Is arguing against religious belief intolerant?

Standman

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

robindch

Standman wrote: »

is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Well, when I'm told (as I have been on a few occasions here) that I'm going to spend the rest of eternity paddling about in a bath of molten sulfur for the unforgivable, if bizarre, crime of not believing such an obviously fake threat in the first place, it's difficult to respond with anything other than a good hearty laugh.

That said, common decency is that you don't take the piss out of people either, so picking the right thing to do really depends on the situation.

I'd say respect people's right to hold whatever view they want to, but don't be under any pressure to respect the view itself. It can be quite interesting to try to figure out what kind of mental acrobatics have to be performed to make these views seem reasonable, even obvious, but that's off-topic for this thread.

Dades

Standman wrote: »

is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Yes, unless it's clear the gloves are off in a debate.

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

HA HA HA HA HA. Honestly, to the full on faith-heads that are declaring fire and brimstone, what other discourse is there? You can give them the facts till you are blue in the face, but they will find twisted ways of fitting them into their beliefs; else they will just ignore them.

Of course I will try and be calm and collected at first, but there comes a point...

Standman

Well, do ye think there is legitimate cause to openly criticise religious belief in Ireland?

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

No.

Is it intolerant to ridicule someone's beliefs if that belief is the sky is green, and that women are inferior, or that a teapot is in orbit of earth, etc?

Religions say things far more mentalist than that, in most cases.

In alot of cases the "respect my belief" thing comes out if in a religious debate you start to point out the errors of the building blocks of a persons belief in my experience, and thats uncomfortable for anyone.

Standman

I definitely don't think it's intolerant if it is the context of a debate, but sometimes it gets on my nerves when I hear people give credit to god, or jesus, or whoever when something good happens. If someone were to say ,"Thank Sinn Féin the operation was successful." I'm pretty sure I would call them out on that, why is it different with religion?

Overheal

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

I dont think so. Its just kicking the Tyres. If theyre firm in their beliefs then they should be able to handle it.

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

Yes, unless it's clear the gloves are off in a debate.

Actually, I read the word "ridicule" wrong...

If someone is engaging you in debate, then why not? If they say theirs is the correct way and yours is incorrect, does that not open their beliefs to inspection?

Obviously, it's nasty to attack people's beliefs for no reason: People are entitled to believe whatever they want.

Dades

The words 'ridicule' and 'criticize' seem to be used interchangeably above.

They are obviously completely different.

Standman

Dades wrote: »

The words 'ridicule' and 'criticize' seem to be used interchangeably above.

They are obviously completely different.

What I meant was, is it intolerant to say that a persons belief is absurd?

Given the facts I'd have to say that it is absurd.

Is this just perceived as intolerant because most people believe it? I can't imagine anyone saying it's intolerant to label an educated and intelligent adult's belief in santa ridiculous.

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

What I meant was, is it intolerant to say that a persons belief is absurd?

Given the facts I'd have to say that it is absurd.

Is this just perceived as intolerant because most people believe it? I can't imagine anyone saying it's intolerant to label an educated and intelligent adult's belief in santa ridiculous.

It's not intolerant to believe it's absurd.

It might be intolerant to treat these people differently/ abuse them because it's absurd. Some people would say my political beliefs are absurd.

Zillah

Define intolerance.

I know that sounds like I'm trying to be smart, but really, you're asking the question, explain exactly what you mean, don't rely on wishy washy pseudo-liberal crap.



There's all sorts of things society doesn't tolerate, most people reading this are intolerant of murder, rape, molestation, all sorts of other things. In these circumstances they will not tolerate it. Meaning that they will do everything reasonably within their power to prevent it. So no, by that definition, I'm not intolerant of religion, but I'm certainly extremely critical of it, I deride it, I attack its benefits, belittle its stubborn adherents. By some pseudo-liberal defintions, I'd be intolerant.

Intolerance is not, in principle, a bad thing. We just need to discuss what we're being intolerant of.

Standman

I'm afraid was slightly confused when I started this thread, apologies, I think I drank too much coffee!

I've come to the conclusion that its not intolerant to say someone's personal beliefs are absurd. I can and do tolerate peoples religious beliefs but it won't in any way stop me from saying they are ridiculous/absurd if the topic is brought up in discussion. Of course, I would be fully prepared to back up that claim with my reasons for believing so.

Doctor DooM

Standman wrote: »

I'm afraid was slightly confused when I started this thread, apologies, I think I drank too much coffee!

