Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious tolerance and multiculturalism
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 16 of 77 (622882)
07-07-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by frako
07-07-2011 3:02 AM


Re: Rights
intending to arouse fear.
Id sue every religious organization in Australia saying you will go to hell if you dont follow Christ is an intent to arouse fear
Frako,
You are a cunning bastard.
I believe you have proven my point in a most unexpected way.
It would seem that the three great monotheistic religions are breaking the law.
It is probably one of the greatest acts of intimidation of all time. And these threats are made to children.
For some reason this act seems to be acceptable by the masses.
Why does religion get a free hand to act outside the law?
I wonder if it would work?
I may start a thread...
or you can as I dont want to steal the idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 3:02 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 10:06 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 17 of 77 (622883)
07-07-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
07-06-2011 11:45 AM


Dr Adequate
As a hat wearing man myself (I wear a fedora) I think that the no hat rule is silly for 2 reasons.
1. What possible harm can come from a hat. I could understand a no ninja star rule or a no pet bear rule.
2. men with manners remove their hats when they go inside anyway.
I would pay to have a beagle with a bowler like development.
seriously for a sec though, with that story, I was merely pointing out where laws that are designed to be as fair as possible to all people can fall down. The antidiscrimination laws were supposed to protect people like the Sikh, allowing him all freedoms given to any other citizen without question. Unfortunately, the law designed to treat everyone equally bit him in the arse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2011 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 18 of 77 (622892)
07-07-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by frako
07-07-2011 3:02 AM


Re: Rights
frako writes:
Id sue every religious organization in Australia saying you will go to hell if you dont follow Christ is an intent to arouse fear.
That isn't really what Christianity is about. Here is a quote from "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis.
quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 3:02 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 10:20 AM GDR has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 19 of 77 (622894)
07-07-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Butterflytyrant
07-07-2011 6:22 AM


Re: Rights
I own no copyright to the idea so you just start a new thread if you want to id probably loose interest before an admin approves it
Frako,
You are a cunning bastard.
Thnx i do try my best
It would seem that the three great monotheistic religions are breaking the law.
If that is the exact wording of the law then yes they are braking the law.
For some reason this act seems to be acceptable by the masses.
Well the believers believe it and the none believers dont give a shit so they get a free pass as long as someone dosent stand up to them
Why does religion get a free hand to act outside the law?
In most cases power and influence in this case the above statement is probably the cause.
I wonder if it would work?
Technicaly it should work though you might try to consult a lawyer i studied economy so law was not a focus point though i did have a few classes on law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-07-2011 6:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 20 of 77 (622895)
07-07-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
07-07-2011 9:52 AM


Re: Rights
That isn't really what Christianity is about. Here is a quote from "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis.
quote:There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.
You have 2 choices either do whatever i want or i kill you everyone who dies by my hand chooses it whiteout this choice all would have lived.
No matter how you try to rap the whole going to hell part in nice words and charm it still says "Do what i want or suffer for eternity, the choice is yours" .
Both statements are made to instill fear for the purpose of making someone do something that another wills. And that is braking the Australian law probably Slovenian law too id would have to check

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-07-2011 9:52 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 07-07-2011 1:18 PM frako has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 21 of 77 (622896)
07-07-2011 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by frako
07-07-2011 3:02 AM


Re: Rights
Hi, Frako.
frako writes:
...saying you will go to hell if you dont follow Christ is an intent to arouse fear.
I don't think this line of reasoning is tenable or desirable in a legal system.
For example, my son has a bad habit of throwing things at my daughter, and she often gets hurt. Since she can't even crawl yet, she has no way of defending herself.
I have tried many ways of convincing my son that he shouldn't do this. Yet, the only thing that seems strong enough to protect my daughter from harm is my son's fear of spankings. In this case, arousing fear is the lesser of two evils.
If I were to abstain from all threats with the intent of arousing fear, my daughter would likely suffer immensely.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 3:02 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 12:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 22 of 77 (622931)
07-07-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
07-07-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Rights
If I were to abstain from all threats with the intent of arousing fear, my daughter would likely suffer immensely.
And who would suffer if religious institutions abstain from threats with the intent of arousing fear that will make them comply with their desires of what one should do or not do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2011 10:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2011 2:25 PM frako has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 77 (622943)
07-07-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by frako
07-07-2011 10:20 AM


