The Hazards of Belief

marienbad · 16-12-2014 12:35am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I honestly think you've got it backwards here on the gay marriage vote. This is one issue where people will come out and register their vote in favour.

Oh and there are three reasons why the Republicans control both house and senate, 1) the skew that naturally gives smaller more rural (and more conservative) states and districts representation over what their population should allow, 2) gerrymandering, and 3) vote stealing and other illegal behaviour.

The fact of the matter is that the offices which control elections and districting for elections in the US are political in nature, and the Republicans have long been far better at doing the nasty deeds in these areas than the Democrats (especially after they absorbed the Dixiecrats who had 100 years of experience stealing votes off black folks), allowing their small base to be overrepresented at government level. Electoral results in the US very rarely reflect the democratic will of the people.

Lets wait and see then, we had equally strong poll results in previous social issues referenda but lost some and barely squeaked through on others .

The fact of the matter is the conservative vote is older and more committed to this issue and always show the highest turnout in elections .While the liberal vote are younger and more numerous but not the best at turning out to vote. If they were we would have a permanent social democratic majority in virtually every western nation.

What you say on the US is true up to a point - but it validates my point - the democratic vote simply does not turn out midterm , but come the general election Hilary will win in a canter because that election they do turn out .

But All I am saying is the polls can induce a false sense of complacency - this is not a done deal yet .

Hotblack Desiato · 16-12-2014 10:22am

TBH at this stage I think the more the RCC mouth off, the more it will encourage the Yes vote to turn out. These bishops do not represent the Ireland that the vast majority of people want to live in. The pensioner vote that helped bring in the 8th amendment, and made divorce in 1995 a close-run thing, is dead and the current generation of pensioners aren't all as conservative as they're made out to be. Voters under 50 are overwhelmingly in favour. So, RCC, keep mouthing off and encourage us to turn out to spite you

the_monkey · 16-12-2014 2:55pm

Another absolute tragedy in Pakistan today.

Mainly children too, just sickening.

MrPudding · 16-12-2014 6:07pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Another absolute tragedy in Pakistan today.

Mainly children too, just sickening.

Disgusting and awful.

Presumably this tragedy had nothing to do with Islam...? Been busy so have only seen twitter headlines.

MrP

Nodin · 16-12-2014 7:48pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Disgusting and awful.

Presumably this tragedy had nothing to do with Islam...? Been busy so have only seen twitter headlines.

MrP

Nothing to do with it. The Army went into some tribal area, this lot objected and decided to target a school for army families in retaliation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30491435
How precisely they can justify targeting school kids is beyond me, but there ye go.

Nodin · 16-12-2014 8:57pm

"A three-year papal investigation into America’s 50,000 nuns, which inspired comparisons with the Inquisition, produced an unexpectedly benign report on Tuesday, containing somewhat tepid reprimands and calling for a careful review of their spiritual practices."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/16/vatican-inquiry-american-nuns-mild-rebuke-pope

Brian Shanahan · 16-12-2014 9:32pm

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing to do with it. The Army went into some tribal area, this lot objected and decided to target a school for army families in retaliation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30491435
How precisely they can justify targeting school kids is beyond me, but there ye go.

At least now there is a chance for the army (especially the ISI, the army intelligence agency) to split the unholy alliance they've had with the Taliban, now that the Taliban have shown their willingness to bite the hand that feeds them.

The Black Oil · 18-12-2014 10:39pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Another absolute tragedy in Pakistan today.

Mainly children too, just sickening.

'My son was my dream. My dream has been killed.'
Source

What a loss.

robindch · 22-12-2014 11:51am

The Order of Franciscans Minor, aka the Franciscans, appear to have run into some serious financial trouble. No news at this time on exactly what's happened, but the full text of the letter below suggests that the may be bankrupt and that the police have been called in to assist.

http://www.ofm.org/ofm/?p=8757

Franciscans wrote:

[...] First, the General Curia finds itself in grave, and I underscore ‘grave’ financial difficulty, with a significant burden of debt. Second, the systems of financial oversight and control for the management of the patrimony of the Order were either too weak or were compromised, thus limiting their effectiveness to guarantee responsible, transparent management. [...] Third, there appears to have taken place a number of questionable financial activities that were conducted by friars entrusted with the care of the patrimony of the Order without the full knowledge or consent of the former and current General Definitorium. Because of the scope and magnitude of these activities, they have placed the financial stability of the General Curia at grave risk. [...]

