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

Religious Threads in After Hours

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    I'm thinking we need to readdress what civil means. Some of the stuff said about all religion and faith is not civil.


  • Options
    #153
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Dav wrote: »
    Well if you want specifics, the list at the end of this post by Padd makes a perfect example of what I mean. A satirical film poking fun at the origins of Christ and inviting the viewer to re-think why they might be a Christian hardly falls within the same league as the comments padd linked to.

    I'd say a few of them do, and most are making the attempts.

    Or are you attempting to state that humour and mockery are best left to the proffessionals while we plebs keep our traps shut?


  • Options
    #154
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    I firmly believe that everyone has the right to hold whatever opinion they wish, but also, I believe that I have the right to question and even mock that opinion if I fundamentally disagree with it.
    I was with you all the way right up to the part in bold. TBH the need to mock religion(well lets face it mostly Catholicism in Ireland) strikes me as just a little adolescent at this stage.
    Dav wrote:
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who believe women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who believe that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.
    Bingo. Questioning and/or disbelieving what someone believes is grand as far as I'm concerned, mocking, especially of the all too often childish "they're all kiddy fiddlers Jim" kind is quite simply being a dick.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #155
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    It's one thing slating religions, faiths and criticizing specific beliefs, but some of the stuff posted in AH at times is just downright nasty.

    The amount of 'jokes' made about priests abusing kids is a bit mad. Yeah.. way to take the moral high-ground by making light of such atrocities. I've seen people try to suggest that all Catholics are responsible for the systematic rape of kids too. If you made such huge leaps of logic in relation to other religions you'd be called up on it in no time.

    I've said it before, but... attack the pope, not the parishioners.

    And I say that as a completely irreligious person.


  • Options
    #156
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Dav wrote: »
    Well if you want specifics, the list at the end of this post by Padd makes a perfect example of what I mean. A satirical film poking fun at the origins of Christ and inviting the viewer to re-think why they might be a Christian hardly falls within the same league as the comments padd linked to.

    [edit]
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who think women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who think that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.

    So why is this particular issue allowable?

    Again you're over-simplifying. Of course TLOB is in the same league as satirical comments about invisible sky people.

    Hell you could view most quotes people make from Dawkins or the like as mocking if you weren't willing to have a discussion about the nature of the beliefs.

    It's hard to deconstuct and argue with beliefs on questions and real world issues without that appearing, with or without context, to be insulting to somebody who holds those beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Dude111
    Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    Brendan Flowers wrote:
    How about a bit of consistency. Like I said sport, celeb, tv threads etc are locked but religious threads are left. Why isnt it the same rule for every topic?
    On ANY site i am on the same basic principle is followed: IF ANY THREAD GETS TOO HOT and out of control it will be locked,etc......

    I believe AFTER HOURS is basically "General Discussions" and anything can be discussed..


  • Options
    #158
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    My name is URL wrote: »
    It's one thing slating religions, faiths and criticizing specific beliefs, but some of the stuff posted in AH at times is just downright nasty.

    The amount of 'jokes' made about priests abusing kids is a bit mad. Yeah.. way to take the moral high-ground by making light of such atrocities. I've seen people try to suggest that all Catholics are responsible for the systematic rape of kids too. If you made such huge leaps of logic in relation to other religions you'd be called up on it in no time.

    I've said it before, but... attack the pope, not the parishioners.

    And I say that as a completely irreligious person.

    The first bit sort of contradicts the second. And as regards the first, the amount of jokes about it are a bit mad because the amount of it was a bit mad.


  • Options
    #159
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    beliefs on questions and real world issues without that appearing, with or without context, to be insulting to somebody who holds those beliefs.
    True DrB, but I think its the obvious "they're all deluded kiddie fiddlers Joe" stuff at issue?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #160
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Wibbs wrote: »
    True DrB, but I think its the obvious "they're all deluded kiddie fiddlers Joe" stuff at issue?


    I would say that calling all catholics child molesters would already be actionable under the charter.


  • Options
    #161
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Dav wrote: »
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who believe women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who believe that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.
    So why is this particular issue allowable?

    Because, beyond all doubt, women and people of colour exist as real, sentient beings.
    Therefore, as living beings, they deserve the same respect as anyone else.

    A belief system is nothing more than that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Dav wrote: »
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who think women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who think that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.

    So why is this particular issue allowable?

    As I suggested before, you can't change your gender or race. It's who you are, down to your DNA. You can change your religion, and it's a belief rather than an unchangeable characteristic of a person.

