Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Thargor wrote: »
    Pathetic attempt there Absolam.
    Whereas this post has all of brevity to recommend it :)


  • Options
    #93
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you may be throwing out spurious statistics here again; instead of me asking any gay people, how about you present some evidence for your assertion? An assertion which seems to be wandering somewhat afield of your point (again). Would you care to come back to the question?
    Can you explain how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world?
    Let's take one person who has a belief in an entity and is prepared to use it. What advantage does he have over the other person who doesn't have a belief in an entity, so can't use it?
    Particularly when confronted by a person who knows that the entity doesn't exist?
    That's probably interesting... but are you saying it has something to do with the question?

    You post like I need to explain things to an alien. Sorry not biting, if you are unfamiliar with social issues of the 20 th century then go and your own research. I've explained that individual religious people can treat their families badly based on religious beliefs that they deem to be immovable. In groups they advocate for religious based policy beliefs to be enshrined in law. If they were not religious they wouldn't be so dogmatic.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #94
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    You did indicate you had a problem with people having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws depending on their ethos; whose opinion of their ethos does it depend on, if not yours?

    Tyranny of the majority is a catchphrase it seems most often thrown out when a minority doesn't get what they want because a majority wants something different, but undemocratic? Wikipedia places it as a variant of democracy, and it was famously called 'the one pervading evil of democracy'. I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...

    Talk about twisting the meaning of a post to suit your self ! Nowhere have I even hinted at my ethos being the deciding factor . That is so ridiculous an interpretation I wonder is there any point taking you seriously .

    As for you casual dismissal of the minority , I would remind you that virtually everyone is a minority in some way , by race, religion,sex, age ,orientation , intellectual ability, etc . But you seem content to favour the bullying by numbers approach - thankfully your time is fading more rapidly every day and we are the better for it.

    We already lived through the Christian version of Sharia law- no thanks.


  • Options
    #95
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    So... your issue now is that christians think they're doing what god wants? Even though you know that god doesn't exist, so they can't possibly be doing what god wants?

    How on earth did you come up with that reading ? They are doing what they think God wants !

    It is irrelevant whether God exists or not , they believe he does and that is what matters and so they base their action on that belief.


  • Options
    #96
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Well, firstly that doesn't address the initial question of how someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world.

    Now I'm wondering if you and I are speaking the same language. It's not a direct effect, it's not like belief in an entity can magically change the laws of a country. It's indirect, in that the believer is more likely to be more motivated to expend more time, effort and resources on changing the legislation in their favour.
    a zealous atheist has an equal advantage in passion over a disinterested religious person.
    True, but it all comes down to emotion, to passion. You could certainly call me a passionate atheist, but there have been times even where I've stopped doing "atheist-y" things. Perhaps it was down to the reward/punishment mental state that is present in all of us? If I was a religious believer, I'd have been more inclined to continue work on changing legislation, because I'd be convinced this is what God wants, I'm doing God's work, I'll get a reward (of some sort) out of it.
    Lacking that, even though I am strongly atheist, I can certainly become unmotivated.
    It almost seems a contradiction in terms...a disinterested religious person. Someone who believes that God wants X (e.g. no homosexual marriage), believes this God character to be absolute and infallible...but is disinterested in promoting God's teachings? Off-hand, I'd have to suggest that such a person actually doubts these teachings deep down.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    You post like I need to explain things to an alien. Sorry not biting, if you are unfamiliar with social issues of the 20 th century then go and your own research. I've explained that individual religious people can treat their families badly based on religious beliefs that they deem to be immovable. In groups they advocate for religious based policy beliefs to be enshrined in law. If they were not religious they wouldn't be so dogmatic.
    I have to admit, I'm not partial to the 'everybody knows' school of statistical analysis, I much prefer hard facts. Particularly having seen your 'difference between 90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%' from earlier on, along with your claim that the number of religious people in Ireland is falling. If you've actually done any real research on social issues of the 20th century, I'm sure you can point me to the peer reviews.