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2014 11:56am

Third, there appears to have taken place a number of questionable financial activities that were conducted by friars entrusted with the care of the patrimony of the Order without the full knowledge or consent of the former and current General Definitorium.

I'm sure that's incorrect, the money was just resting in their accounts.

Brian Shanahan · 22-12-2014 1:12pm

robindch wrote: »

The Order of Franciscans Minor, aka the Franciscans, appear to have run into some serious financial trouble. No news at this time on exactly what's happened, but the full text of the letter below suggests that the may be bankrupt and that the police have been called in to assist.

http://www.ofm.org/ofm/?p=8757

Second, the systems of financial oversight and control for the management of the patrimony of the Order were either too weak or were compromised, thus limiting their effectiveness to guarantee responsible, transparent management.

This to me looks like they were operating the same loose, financially irresponsible and fraudulent scams that the banks were doing before the crash, and have started doing again in the last few years.

But hey, what do you expect from the religion that gave us simony, and is still practising it in the form of mass cards (despite canon laws supposedly outlawing it).

kylith · 22-12-2014 3:21pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This to me looks like they were operating the same loose, financially irresponsible and fraudulent scams that the banks were doing before the crash, and have started doing again in the last few years.

But hey, what do you expect from the religion that gave us simony, and is still practising it in the form of mass cards (despite canon laws supposedly outlawing it).

Mass cards are banned under canon law??? This is going to be news to The Mammy.

Brian Shanahan · 22-12-2014 4:26pm

kylith wrote: »

Mass cards are banned under canon law??? This is going to be news to The Mammy.

Well selling intercessions to god through the church is simony which was supposedly banned by various church councils from the Concordat of Worms on, and also one of the main gripes which caused Martin Luther to go off in his own direction.

And mass cards are selling intercessions to god through the church.

P.S. I'm not saying they're banned (they are obviously not), I'm just saying that if the rcc applied their own laws in any legitimate fashion they would be.

Absolam · 22-12-2014 4:37pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

P.S. I'm not saying they're banned (they are obviously not), I'm just saying that if the rcc applied their own laws in any legitimate fashion they would be.

I think it's more likely the RCC applies it's laws in an entirely legitimate fashion by its own lights, just not by yours. And in fairness, they are their own laws.... So they pretty much get to define what is a legitimate fashion.
P.S. You did say they're outlawed... Even though they are obviously not.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2014 9:38pm

How daft is this.

Married priest replaces priest getting married

recedite · 22-12-2014 9:49pm

Provincials and Custodes in a number of the Franciscan Conferences also were provided with a brief, albeit incomplete, explanation of our situation and were requested to demonstrate their solidarity with the General Curia through prayer and in other significant ways....

Is he suggesting that prayer by itself is not significant?
Ah, I see the matter is clarified further on in the letter....

I ask of all Provincials and Custodes your understanding and for a financial contribution to help address the current situation

recedite · 22-12-2014 10:00pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How daft is this.

Married priest replaces priest getting married

Fairly daft alright. But if he follows my cunning plan, Father Gay may get married and yet live to fight another Day.
The rules are set to allow the poaching of priests from a rival sect with tempting special offers, while not treating the existing priests so well.
Therefore Fr. Gay should decamp to the Anglicans for a while, and then re-convert to the RCC afterwards, taking along the wife and whatever sprogs he has produced, as extra converts to catholicism. That should make Rome happy, and who knows, he may even be able to displace Fr. Day and get his old job back.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-12-2014 10:30pm

'Canadian Philomenas' continue to fight for justice

Hotblack Desiato · 29-12-2014 8:54pm

Astrophysicist angers Christians with Christmas tweet

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson sparked an Internet supernova on Christmas Day when he took to Twitter to troll Christians.

“On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world,” the “Cosmos” host tweeted Thursday. “Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642.”

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) December 25, 2014

The meteoric missive by the director of the Hayden Planetarium was retweeted more than 57,000 times and sparked plenty of vitriol.

Think the NY Post might be hyping this up just a tad? :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine · 29-12-2014 10:44pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Astrophysicist angers Christians with Christmas tweet

Think the NY Post might be hyping this up just a tad? :rolleyes:

They're owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course they're going to hype it up.

