paint an entire group of people with the same brush. I've seen that happen in life and on this thread and am disturbed by it.
Further, labeling people as intolerant can be used as a putdown ... and has been. There is a difference between having an open and honest discussion about, for example, tolerance/intolerance, and labeling entire groups as tolerant or as intolerant. The former fosters understanding, hopefully, whereas the later is sometimes meant to diminish a group of people. You do have a point.
You make some interesting points, cHriS. While I have seen and experienced intolerance from believers and atheists alike and have personal anecdotes, as evidenced by my thought process in relating the tales, I don't automatically attribute the incidents to religion or atheism. I realize other things are at play or could be at play. In addition, I don't brand all Mormons as intolerant, for example. I've known some who are quite tolerant. The same goes for atheists. But, that's me, and you're right. Some people, based on very limited experiences, will paint an entire group of people with the same brush. I've seen that happen in life and on this thread and am disturbed by it.
Further, labeling people as intolerant can be used as a putdown ... and has been. There is a difference between having an open and honest discussion about, for example, tolerance/intolerance, and labeling entire groups as tolerant or as intolerant. The former fosters understanding, hopefully, whereas the later is sometimes meant to diminish a group of people. You do have a point.
cHriS wrote: "Drew wrote: " I can actually say intolerant when talking about abortion, have you never seen the way many Christians behave when it comes to abortion? Incidents of violence have included vandalism,..."I don't believe it is necessary just to please you, you have never once given anyone any satisfactory answers to anything, why should I go out of my way to accommodate you?
Drew wrote: why should I go out of my way to accommodate you"You don't have to, but if you wanted a response I needed more info. about how you equate abortion with vandalism, kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder, arson, and bombings.
Abortion is a good example when relating it to intolerant, because with a lot of issues a compromise is the solution. It not easy to have a compromise with abortion and if you are against it that does not make you intolerant.
At one level you have no abortion at all, it is killing a life (regardless of the its not a life until so many weeks argument).
On the other level any female for what ever reason or age can have an abortion when ever they like and it will be paid for by the state.
Which one do you go along with? Or are you going somewhere in the middle by using the 'under certain circumstances' rule. Which most people will take.
But by taking that option you are then making rules of you own, about which females you would allow to have an abortion.
For example a rape victim, you may think should be able to have an abortion but a young girl who sees it as a last resort from of contraception you may not. Should the tax payer fund all abortions or are you going to limit abortions to those who can afford them. What about a woman who only wants boys, should she be allowed to abort girls if she can afford it or again should the tax payer fund it.
It is a bit more than just for or against abortions
cHriS wrote: "Even though you dislike the people who have the ideas."Wrong. I like many people who have religious ideas, I just don't agree with them and definitely don't agree when it leads to their intolerance of others. Fortunately most of them I know are very tolerant despite their religions teachings, and those that do not wish to preach their religion to others, I do not pass on my own ideas.
cHriS wrote: "How do you respect an idea? "
As soon as you put ideas before the rights, happiness or even lives of other people.
Hannah wrote: "Gary you do realise that was a spoof site don't you !!"Of course ;-) but I chose it because it threw into stark relief an actual case being brought forward to the European Court.
cHriS wrote: "Atheists here seem very intolerant of anyone with a belief. Read Gary's post above as an example."Tolerance
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
I certainly tolerate religious people, I just don't agree with them and if they feel free to speak out then I feel free to counter ideas I disagree with.
Religious people who pass judgement on what a consenting loving couple does together in privacy, and encourages others to do likewise, are not being tolerant.
Belief (as in full religious conviction, not temporary acceptance of an idea) is automatically intolerant of other ideas, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief. This is why I actively try not to believe in anything, and instead accept ideas until better ones come along. That is the only way you can try to be tolerant.
Of course I doubt anyone can be truly tolerant, because to do that you would have to tolerate intolerance which would mean that you were then supporting intolerance.
Shannon wrote: "However, I'm aware that my feelings on this matter are mine. My opinion. And, ropes and contracts or not, if we're talking about consenting adults, it's really not my business. "Well said.
Ghofran wrote: "I can't live without religion and can't without knowing more..Plus we can't prove religion weather it's right or wrong without science.. they r both so connected we can't separate them we cant just choose one and leave the other. "
We can't just choose one because you can't live without religion?
Exactly how will you die without religious support? Which particular religion can you not do without?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Sure we've had our disagreements Drew, but the disagreements at least stuck to the subject at hand, and at least addressed the points made in the preivious reply by the other. I'd be more than happy to have similar disagreements with cs......