  • Options
    #98
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Talk about twisting the meaning of a post to suit your self ! Nowhere have I even hinted at my ethos being the deciding factor . That is so ridiculous an interpretation I wonder is there any point taking you seriously .
    Actually, I asked you whose opinion of their ethos does it depend on, if not yours? You're still welcome to answer.
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for you casual dismissal of the minority , I would remind you that virtually everyone is a minority in some way , by race, religion,sex, age ,orientation , intellectual ability, etc . But you seem content to favour the bullying by numbers approach - thankfully your time is fading more rapidly every day and we are the better for it.
    I don't recall dismissing the minority, let alone casually, but you haven't convinced me you have a better system than democracy yet.
    marienbad wrote: »
    We already lived through the Christian version of Sharia law- no thanks.
    Well as I said already, I'm happy enough to live in a country where everyone can hope to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside, and the majority can see it.


  • Options
    #99
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    How on earth did you come up with that reading ? They are doing what they think God wants !
    I pretty much got it from Silverharp saying:
    silverharp wrote: »
    What other conclusion is there but that christians think they doing what god wants?
    As you can see... pretty much verbatim.
    marienbad wrote: »
    It is irrelevant whether God exists or not , they believe he does and that is what matters and so they base their action on that belief.
    Well, it seems entirely relevant to someone who knows God doesn't exist, wouldn't you say? That person is quite certain the religious person isn't doing what God wants.
    But I agree, in the grand scheme of things, it is irrelevant whether or not someone believes the old testament is somehow tapping into the mind of god or not, what is relevant is what they actually do, regardless of what they believe. Which is why I can't come to grips with Silverharps issue with the idea that the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind (Who presents it? And why care if they do?), and still less with the ludicrous idea that by implication people could use the idea of tapping into Gods mind to try to effect things in the real world. How can the idea of tapping into a deitys mind actually be used to effect anything, if the existence of the deity is not accepted?


  • Options
    #100
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    I have to admit, I'm not partial to the 'everybody knows' school of statistical analysis, I much prefer hard facts. Particularly having seen your 'difference between 90% adhering to a set of beliefs versus say 30% or 40%' from earlier on, along with your claim that the number of religious people in Ireland is falling. If you've actually done any real research on social issues of the 20th century, I'm sure you can point me to the peer reviews.

    I would it i thought you were genuinely curious but Im not biting

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #101
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Now I'm wondering if you and I are speaking the same language. It's not a direct effect, it's not like belief in an entity can magically change the laws of a country.
    So you agree; it's quite difficult to see how (without invoking magic) someone can use a belief in an entity to affect things in the real world.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    It's indirect, in that the believer is more likely to be more motivated to expend more time, effort and resources on changing the legislation in their favour.
    And whilst that is actually being motivated by a belief rather than using a belief, it is something that is not dependent on the belief in the entity at all; similar motivation can also be achieved without any belief in an entity. Case in point the highly motivated posters on A&A who regularly engage in similar lobbying and activist activities to the motivated posters on the Christianity forum.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    True, but it all comes down to emotion, to passion. You could certainly call me a passionate atheist, but there have been times even where I've stopped doing "atheist-y" things. Perhaps it was down to the reward/punishment mental state that is present in all of us? If I was a religious believer, I'd have been more inclined to continue work on changing legislation, because I'd be convinced this is what God wants, I'm doing God's work, I'll get a reward (of some sort) out of it.
    I'm going to have to call you on that; can you present any empirical evidence that (setting aside zealots) religious people in general are more motivated than non religious people? I doubt it. Even Silverharp has been busy pointing out how few Catholics in Ireland are sufficiently motivated to attend Mass once a week.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Lacking that, even though I am strongly atheist, I can certainly become unmotivated.
    I'm sure there's somewhere in the bible where it mentions that, even though he was strongly christian (you can't get much stronger than being the son of god I reckon), Jesus was known to become unmotivated occasionally. And if it could happen to him, well.....
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    It almost seems a contradiction in terms...a disinterested religious person. Someone who believes that God wants X (e.g. no homosexual marriage), believes this God character to be absolute and infallible...but is disinterested in promoting God's teachings? Off-hand, I'd have to suggest that such a person actually doubts these teachings deep down.
    And yet A&A is filled with observations about a la carte and social catholics who are happy to declare their faith, but apparently not so happy to make any effort with it. Maybe there's a little too much 'this is what a religious person should be like because it's easy to pick holes in'. It always seems such a struggle to get them to actually fit the pigeonhole afterwards.
    Of course there's always the old fallback 'if they don't fit the frame, they're not really religious regardless of what they say'. That seems to be comforting for some.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, I asked you whose opinion of their ethos does it depend on, if not yours? You're still welcome to answer.
    I don't recall dismissing the minority, let alone casually, but you haven't convinced me you have a better system than democracy yet.
    Well as I said already, I'm happy enough to live in a country where everyone can hope to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside, and the majority can see it.