Re: Rights
frako writes:
You have 2 choices either do whatever i want or i kill you everyone who dies by my hand chooses it whiteout this choice all would have lived.
No matter how you try to rap the whole going to hell part in nice words and charm it still says "Do what i want or suffer for eternity, the choice is yours" .
Both statements are made to instill fear for the purpose of making someone do something that another wills. And that is braking the Australian law probably Slovenian law too id would have to check
I think you should go back to the quote by C S Lewis that you are responding to. Do you really think that those who choose hell, (because they prefer a world apart from God characterized by self interest), should be denied their choice and forced into eternity with God?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 10:20 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 1:31 PM GDR has replied
 Message 33 by hooah212002, posted 07-07-2011 6:34 PM GDR has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 24 of 77 (622945)
07-07-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
07-07-2011 1:18 PM


Re: Rights
Do you really think that those who choose hell, (because they prefer a world apart from God characterized by self interest), should be denied their choice and forced into eternity with God?
Yea a really good choice either serve god and praise him for all eternity do whatever he asks, or go to hell where you will be tortured for ever and ever and ever.
No wait the choice is actually this you come to service every Sunday praise Jesus give money to our church or you will go to hell where you will be tortured for ever and ever and ever.
If i put a gun to your face and demand money do your realy want to be denied the choice to give me your money willingly or should i just take it and not kill you.
Telling someone something offul will happen if he does not do what you say is wrong and against the law
If god dose not like it he should fight to change the law in the mean time his representatives the church are liable for threatening people in to doing what they will.
How would you like it if i told your kid if he does not bow down to the grate chicken of peace in the sky and give him his allowance the grate chicken will torture him for ever and ever and ever in a fiery lake of fire where he will cry and cry and cry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 07-07-2011 1:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 07-07-2011 1:38 PM frako has replied
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 07-07-2011 1:45 PM frako has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 77 (622947)
07-07-2011 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by frako
07-07-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Rights
Fortunately in the US is is not only not against the law, it is protected speech.
We are fortunate that way.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 1:31 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 4:50 PM jar has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 77 (622949)
07-07-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by frako
07-07-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Rights
frako writes:
Yea a really good choice either serve god and praise him for all eternity do whatever he asks, or go to hell where you will be tortured for ever and ever and ever.
This is obviously your perceived view of Christianity but as a Christian it bears no resemblance to mine. One thing you might want to remember is that Jesus came as a servant king.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 1:31 PM frako has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 77 (622954)
07-07-2011 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
07-07-2011 12:17 PM


Re: Rights
Hi, Frako.
frako writes:
And who would suffer if religious institutions abstain from threats with the intent of arousing fear that will make them comply with their desires of what one should do or not do?
Are you tacitly accepting my point that threats for the intent of arousing fear are not universally undesirable?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 12:17 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 4:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 28 of 77 (622992)
07-07-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
07-07-2011 2:25 PM


Re: Rights
Are you tacitly accepting my point that threats for the intent of arousing fear are not universally undesirable?
Wel not in every case but your example is just bad parenting , cant you get your kid to love your sister whiteout the threat of violence
Well the law it self would be a better example if you do this you go to jail.
But would it be ecceptable if i told your child that if he dosent give me his pocket money the all loving wombat in the sky will torture him for ever and ever?
The difference i think is personal gain when you threaten your child you are protecting your other child when the state threatens us with jail they protect other peoples rights when the curch tells you you will go to hell it protects its income. A religious institution who would tell to their flock well you get to see god either way and go to heaven either way but do attend our services weakly please and do put some money in the collection plate just to make god happy would have a severely lower income then a church who says if you dont follow us you will go to the worst place possible after death if you do you will go to the best possible place. Its no different then a mugger who says your money or your life. The difference is the mugger actually has a gun religious institutions only have their fairy tales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2011 2:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ScientificBob, posted 07-08-2011 8:54 AM frako has replied
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 07-09-2011 12:55 AM frako has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 29 of 77 (622997)
07-07-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
07-07-2011 1:38 PM


Re: Rights
Fortunately in the US is is not only not against the law, it is protected speech.
We are fortunate that way.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Hmm i dont know of other acts does this mean that a religious institution can practice hate speech like a Christian church preaching all Scientologiests should be shot hung and burned ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 07-07-2011 1:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 07-07-2011 5:02 PM frako has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 77 (623002)
07-07-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by frako
07-07-2011 4:50 PM


Re: Rights
Well, shot, hung or burned might be considered exciting violence, but it would certainly be unlikely to end in a conviction. If they said "Should burn in hell forever." then it most certainly would be protected speech, thank God.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 4:50 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 6:04 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024