CptMackey · 30-12-2014 4:04pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Astrophysicist angers Christians with Christmas tweet

Think the NY Post might be hyping this up just a tad? :rolleyes:

People are crazy sensitive about nothing aren't they . It's mental

Hotblack Desiato · 30-12-2014 5:23pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They're owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course they're going to hype it up.

They were responsible for one of the all time great headlines though -

robindch · 05-01-2015 2:55pm

A reporter and a photographer visit the Central African Republic where two religions of peace are facing each other down in a savage civil war. The report is not for the faint-hearted.

http://features.hrw.org/features/Unravelling_central_african_republic/index.php

Nodin · 05-01-2015 6:17pm

"Should children be exposed to the Sounds Of Sodomy?"
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/05/sounds-of-sodomy/

Answers on postcard to the usual.

PopePalpatine · 05-01-2015 8:34pm

A certain up-his-own-arse far-right Catholic has already made his "contribution" to the AH thread, and has unsurprisingly run away.

Hotblack Desiato · 06-01-2015 1:42am

"Should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

Are they arguing for children to be taken away from religious fundamentalists, because they're the only ones obsessed with other people's "unholy acts" ???

Poe or real, I just can't tell anymore.

RikuoAmero · 06-01-2015 9:01am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A certain up-his-own-arse far-right Catholic has already made his "contribution" to the AH thread, and has unsurprisingly run away.

Which thread? Link please?

PopePalpatine · 06-01-2015 1:31pm

It's the thread about the homophobic leaflets, and this particular reactionary seemed more offended by the "PC brigade" than by the contents of this leaflet.

jank · 07-01-2015 1:47pm

A great juxtaposition here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.
One posts annoying leaflets into letterboxes, the other kills you for your opinion.

Gunmen still at large, rumoured to be 4. Hope it ends without more innocent blood being split.

oscarBravo · 07-01-2015 1:53pm

jank wrote: »

A great justification here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.

Assuming you meant "juxtaposition", who did that (apart from you just now)?

jank · 07-01-2015 2:04pm

Well is it quite a contrast in fairness, from handing out leaflets to executing journalists. I suppose I take a certain view on what is an actual hazard and what is an occasional annoyance.

MrPudding · 07-01-2015 4:14pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's the thread about the homophobic leaflets, and this particular reactionary seemed more offended by the "PC brigade" than by the contents of this leaflet.

Please don't make us look for it... Please...

MrP

PopePalpatine · 07-01-2015 4:32pm

I don't think I'd be allowed to name names, unfortunately. All I can tell you is his username is Irish for a type of non-lay Christian.

MrPudding · 07-01-2015 7:05pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't think I'd be allowed to name names, unfortunately. All I can tell you is his username is Irish for a type of non-lay Christian.

If only there was some kind of system for sending messages, that were not public, to other board users. We could call them 'not-public messages' or perhaps 'NPMs' for short. That would be awesome.

MrP

RikuoAmero · 07-01-2015 7:30pm

MrPudding wrote: »

If only there was some kind of system for sending messages, that were not public, to other board users. We could call them 'not-public messages' or perhaps 'NPMs' for short. That would be awesome.

MrP

Me too! Me too! Don't forget me!:cool:

Hotblack Desiato · 08-01-2015 2:28am

jank wrote: »

A great juxtaposition here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.

One lot murders journalists, the other murders abortion clinic doctors.
They both murder gays

Nodin · 08-01-2015 5:34am

"In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech.
But not everyone is so supportive.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/?tid=sm_fb

Sad in the extreme.

jank · 08-01-2015 6:25am

Unfortunately the above sentiment is displayed by the non religious as well. Time magazine printed in 2011 under the headline "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr" in regards Charlie Hedbo continuous printing of satirical cartoons....

http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies?

“[N]ot only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

One would have thought a free society can indeed print cartoons that others may find offensive.

Peregrinus · 08-01-2015 8:35am

Good opinion peice on this here.

In a nutshell:

1. The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.

2. There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.

3. The legitimacy and wisdom of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

oscarBravo · 08-01-2015 10:32am

The legitimacy... of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.

There's a fatal logical loophole in that argument: it implies that it's possible to de-legitimise criticism by the threat of violent reprisal.