    The lord of distortion strikes again , I have no interest in convincing you of anything , happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .


  • Options
    #103
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    marienbad wrote: »
    The lord of distortion strikes again , I have no interest in convincing you of anything , happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .

    I am so stealing that! :D

    Absolam, if you ever start a heavy metal band, that would be an excellent name for it.


  • Options
    #104
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    swampgas wrote: »
    I am so stealing that! :D

    Absolam, if you ever start a heavy metal band, that would be an excellent name for it.

    Not to be confused with this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Misrule


  • Options
    #105
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Sure. And on that basis you can counter the arguments of Iona, etc. You just can't counter them by saying that, because they have a religious motivation for advancing the arguments, therefore the arguments must be based on a theological claim and can be dismissed for that reason. That would be classic ad hominem reasoning. And we'd never do that, would we?



    Yes, actually. Public hospitals. Universities. An end to the practice of exposing unwanted children. And these examples can be multiplied without difficulty.


    And one of the hazards of unbelief is that it leads people to assume that anything motivated by beliefs which they do not share must be meaningless, pointless and produce nothing, when in fact there is no reason to think this, and still less any evidence to show it. And they go on to make the even mor extravagant assumption that positions motivated by beliefs which they do not share cannot be "relevant to the real world" and ought to be discounted in public policy.

    Curiously enough, they themselves are happy to advance positions based on their own beliefs ("if there is no evidence for harm there is no reason for the law to intervene") and it doesn't seem to occur to them that anyone might have any grounds for objectiong to their beliefs shaping public policy.

    You still don't get it do you. Show me evidence that hospitals and universities were created for religious reasons, or would not have been created without the influence of religion. Keep in mind that hospitals date back to at least the 4th century BC so forget christianity. Also could we have evidence that religion ended the practice of exposing unwanted children.
    If there is no evidence of harm then do tell me, without reference to voices in your head, what else could be justifiably used to shape law. What else, in other words, would justify me forcing someone to behave in a certain way. Non-religious do not rely on beliefs, we rely on evidence. I am not going to try and explain any further, if you can't grasp the concept of evidence then I cannot help you.


  • Options
    #106
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    The lord of distortion strikes again ,
    In fairness, I asked you (twice) whose opinion it depends on if not yours, so I guess I'll have to cede the lead vocalist spot in the Lords of Distortion to you....
    marienbad wrote: »
    I have no interest in convincing you of anything ,
    I suspect if you thought you had an answer you probably would though?
    marienbad wrote: »
    happily your day is done and we are moving into the world of choice free from religious domination .
    Well, it seems to me we're moving into a world of more and more widespread democracy, so I rather think my day is waxing....


  • Options
    #107
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    In fairness, I asked you (twice) whose opinion it depends on if not yours, so I guess I'll have to cede the lead vocalist spot in the Lords of Distortion to you....

    I suspect if you thought you had an answer you probably would though?

    Well, it seems to me we're moving into a world of more and more widespread democracy, so I rather think my day is waxing....

    Whose opinion do you think it depends on ? The people of course and not your friend in Rome .

    But all democracies have inbuilt safeguards to protect against just outcomes as you advocate .

    A factor you well know which is why a waning majority fought tooth and nail to have positions enshrined in the constitution to prolong their influence .