I've come to the conclusion that its not intolerant to say someone's personal beliefs are absurd. I can and do tolerate peoples religious beliefs but it won't in any way stop me from saying they are ridiculous/absurd if the topic is brought up in discussion. Of course, I would be fully prepared to back up that claim with my reasons for believing so.

Well youd want to try to be, if you're going to be dissing other people's beliefs.

An Fear Aniar

No, it's not intolerant, it's freedom of conscience. In contrast to examples such as the Teddy Bear incident in Sudan....


.

Fanny Cradock

Arguing against someone's religious belief isn't a form of intolerance - it's simply a difference of opinion. I don't see any problem with being forceful in how you articulate your beliefs or opinions. One would like to think that resorting to insults or ridicule is never an option. Sadly that is all too often not the case.

Húrin

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

No. Religious beliefs should be challenged, as long as both sides are up for a mature, reasonable discussion. It encourages religious people think about and grow in their faith. Back in the day when Catholic religion was beyond question, Ireland was not a very spiritual place because there wasn't much thinking going on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

I would say yes and no to this one. The question as it is asked is unanswerable.

What I mean by this is that if someone says to you "I did .... because my religion tells me so", it would be intolerant and rude to start ridiculing them and telling them they are wrong. I do beleive in leaving personal beleifs alone.

Alas this is not what most of the religious do. The times to ridicule someones beleifs are either A) when they ask you about them and so you can answer them any way you like or the very second "I did.... because me religion tells me so" changes to "You should.... because my religion tells me so".

If I tried to tell you to do something, or install a new law, based on a set of statistics... but on requesting to see those stats I said I couldnt find the study but I beleive the stats to be true.... you would ridicule me to the highest degree. The same should happen with religion. As soon as someone tells you how we should live or act based on a god that they cant show a scrap of evidence for... its open season.

But personal faith, when kept personal, I would hesitate (and always do) before confronting. Especially those theists who say things like "without a god I dont know why raping children would be wrong". There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith.

iUseVi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But personal faith, when kept personal, I would hesitate (and always do) before confronting. Especially those theists who say things like "without a god I dont know why raping children would be wrong". There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith.

Why not? Do you not think they could handle it? Most of the atheists I know used to be some form of Christian (geographic location and all that), and they don't suddenly now think that raping children is a good thing.

Do you really think that if you deprived them of their God that they would be any different?

the_syco

robindch wrote: »

Well, when I'm told (as I have been on a few occasions here) that I'm going to spend the rest of eternity paddling about in a bath of molten sulfur for the unforgivable, if bizarre, crime of not believing such an obviously fake threat in the first place, it's difficult to respond with anything other than a good hearty laugh.

You're gonna burn in hell for not following my imaginery friend!:p

[Judas Priest]burrrnnn in helllll.... I can hear you whisper.... burnnnnn in hellll.... I cna hear you BLISTER! [/Judas Priest]

bus77

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I tried to tell you to do something, or install a new law, based on a set of statistics... but on requesting to see those stats I said I couldnt find the study but I beleive the stats to be true.... you would ridicule me to the highest degree. The same should happen with religion. As soon as someone tells you how we should live or act based on a god that they cant show a scrap of evidence for... its open season.

Well, somone introducing a state law for religious reasons is a big thing but in general I have no problem people's proclomations on law.

'Law' or rules in themselves are a personal thing. In the sence that they depend on the persons own 'path to progres' for themselves and ultimatly those around them. Such is the nature of rules, in the game of life, or monopaly.

Now, giving out about moving your piece around the board in monopaly because you dont reconize the presence of Parker Brothers just would not go down well.

seamus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see any problem with being forceful in how you articulate your beliefs or opinions.

People shouldn't need to articulate their beliefs in the first place.

My standpoint on it is to believe what you want to believe, I don't care. But don't try and tell me what to believe.

As such, I see no problem with someone criticising a religion as a whole and pointing out the errors - such as in a book or a preacher at the pulpit. Religions are large organisations, and as such their inner workings and public acts are as open to criticism as any corporation or government.

I do however have problems when someone spontaneously questions/ridicules a follower personally and expects them to defend their entire ethos. You can claim that it's just "tyre kicking", but many people simply haven't any debating skills and are likely to just become offended and upset, even if they have answers to all of your questions.

Of course, as said, if both people are happy that there's an established debate between them, then the gloves are off. You can't bow out halfway through because you're offended.

calahans

Standman wrote: »

Do ye think that arguing against religious belief, stating that it is ridiculous, is intolerant?

I'm not talking about getting in peoples faces or trying to "convert" people to atheism, but is it intolerant to ridicule someones personal belief?