Peregrinus · 08-01-2015 10:44am

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a fatal logical loophole in that argument: it implies that it's possible to de-legitimise criticism by the threat of violent reprisal.

What the article is saying is not that criticism of Islamist fundamentalists is de-legitimised if that criticism is going to provoke a violent attack. It's that criticism of people giving gratuitous offence is de-legitimized if those people are subject to violent attack for what they have done.

In other words, it may in some circumstances be cruel and/or stupid to attack an already alienated and marginalised minority by deliberately setting out to outrage their sensibilities, and it may iin some circumstances be right to denounce this cruelty and stupidity. But when people are attacked and murdered for doing that, it's neither appopriate nor relevant to say that their behaviour was cruel and/or stupid. Any fault they have may have committed is dwarfed by the fault of those who attack and murder them, and the need to defend freedom and the rule of law eclipses any concerns about not giving gratuitous offence.

oscarBravo · 08-01-2015 10:48am

Ah, fair enough - I misread.

recedite · 08-01-2015 10:18pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's that criticism of people giving gratuitous offence is de-legitimized if those people are subject to violent attack for what they have done.

Interesting, but what if the offended party retaliates in a more "proportionate" way, do you think that is justified?
I'm thinking now of Sony's movie "The interview" portraying a mock-up of the murder of Kim Jong Un, who was obviously offended by same. Although nothing is proven, suppose for the sake of argument that Kim had responded by hacking the Sony website, releasing personal e-mails and by damaging the marketing opportunities of the movie. But no actual violence. Would he be justified in doing this, or would his response be an attack on free speech?

RikuoAmero · 08-01-2015 10:30pm

recedite wrote: »

Interesting, but what if the offended party retaliates in a more "proportionate" way, do you think that is justified?
I'm thinking now of Sony's movie "The interview" portraying a mock-up of the murder of Kim Jong Un, who was obviously offended by same. Although nothing is proven, suppose for the sake of argument that Kim had responded by hacking the Sony website, releasing personal e-mails and by damaging the marketing opportunities of the movie. But no actual violence. Would he be justified in doing this, or would his response be an attack on free speech?

The only proper response to speech you don't like is more speech. If I write a story in which you get raped and murdered, would you think yourself justified if you hacked my company's servers and revealed private information of my employees, some of whom have nothing at all to do with my story?

PopePalpatine · 08-01-2015 10:43pm

So, I heard that there's some pics Anjem Choudary wants taken down from the Internet. Thankfully /r/pics is there to show them to the world!

recedite · 08-01-2015 11:15pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

.. employees, some of whom have nothing at all to do with..

Ah yes, the old Nuremberg defence.

"Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion. And shutting down a server is a fairly passive sort of reaction, it is the opposite to speech, which gives it a sort of equivalence.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-01-2015 11:38pm

So people can shut down speech they disagree with, just because?
Have you thought this through?

RikuoAmero · 08-01-2015 11:51pm

recedite wrote: »

Ah yes, the old Nuremberg defence.

"Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion. And shutting down a server is a fairly passive sort of reaction, it is the opposite to speech, which gives it a sort of equivalence.

The Nuremberg defence applies only to those who themselves carry out atrocities and then later claim "I was only following orders!"
In my hypothetical scenario, I am the owner of a company with several employees. I am known as the head of that company. On my own initiative, I write a story in which you, by name, are raped and murdered. Your response is to hack my company's servers (not just shut down as you said there) and to release private information relating to my employees, who had nothing to do with me writing and posting online the offensive story. So the janitor I hired should just shrug his shoulders when you release online his PPS number, his medical history, etc etc?
Is that a a justified response on your part? To hurt others in an attempt to get back at me?

oscarBravo · 08-01-2015 11:52pm

recedite wrote: »

"Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion.

I can think of at least two movies where a key plot point is a plan to assassinate the Queen of England. I don't recall MI6 hacking anything in retaliation.

recedite · 09-01-2015 1:25am

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can think of at least two movies where a key plot point is a plan to assassinate the Queen of England. I don't recall MI6 hacking anything in retaliation.

A couple of differences spring to mind; did the Queen specifically voice an objection? Was the murder portrayed in a graphic way or was the plot foiled?
Was the hero portrayed as defending her?
(Rhetorical questions)

The Hazards of Belief

Comments