    And quite a long run you had , but now its waning and a new day dawns , ssm , trans right ,abortion , euthanasia - long may we reign :)


  • Options
    #108
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Whose opinion do you think it depends on ? The people of course and not your friend in Rome .
    I think you offered the proposition "And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos", so it's hardly up to me; it was your idea to make the incorporation of peoples' moral and ethical perspective into our ethos and laws entirely dependent on their ethos, so perhaps you see why I asked you to elaborate on who you intended should decide which ethoi are permitted? Even though I had to ask twice :)
    If (as it seems you may now be) you're suggesting that a majority (Is that what you mean by the people? Or did you have specific people in mind?) should decide which people should be excluded from participating in democracy due to their ethos, is that not at odds with your earlier objection to the tyranny of the majority? It would also seem to add a rather redundant layer to the process?
    If it eases your mind though, my friend in Rome has no interest in Irish politics, and I rather doubt would have any substantial influence even if she did.
    marienbad wrote: »
    But all democracies have inbuilt safeguards to protect against just outcomes as you advocate .
    Which outcomes have I advocated exactly? As far as I recall I've only advocated a democratic solution, without expressing a preference for an outcome.
    marienbad wrote: »
    A factor you well know which is why a waning majority fought tooth and nail to have positions enshrined in the constitution to prolong their influence .
    But enshrining anything in the Constitutional leaves it open to change by a majority still? So the choice of a waning majority can be overturned by the choice of a waxing majority, just as it should be.
    marienbad wrote: »
    And quite a long run you had , but now its waning and a new day dawns , ssm , trans right ,abortion , euthanasia - long may we reign :)
    Whilst democracy has had quite a long run, I'm confident it's far from waning..... as evidenced by the fact that more people than ever before express their opinions more freely and forcefully on those subjects, and use the democratic process to legislate in favour of their opinions (when they're a majority view!).


  • Options
    #109
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you offered the proposition "And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos", so it's hardly up to me; it was your idea to make the incorporation of peoples' moral and ethical perspective into our ethos and laws entirely dependent on their ethos, so perhaps you see why I asked you to elaborate on who you intended should decide which ethoi are permitted? Even though I had to ask twice :)
    If (as it seems you may now be) you're suggesting that a majority (Is that what you mean by the people? Or did you have specific people in mind?) should decide which people should be excluded from participating in democracy due to their ethos, is that not at odds with your earlier objection to the tyranny of the majority? It would also seem to add a rather redundant layer to the process?
    If it eases your mind though, my friend in Rome has no interest in Irish politics, and I rather doubt would have any substantial influence even if she did.
    Which outcomes have I advocated exactly? As far as I recall I've only advocated a democratic solution, without expressing a preference for an outcome.
    But enshrining anything in the Constitutional leaves it open to change by a majority still? So the choice of a waning majority can be overturned by the choice of a waxing majority, just as it should be.
    Whilst democracy has had quite a long run, I'm confident it's far from waning..... as evidenced by the fact that more people than ever before express their opinions more freely and forcefully on those subjects, and use the democratic process to legislate in favour of their opinions (when they're a majority view!).

    Not so , it was you said

    ''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''

    Special place for the church , no contraception, no divorce , no abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice , the list goes on and on . Never again .

    Thankfully we are coming to the end of all that , still a long way to go but with each passing generation it gathers speed . And soon we will cherish all of our kids equally .

    Can't wait to vote in May !:)


  • Options
    #110
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not so ,
    Actually, I'm afraid it was exactly so... here's the quote:
    marienbad wrote: »
    And as for having their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws - that depends entirely on that ethos .
    I did repeat it word for word, just as you said it.
    marienbad wrote: »
    it was you said
    ''the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside''
    With all credit to selective quoting, I think my intact statement
    Absolam wrote: »
    Secondly, religion (in general) doesn't demand that its tenets are incorporated into the laws of the land; the proponents of a religion want to see their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into the ethos and laws of the state in which they reside. And so they should, just like atheists should. A democracy is by the people and for the people.
    reasonably demonstrates my preference for everyone having a say, as opposed to your own preference for excluding people based on their ethos.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Special place for the church , no contraception, no divorce , no abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice , the list goes on and on . Never again .
    I imagine it does, though for the sake of clarity I ought to point out that I haven't mentioned any of these things, it's all you.... just in case anyone might misconstrue my position due to the way you structured your post :)
    marienbad wrote: »
    Thankfully we are coming to the end of all that , still a long way to go but with each passing generation it gathers speed . And soon we will cherish all of our kids equally . Can't wait to vote in May !:)
    You mean you're looking forward to participating in the tyranny of the majority? Shocking :eek:


  • Options
    #111
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, I'm afraid it was exactly so... here's the quote: I did repeat it word for word, just as you said it.