Its a hard one, in that religion is a belief which is fundamental to a person's existance. When someone believes in God/Budda/Allah they base their concepts of life & death on it. Its not like criticizing their political view.

eoin5

To ridicule someones personal beliefs is a form of intolerance. I'm certaintly intolerant of anyone who would try to convert me to scientology, and why should I tolerate that person? The same would go for someone who would try to convert me to nazism.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

People shouldn't need to articulate their beliefs in the first place.

Perhaps, but most religions have evolved the belief that it's an important religious duty for believers to propagate the religion.

In the end, I wonder if reciprocity is the best approach -- if somebody's religious beliefs are their own, and they have no interest in applying them, or their implications, to other people, then discussing or arguing about the beliefs isn't much more than a parlor game.

But if the religious believer sees it as their holy duty to make lots of other people acquire the same religious beliefs that they have, and is prepared to do whatever it takes make this happen, then at the very least, they invite solid criticism.

Standman

eoin5 wrote: »

To ridicule someones personal beliefs is a form of intolerance. I'm certaintly intolerant of anyone who would try to convert me to scientology, and why should I tolerate that person? The same would go for someone who would try to convert me to nazism.

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

eoin5

Standman wrote: »

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

Sorry, my post was aimed more at other posts in the thread. Anyway would your friend be accurate in saying that you believe the bible and religious dogma and belief are rediculous?

Standman

Yes he would be accurate in saying that, but it is not intolerant to state an opinion.

EamonnKeane

Ridiculing someone's philosophical beliefs would be acceptable, so why not religious beliefs, given that they are much more likely to be riven with tautology, pseudohistory and blind acceptance?

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

Read my original post. I specifically said it is not in the context of trying to "convert" someone. Simply ridiculing someones belief is not the same as trying to convert them.

The reason I started this thread is because I was having a debate with another atheist about religion. The thing is that even though he doesn't believe himself, he seems to think there is a good, legitimate reason for religion and is very reluctant to criticise it in any way. He was aking me annoying questions like "Why do you care so much?" and ended up stating that I was being intolerant for saying that the bible, religious dogma and belief is ridiculous.

So would your friend be of the view that "Well those religious beliefs are entirely wrong, but what does that matter?" That seems a silly to me. If you think someone is wrong, you think they are wrong, no need to dress it up in niceties.

bus77

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Ridiculing someone's philosophical beliefs would be acceptable, so why not religious beliefs, given that they are much more likely to be riven with tautology, pseudohistory and blind acceptance?

Those early greek philosophers were put to death for going against the local religion. There is not that worry now, but it perhaps serves as an example of the way 'talking' stops and 'loyalty' kicks in and any challenges you make could fall on even deafer ears.

Standman

iUseVi wrote: »

So would your friend be of the view that "Well those religious beliefs are entirely wrong, but what does that matter?" That seems a silly to me. If you think someone is wrong, you think they are wrong, no need to dress it up in niceties.

The thing is he can't make the leap of faith, but he "understands" that it is true for a lot of people, and is of the opinion that if it makes them happy then its fine by him. What frustrates me though is that you can still respect other peoples right to believe whatever they want, but at the same time it doesn't mean that you can't say it's ridiculous when you are around other people of the same mindset. I suppose he thinks it's a bit dishonest or nasty or something.

iUseVi

Standman wrote: »

The thing is he can't make the leap of faith, but he "understands" that it is true for a lot of people, and is of the opinion that if it makes them happy then its fine by him. What frustrates me though is that you can still respect other peoples right to believe whatever they want, but at the same time it doesn't mean that you can't say it's ridiculous when you are around other people of the same mindset. I suppose he thinks it's a bit dishonest or nasty or something.

That's fair enough, as long as you assume that religion keeps itself to itself - and doesn't interfere in peoples lives in politics, education, etc. :rolleyes:
Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

Dades

iUseVi wrote: »

Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

FWIW I wouldn't see the users of the Christianity forum as being typical of your average Irish Christian (read: Catholic). And hence one is less likely to encounter one in everyday polite conversation.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

That's fair enough, as long as you assume that religion keeps itself to itself - and doesn't interfere in peoples lives in politics, education, etc. :rolleyes:
Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

Yes, Christians should stick their finger into every pie - as should Muslims, atheists, homosexuals etc. It's called democracy.

Of course you are free to campaign for a society where religious people have no right to stick their fingers in any pies. It has already been tried in a few places (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China etc.)

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

FWIW I wouldn't see the users of the Christianity forum as being typical of your average Irish Christian (read: Catholic). And hence one is less likely to encounter one in everyday polite conversation.

