You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
Open Debate on the question of should Religous beliefs be categorised as a form of intolerance.
A very sticky subject I know and bound to be inflamatory but I firmly believe that the corner stone of any democracy should be the right of any person to ask any question they wish and not be shouted down, ridiculed or castigated lest they upset someone.
To quote Christpher Hitchens:
"Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt."
Along with:
"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is"
So without further ado should religion be banned as divisive and institutionally biggoted?
My stance is that they should not be given the protections that they enjoy in law in their current forms. I can think of no other area of life where a person can believe in something that is so openly intolerant of another person's beliefs or ways of living their life. All of the major religions see themselves as the unquestionable word of the Lord and have little if any care for sharing this view. They all go as far as to denounce homosexuality, albeit covertly, and they operate a closed shop whereby they all claim that the only way to get to their slice of heaven is to follow what they preach.
For those reasons I feel they operate above the law and that is why I feel religion should be viewed as an instrument of division and not held up on a lofty legal pedastal. To me it's an athema when we ban far right and far left groups for hate speech and yet we allow religious dogma to dictate to a follower views that could be consistant with either of the extremes of the far left or right.
Please do not confuse this with me calling for an outright ban on religion, I believe people should be free to worship at whatever shrine they wish. I merely ask the question, should we start looking at what is being preached and say to those followers you need to change a few things because they are outdated and, quite frankly, offensive.
Discuss
(Be grown up folks discussion is about putting across a salient argument either for or against, not an excuse to mock, ridicule or grind an axe.)
To quote Christpher Hitchens:
"Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt."
Along with:
"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is"
So without further ado should religion be banned as divisive and institutionally biggoted?
My stance is that they should not be given the protections that they enjoy in law in their current forms. I can think of no other area of life where a person can believe in something that is so openly intolerant of another person's beliefs or ways of living their life. All of the major religions see themselves as the unquestionable word of the Lord and have little if any care for sharing this view. They all go as far as to denounce homosexuality, albeit covertly, and they operate a closed shop whereby they all claim that the only way to get to their slice of heaven is to follow what they preach.
For those reasons I feel they operate above the law and that is why I feel religion should be viewed as an instrument of division and not held up on a lofty legal pedastal. To me it's an athema when we ban far right and far left groups for hate speech and yet we allow religious dogma to dictate to a follower views that could be consistant with either of the extremes of the far left or right.
Please do not confuse this with me calling for an outright ban on religion, I believe people should be free to worship at whatever shrine they wish. I merely ask the question, should we start looking at what is being preached and say to those followers you need to change a few things because they are outdated and, quite frankly, offensive.
Discuss
(Be grown up folks discussion is about putting across a salient argument either for or against, not an excuse to mock, ridicule or grind an axe.)
Comments
my answer is yes, I have never understood,ood why someone can say hateful things hiding behind the pretence of it being religious
Who decides whether someones beliefs are classed as "religion?"
Is it decided by law?
If you wanted to start a new religion who do you contact?
Not sure if you're missing the point. The question isn't about what is or isn't a religion it's about should religions be afforded the protections given them in law if thier teaching are contrary to what would be considered unlawful in any other context.
The ‘ trouble’ with the answer is that laws change, and the truth doesn’t, so any religion that is following a certain way would need to change course dependent on which political party was in power, hence making the ‘ religion’ redundant of value.
As you say the law changes and evolves to suit either the politcal policies of those in power or a shift and change in public opinion. I'm thinking particularly how until very recently abortion in Ireland was illegal, mainly because of the close ties to Catholisism. But times change and we now acknowledge (whether it be right or wrong) that a woman has the right to decide to take what must be a traumatic decision as it is her body. Abortion is still considered a sin but thankfully should a woman find herself having to make what must be the hardest decision anyone can make, she is free to do so from persecution.
This just further emphasises to me that religion, and indeed cultural beliefs, should not be above the law or be allowed to perpetuate dogma that has either lost its relevance in the world today or is alien to the country we live in.
Idea of religious extremism is kinda weird if you think about it, it's just a load of people with certain beliefs on both sides arguing what is right and no one really knows. I might go to **** for eating bacon this morning, might be reborn as a pig and get made into bacon for karma. Pretty tricky for governments to be truly agnostic when most countries laws have developed over centuries based on the prominent religious belief. On that note I'm gonna go rastafari and have a j.
It could be argued that ‘ The state ‘ is intolerant, certainly some members of the parties in power have been, and still are.
The problem with a democracy is ....democracy, The change in law to allow abortion ( And any other change of law which is in conflict to a persons ‘ religious’ beliefs) shouldn’t override the persons freedom to follow the path in which they choose to follow.( As long as it doesn’t harm anyone)
“ Thou shalt not kill” is not to be taken lightly, and as you say, the decision for a woman to make such a decision must be such a traumatic one ( For some, not all) dependent on circumstances of conception, that’s not to say that a person “ shouldn’t “ have the right to say or believe that any killing is wrong.
The fact of the matter is, that religions per se are “ run” by humans, and humans are flawed .
There are many good things in religious texts, and if you follow your life using simple guidelines, be kind to your neighbour , love thy enemy etc etc, you won’t go far wrong., however if you are guided by the laws and rules of the day ( I know, you have to be lawful) which change with the wind, that’s the road to ruin,
Interesting spot for a head teacher, fold pre.. sit out.. close lobby... shut down computer.. run far away as far as possible is probably the optimal line. all sides equally intolerent of each others beliefs.