    With all credit to selective quoting, I think my intact statement
    reasonably demonstrates my preference for everyone having a say, as opposed to your own preference for excluding people based on their ethos.
    I imagine it does, though for the sake of clarity I ought to point out that I haven't mentioned any of these things, it's all you.... just in case anyone might misconstrue my position due to the way you structured your post :)

    You mean you're looking forward to participating in the tyranny of the majority? Shocking :eek:

    the Lord of distortion strikes again - so it was you first introduced it then !
    All very fine when you were in the majority , less so now that your time is fading.

    So just for the sake of clarity ,how many of contraception, divorce , abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice would you class as your ethos then ?

    And to round it off you give the perfect example , giving the same rights you take for granted to less than 10% of the population to avail of , a change that will have absolutely zero affect on you , you class as the tyranny of the majority !

    Is the world upside down or what ! Civil rights are now the gift of the majority are they ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    the Lord of distortion strikes again - so it was you first introduced it then !
    Introduced disenfranchising people based on their ethos? Nope... still quite certain that was you :)
    marienbad wrote: »
    All very fine when you were in the majority , less so now that your time is fading.
    I've no idea what you think was fine when I was in the majority (or what majority you think it was), but I feel quite hearty still thank you; I doubt my time will fade for a while yet!
    marienbad wrote: »
    So just for the sake of clarity ,how many of contraception, divorce , abortion , blasphemy laws , control of education , interference in medical practice would you class as your ethos then ?
    You know, I don't think I'd class any of them as my ethos. However, I do think my ethos informs my opinions about them. What about you? Do you class any of them as your ethos?
    marienbad wrote: »
    And to round it off you give the perfect example , giving the same rights you take for granted to less than 10% of the population to avail of , a change that will have absolutely zero affect on you , you class as the tyranny of the majority !
    Actually, I didn't... you did, when you said that doing what the majority of the citizenry want isn't democratic (as I said it was), it's the tyranny of the majority. I've linked it in case you forgot that you said it. Or is democracy only tyranny of the majority when it doesn't do what you want?
    marienbad wrote: »
    Is the world upside down or what ! Civil rights are now the gift of the majority are they ?
    They're certainly in the gift of the State, as is manifest by the fact that we are having a referendum to determine if homosexuals may have the right to marry.
    Now who, in a democracy, decides what the State should do? If they're not prevented from participating by someone who doesn't like their ethos, that is :)


  • Options
    #113
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Absolam wrote: »
    Introduced disenfranchising people based on their ethos? Nope... still quite certain that was you :)
    I've no idea what you think was fine when I was in the majority (or what majority you think it was), but I feel quite hearty still thank you; I doubt my time will fade for a while yet!

    You know, I don't think I'd class any of them as my ethos. However, I do think my ethos informs my opinions about them. What about you? Do you class any of them as your ethos?

    Actually, I didn't... you did when you said that doing what the majority of the citizenry want isn't democratic (as I said it was), it's the tyranny of the majority. I've linked it in case you forgot that you said it. Or is democracy only tyranny of the majority when it doesn't do what you want?
    They're certainly in the gift of the State, as is manifest by the fact that we are having a referendum to determine if homosexuals should have the right to marry.
    Now who, in a democracy, decides what the State should do? If they're not prevented from participating by someone who doesn't like their ethos, that is :)

    More distortion , is there no end ! remind me again who introduced the notion of their ethos being introduced into the laws of the land ?

    The difference is I am happy to let people make up their own minds on these issues . You it would appear are less so - fine to let your ethos inform your own behaviour , a bit less so when you want it to inform everyone else's and by force of law no less !

    Sharia law , Christian style - no thanks !:eek:


  • Options
    #114
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    ‘Duck Dynasty’ star fantasizes about atheist family’s brutal rape and murder to make point about God’s law.

    Ewww.