Fair point. I suppose the Christians that I tend to talk to are not the norm. Apologies to normal Christians.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Christians should stick their finger into every pie - as should Muslims, atheists, homosexuals etc. It's called democracy.

Of course you are free to campaign for a society where religious people have no right to stick their fingers in any pies. It has already been tried in a few places (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China etc.)

Well who doesn't like pie?!

If some Christians had their way it wouldn't be democracy, it would be a society run under "God's law" or the ten commandments or some such. Just look at the power the RC church exerted in this country until not so long ago. This may only apply to some of the more radical Christians, not the average one (certainly not you PDN), but still the danger applies.

nozzferrahhtoo

iUseVi wrote: »

Why not? Do you not think they could handle it? Most of the atheists I know used to be some form of Christian (geographic location and all that), and they don't suddenly now think that raping children is a good thing.

Do you really think that if you deprived them of their God that they would be any different?

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

I think what this guy really meant was that if he didn't believe that there'd be an angry deity to contend with, that he'd be out raping babies.

A lot of religious people seem to think that way. And can't seem to understand that it's possible to be decent and honorable without also having to believe there's a fractious deity with a hot poker in the vicinity.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

I think what this guy really meant was that if he didn't believe that there'd be an angry deity to contend with, that he'd be out raping babies.

Yes, thats exactly what I think he meant too. Which is why I made my original quote which someone questioned. My quote was that "There are some people who, for the sake of the children around them, I hope they never lose their faith".

That guy on youtube, whos username i think was Vrod00, certainly qualifies as one of these people.

iUseVi

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

Think it's been summed up pretty nicely. The question is, is religion actually restraining any of these people from doing any of these things? (raping babies, etc.)
Or do they just think that it does? Hard to know, really.

nozzferrahhtoo

iUseVi wrote: »

Think it's been summed up pretty nicely. The question is, is religion actually restraining any of these people from doing any of these things? (raping babies, etc.)
Or do they just think that it does? Hard to know, really.

Its hard to know because I think the answer is both. For most people I think that there is no reason to assume that they havent got the same evolved morality that we do. If they suddenly lost their faith there is nothing to assume that the disgust they feel at the concept of harming children in this way would continue.

It would be making too much of an assumption, however, to say that there is no one in the world who really honestly has desires towards kids and is only restrained by religious beleif.

Some would say, Im sure, that this is a reason to keep religious beleifs alive, but Id disagree. Theres too many religious beleifs that PROMOTE such immorality also. So it would probably balance out if religion in its entirety were ever removed. The people being prevented only by god from indulging in such acts would proceed to do them. However the people in a religion being taught its all ok would stop. So its certainly not an argument for or against religion in and of itself.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely I do not. THEY seem to think so however. I was "debating" one person on you tube who was asking me why I dont rape mentally handicapped babies. At one point he openly said "I see no reason for you not to join the fun in raping these babies. Without a moral lawgiver why wouldnt any of us join the fun?"

FUN? These are his words not mine.

The raping babies example is frequently used by theists as a counter-argument against those who claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. It serves that purpose well since most of us do believe that raping babies is absolutely wrong, rather than merely being contrary to cultural mores. That, of course, is very different from saying that people will start raping babies if they stop believing in God.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Well who doesn't like pie?!

If some Christians had their way it wouldn't be democracy, it would be a society run under "God's law" or the ten commandments or some such. Just look at the power the RC church exerted in this country until not so long ago. This may only apply to some of the more radical Christians, not the average one (certainly not you PDN), but still the danger applies.

No, I'm not going to let you away with that one. You said:

Problem is, if you were to start a little poll over in the Christianity forum, almost all of them would advocate that they absolutely should stick their finger in every single pie...See the hazards of belief thread for the tip of an iceberg.

From discussions over these issues on the Christianity board I am hard pressed to think of any posters who would favour any church or religious organisation exercising any such kind of undemocratic control over society.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

The raping babies example is frequently used by theists as a counter-argument against those who claim that there are no absolute standards of morality. It serves that purpose well since most of us do believe that raping babies is absolutely wrong, rather than merely being contrary to cultural mores. That, of course, is very different from saying that people will start raping babies if they stop believing in God.

How does the fact that atheists consider raping babies wrong demonstrate that there is an absolute standard of morality? If someone said it was "absolutely" wrong they would mean it was definitely wrong. Not that it was some higher law of the universe. People know it is wrong by instinct, there's no need for a God anywhere.
The whole point is that atheists are just as moral as theists. An absolute standard adds nothing to our morals that have evolved as a species.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm not going to let you away with that one. You said:

From discussions over these issues on the Christianity board I am hard pressed to think of any posters who would favour any church or religious organisation exercising any such kind of undemocratic control over society.

