Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should religion get a free pass?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 106 of 112 (649055)
01-20-2012 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Tangle
01-20-2012 4:31 AM


It's much, much different - although it's changing for the worse here too. Religious beliefs are rarely mentioned in politics here and if they are, people are suspicious of them. Tony Blair's government famously said "we don't do God", then as soon as he was out of office he got himself baptised Catholic - the two faced, lying git.
I don't really see the contradiction there. His government can not "do God" but he can "do God" in his private and personal capacity. He always did, he was a Christian before changing sects, we knew that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2012 4:31 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2012 11:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 107 of 112 (649081)
01-20-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Larni
01-19-2012 2:26 PM


Hello Larni,
Larni writes:
Why not so for beleiveing that when we die we will ascend to heaven of descend to hell?
I think the obvious answer is, and I am sure you know this; the latter is deeply intrenched in our past culture and traditions. The former if given enough time and multitudes of followers, say a few thousand years may give rise to a new order of toilet fairy zealots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Larni, posted 01-19-2012 2:26 PM Larni has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 108 of 112 (649082)
01-20-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2012 5:29 AM


Dr.Adequate writes:
His government can not "do God" but he can "do God" in his private and personal capacity. He always did, he was a Christian before changing sects, we knew that.
I, and no one I've ever spoken to, knew Blair was a Christian (capital C). We assumed he was a cultural, liberal christian - but we never knew he was a bona fide nut job until the rumours spread about him getting on his knees to pray with Bush before launching into Iraq. The Catholic baptism put the hat on it.
The fact is that he hid his beliefs until they couldn't do him any political damage - that's hypocrisy.
Interesting take on it here:
In a recent interview for Vanity Fair magazine, reporter David Margolick asked Prime Minister Tony Blair about his Christian faith. In a remarkable demonstration of the power of unelected media manipulators, chief spin-doctor Alistair Campbell interrupted the Prime Minister's reply to say 'I'm sorry, we don't do God.'
An editorial in the London Daily Telegraph on Monday 5th May 2003 wryly comments:
One could write a book about everything that this little intervention has to tell us about Mr Blair and his style of government, and about Britain in 2003.
It goes on to ask
What does it tell us about modern Britain, that Mr Blair's chief adviser on his 'image' should think that it would look bad for him to mention God?
A news report in the same issue comments that this (and another incident to which it refers) shows
the extent of the secular grip that Mr Campbell - an avowed atheist - exercises on his boss. He fears that religion is too sensitive an issue for the Prime Minister to speak about.
Of course, viewed at a purely political, tactical level, Campbell may well have been right: if the Prime Minister were to start talking about God or faith, almost anything he said would offend someone. However we cannot help wondering whether many people might prefer our politicians to have the courage of their convictions, even when those convictions may be unpopular. After all why should the Prime Minister not have religious beliefs? And why should the public not know about these beliefs? Presumably they have some effect on his political decisions, and this makes them a matter of public interest.
However, this event is more than a commentary on the triumph of politically correct style over substance. It is also an illustration of one of the key themes picked up in 'Facing the Challenge' - the privatisation of Christian faith, by which your faith is seen as privately engaging, but publicly irrelevant. It is nice that you have found something that will help you get through the day, but you should not expect it to have any influence in the wider public world of business, or education, or law, or politics.
The fact is, of course, that all of us without exception (not least the most rabid atheists and anti-Christians) do expect our private beliefs to influence public discourse. Secularists like Campbell make no bones about the fact that they expect their non-religious agenda to carry the day.
The Telegraph editorial concludes:
How very strange that Mr Campbell is happy to tell the world about his own past struggles against alcoholism and mental breakdown, but shudders to hear his employer mentioning his religion. Mr Blair should trust more in the Almighty, and less in Alistair Campbell.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 5:29 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Larni, posted 01-20-2012 1:35 PM Tangle has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 109 of 112 (649084)
01-20-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by hooah212002
01-19-2012 7:10 PM


Are we surprised
Hello hooah,
hooah212002 writes:
So, religion deserves this free pass and it's quite alright to openly mock atheists???
I am surprised that such a notion even comes up. It is so patently obvious that religion has been one of the rudimentary elements in many countries.
Back in the day,
If someone was a atheist and wanted to advance in business or politics they kept their pie hole shut and played ball.
Just as the hypocrits sitting in mass where coming out of confession after having committed every grave sin possible.
You dont rock the boat and you play ball.
Is it right? Of course not.
Are we all suddenly so naive to think things are not fair? Well
they are not fair. There is in this country a stigma associated with religion, either for or against, it is a fact of life. I know hospitals that are run by Seven day Adv__. that if one wants to be promoted it is funny how only members of the church are given the nod. Is it fair? Legal? Shit man we all know the answers.
Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by hooah212002, posted 01-19-2012 7:10 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 01-20-2012 3:12 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 110 of 112 (649102)
01-20-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
01-20-2012 11:32 AM


until the rumours spread about him getting on his knees to pray with Bush before launching into Iraq. The Catholic baptism put the hat on it.
That made me reall want to punch him in his stupid crying face.
Making such decisions based on religion is a real cu ts trick.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 01-20-2012 11:32 AM Tangle has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 111 of 112 (649113)
01-20-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by 1.61803
01-20-2012 11:47 AM


Re: Are we surprised
I am surprised that such a notion even comes up.
Given that the subject of the thread is "why should religion get a free pass?", it is not surprising that I, an avowed godless heathen, would say (saracastically) what I said. If you think religion still deserves this free pass that you admit it has, fine, so be it. If not, you've nothing to really say against my comments.
If someone was a atheist and wanted to advance in business or politics they kept their pie hole shut and played ball.
Just as the hypocrits sitting in mass where coming out of confession after having committed every grave sin possible.
You dont rock the boat and you play ball.
Is it right? Of course not.
Are we all suddenly so naive to think things are not fair? Well
they are not fair. There is in this country a stigma associated with religion, either for or against, it is a fact of life. I know hospitals that are run by Seven day Adv__. that if one wants to be promoted it is funny how only members of the church are given the nod. Is it fair? Legal? Shit man we all know the answers.
This is all true and blindingly obvious. It also explains why we need loud mouthed atheists like myself. We all know the liberal/moderate religionists won't rock the boat. For if they do, it will jeopardize their ability to openly believe the stupid shit they believe.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 11:47 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 112 of 112 (649118)
01-20-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Larni
01-20-2012 3:25 AM


Saying "I don't believe in god" nets far less negativity.
It's quite the opposite over here (save for the most liberal of liberal places). It's almost a given that you believe in jesus as your savior. Anyone who says otherwise is typically met with "WHAT???? Well what DO you believe??? You must believe something. Do you worship satan???" Most people wil start a religious conversation with "so, what church do you go to??"
On my FB feed yesterday, I posted the video of Jessica Ahlquist speaking at the school board meeting where they were "voting" on whether or not to appeal the ruling. midway through her speech, ADULTS start booing her. I commented along with the post saying "disgusting bigots". My ex-wifes father commented something along the lines of "this is getting out of hand. If you don't like the prayer, just don't look at it" (yes, I am still in "debate" with him about this). Mind you, he is an engineer and I have no idea what his religious affiliation is, because he never says anything religious. So that says to me he is at most pretty fucking liberal about it. It is that kind of attitude over here from the moderates that is the most annoying.

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Larni, posted 01-20-2012 3:25 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024