    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/duck-dynasty-star-fantasizes-about-atheist-familys-brutal-rape-and-murder-to-make-point-about-gods-law/


  • Options
    #115
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    marienbad wrote: »
    More distortion , is there no end ! remind me again who introduced the notion of their ethos being introduced into the laws of the land ?
    Hmm.. were we discussing who introduced the notion of their ethos being introduced into the laws of the land? I don't think so, but we can reproduce the chain if you like.... I think you know you're trying desperately to move the discussion away from your assertion that whether or not anyone should be allowed to have their moral and ethical perspective incorporated into our ethos and laws depends entirely on that ethos, and just want to deflect some attention away from that. Would that be a fair assessment, do you think?
    marienbad wrote: »
    The difference is I am happy to let people make up their own minds on these issues . You it would appear are less so - fine to let your ethos inform your own behaviour , a bit less so when you want it to inform everyone else's and by force of law no less !
    Well it doesn't seem that you are; you're the one who said you would disenfrancise people based on their ethos, remember? Whereas I have consistently said I'm pro democracy, despite your assertion it's a tyranny of the majority.
    It appears you've inadvertently gotten our positions turned around in your head....
    marienbad wrote: »
    Sharia law , Christian style - no thanks !:eek:
    You've used that one before...... I hope you're not finding yourself running out of trite nonsense's already :)


  • Options
    #116
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »

    Tyranny of the majority is a catchphrase it seems most often thrown out when a minority doesn't get what they want because a majority wants something different, but undemocratic? Wikipedia places it as a variant of democracy, and it was famously called 'the one pervading evil of democracy'. I'm not sure you can even have a tyranny of the majority without democracy. Regardless, given choice between the tyranny of the majority or the minority, I think I'm inclined to the populist course...

    So for example you have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia ? the country has a Muslim majority so its cool by your view?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #117
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    So for example you have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia ? the country has a Muslim majority so its cool by your view?
    Are you asking me am I 'cool' with illegal discrimination against minorities, or asking me am I 'cool' with a legitimate government enforcing the laws of the country it is sworn to serve?
    Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?


  • Options
    #118
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Absolam wrote: »
    Are you asking me am I 'cool' with illegal discrimination against minorities, or asking me am I 'cool' with a legitimate government enforcing the laws of the country it is sworn to serve?
    Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?

    ...perhaps I'm being unfair here, but does mean that you'd be okay with 'legal' discrimination against minorities, which a legitimate government will do if that's what the majority of its citizens want, such as in Saudi Arabia? (I dunno about Malaysia, but I do know in Saudi just giving a person a bible can get you the death penalty).


  • Options
    #119
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    Are you asking me am I 'cool' with illegal discrimination against minorities, or asking me am I 'cool' with a legitimate government enforcing the laws of the country it is sworn to serve?
    Perhaps you give us your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia so that we can make a proper 'judgement'?
    A small example but Catholic newspapers are forbidden to use the word Allah which is the local word for god. Another one is that it is legally difficult to convert from Islam , the state defers to sharia law

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #120
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    ...perhaps I'm being unfair here, but does mean that you'd be okay with 'legal' discrimination against minorities, which a legitimate government will do if that's what the majority of its citizens want, such as in Saudi Arabia? (I dunno about Malaysia, but I do know in Saudi just giving a person a bible can get you the death penalty).
    Well, a higher tax rate on high earners is a legal discrimination against a minority, and I'd certainly be ok with that. Would you?
    If you're asking would I offer blanket support for any legal discrimination by a government against a minority, then I would say no, and I suspect you would say the same.
    So whilst I am wholly in support of the concept of democracy, which does entail majority rule, that doesn't mean I feel any obligation to 'have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia '. Or, to feel that I have an obligation to not 'have no judgement to make on the fact that christians are discriminated in Malaysia '.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    A small example but Catholic newspapers are forbidden to use the word Allah which is the local word for god. Another one is that it is legally difficult to convert from Islam , the state defers to sharia law
    That is probably fascinating to some people in fairness. It doesn't really help me distinguish between the two things I was asking you, so I'm guessing you're giving your opinion on what you think is actually happening in Malaysia; in which case to help you along I think the word Allah is more a specific name for the deity in Islam than a 'local word for god'. Given that, you can see why Muslims wouldn't want Christians to be using it to describe the Christian deity, and being a majority in the country, you can probably see how they can enforce their will on a minority. Should they? Most of us here believe in freedom of speech so our majority view would probably be no. But then, we're not in the majority there so who are we to say? Pretty much nobody as far as they're concerned.


Advertisement