If you say so, but you can only speak for yourself.

Here's a little excerpt from something called the "strategic plan" from evangelical.ie. You might be familiar with it. I've highlighted in bold the interesting bits.

The Kingdom of God becomes UNAVOIDABLE in every
sphere of Irish life

...
Our vision of unavoidable Christianity is that at every turn, in every place, the Christian message
would be seen, heard or encountered in some way that people could not help but “trip” over it! TV
debates would ask for an evangelical voice; politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views. Community bodies would have evangelical involvement. Universities would
teach courses on biblical values. Art galleries would display the work of evangelical artists. Companies
would operate not for profit alone but also for a higher purpose. Evangelical architects would design
new buildings and public spaces with Christian values in mind....
The reaction could be positive or negative, but the Kingdom of God would be unavoidable.

True, it's not exactly a plan for world domination or "undemocratic" behaviour. But I'm certainly justified in saying they want their finger in every pie. It's obvious that the more control they have the better for them.

"politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views." This concerned me the most.
If a Christian wants to run for public office, fine by me. But to actually think that they should be consulted on issues by default is ridiculous.

karen3212

No, I don't think arguing against religious belief is intolerant. I don't pick arguments with people in the real world though, even though I work with a few people who bring their religion voicerifiously into work with them.

I try to respect people despite their beliefs, so in the real world I wouldn't ridicule a person, but I might if I've had two, snort if someone goes on about fairies.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

If you say so, but you can only speak for yourself.

Here's a little excerpt from something called the "strategic plan" from evangelical.ie. You might be familiar with it. I've highlighted in bold the interesting bits.



True, it's not exactly a plan for world domination or "undemocratic" behaviour. But I'm certainly justified in saying they want their finger in every pie. It's obvious that the more control they have the better for them.

"politicians would seek evangelical input; media would
publish evangelical views." This concerned me the most.
If a Christian wants to run for public office, fine by me. But to actually think that they should be consulted on issues by default is ridiculous.

Yes, as a member of the Evangelical Alliance I am very familar indeed with the strategy you quote from.

Christians want to get their message 'out there'. In that we are no different from vegetarians, environmentalists, socialists, pacifists, or any other group of people that have opinions in common.

For years Evangelical Christians were treated as second class citizens in Irish society because of the dominance of the Catholic Church. (I remember the days when social ostracism was so pronounced that some of my friends had to drive 20 miles to buy groceries because local shopkeepers refused to serve 'born agains') Now we are growing in number and we have as much right as anybody else to make our voice heard. If politicians want us to vote for them then they need to listen to what we want - that is democracy. If the media wants us to subscribe to their TV stations or newspapers then they need to listen to what we want - that is capitalism.

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them. It is about the media being accountable to those who ultimately provide the money that pays their salaries.

If our local TD thinks that it would be ridiculous to consult Christians over issues then that he is free to ignore us. However, given that the number of our church members who are on the electoral roll exceeds his electoral majority, that might be somewhat short-sighted of him.

robindch

iUseVi wrote: »

evangelical.ie wrote:

every turn, in every place, the Christian message would be seen, heard or encountered

it's not exactly a plan for world domination

Sounds like it to me -- a world where evangelical christianity seeps out of every brick is nothing but world domination!

It's the type of thing that 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 threatened:

Corinthians wrote:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

As though the same religious message being "seen, heard or encountered" in "every place", whether wanted or not, is desirable. The citizens of North Korea know what that's like.

Resistance to this Borg-like conformity isn't so much intolerance, as sanity.

.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

This is not about control, but rather accountability. It is about politicians being accountable to those who vote for them. It is about the media being accountable to those who ultimately provide the money that pays their salaries.

But we live in a secular democracy. In a republic there should be a separation between church and state otherwise you're effectively repressing people who don't believe the same things that you do.

If our local TD thinks that it would be ridiculous to consult Christians over issues then that he is free to ignore us. However, given that the number of our church members who are on the electoral roll exceeds his electoral majority, that might be somewhat short-sighted of him.

And what kinds of policies would you be telling him to implement?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Christians want to get their message 'out there'. In that we are no different from vegetarians, environmentalists, socialists, pacifists, or any other group of people that have opinions in common.

Though I agree with your idea that values can be promoted democratically, I can't visualise new buildings designed with "vegetarian values" in mind!

evangelical.ie wrote:

Evangelical architects would design new buildings and public spaces with Christian values in mind....