    I agree that the amount of anti-religion stuff on AH should be toned down somewhat, but again, a belief, any belief should be able to be questioned/attacked/mocked. But people shouldn't be mocked for holding those beliefs. Likewise, all religious people and priests shouldn't be held liable for the actions of some within those religious organisations. Accusations of "by following this religion you're supporting people who did XYZ" is crossing the line.

    People are entitled to believe what they want. But just as that means religious people can believe something is true and say so, non-religious people can believe it's false and say so. "Belief" in the context of these discussions goes both ways; those who do and those who don't.

    With respect, Dav, you ask why is this particular issue allowable. I'd ask why should this particular issue be granted special privilege, when it's a personal belief, and therefore more equatable to an opinion than something people are born with (not saying religious beliefs are only opinions as I think they obviously mean more than that to religious people, but they're simply not equatable to someones race, gender, sexuality etc)


  • Options
    #163
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Yes it can be a personal matter however in Ireland the RCC ensure it is not and instead want it pushed on even non RCC citizens of this country.
    Examples:
    - Majority church running of our state funded schools
    - Current and previous church and religious people's interference in such matters as abortion, divorce, condoms, stem cell research
    - The whole church fight against equal rights for gay marriage,
    - How burials are performed in this country

    Who makes these laws? The State. Not the RCC, the State. So while the RCC will try and influence the decisions of the State, wouldn't it be better if politicians grew a pair of balls and told the RCC to stay out of affairs of the State and concentrate on getting their own house in order?

    Your problems with Irish legislation shouldn't be with the RCC, no matter how much influence you think they have. Your problem should be with the cowardly, fawning politicians that are too afraid of their own shíte to break away from the influence of the RCC for fear they won't be re-elected come the next general election. How is the cowardly behaviour of politicians the fault of the average Joe catholic for whom their faith is a personal matter?
    Its nice and fine to package it up as a personal matter and claim because it is a person belief that it should not be open to being discussed but it affects how people's lives even when they are none religious.

    No it doesn't. The State does that, or rather The Legislation drawn up by politicians and The Constitution that governs the people of the State affects people's lives even when they are non religious. The influence of the RCC over political matters is only a power given to them by politicians. If politicians had the courage to reject the RCC and be SEEN to reject influence of the RCC, then things might change alright.
    Last time I checked football doesn't interfere with how a family's are educated, how they can get married regardless of their sexuality, how they can reproduce.

    Nope, The State does that. The RCC has NO actual control over The Legislation, has NO control over how families are educated (It's up to the people to lobby The Government to introduce funding for secular schools, but most people take the lazy option and wedge their child into the nearest RCC school. The RCC aren't going to complain, why would they? Is that the RCC controlling parent's decisions? Nope).

    The State controls how people can get married regardless of their sexuality. Again, the RCC can throw their oar in, but who actually MAKES the decisions and draws up the legislation? Politicians with no balls.

    As for restrictions placed on peoples reproductive rights, well, you know what I'm going to say by now don't you?

    That's right- The politicians with no balls, pressured by the influence of the RCC, and politicians will continue to play political football with the issue of reproductive rights while the people are too lackadasical to tell them to either shít or get off the potty, and tell the RCC to back off from the decisions affecting affairs of The State.

    Its a major bone of contention that the RCC should have any say in this country and yet it does, so without a doubt the RCC's belief structure will come into discussion because it is the reason why these different controls and restrictions exist in this country.


    Why would the RCC's belief structure matter to a non RCC person? If you sat down and actually thought about it for longer than five minutes, you'd realise that the RCC has no ACTUAL power over the decisions of The State. They can only influence those who are followers of the RCC. Politicians are the people that actually control and restrict legislation in this country.

    Sure in more recent times we have moved on (condoms below allowed in Ireland), but the RCC belief structure still causes the needless death of millions worldwide due to its religious stance on condoms and this should of course be open to full debate.


    Absolutely, as it is an issue that affects a wider society, not just those who follow the teachings of the RCC. For me personally it's an issue that I struggle to reconcile with my faith, but again for me personally- Humanity trumps Religion every time, and I'd rather not see anyone fast tracking it into Heaven having contracted AIDS from engaging in unprotected sex.

    If we look at a recent issue though we can see that the church effectively tried to bully TD's by saying they won't give communion to TD's who support abortion, this removes it from being a personal matter and turns it into a lobbying, interference with Irish government and bulling issue and should be widely discussed.


    See this is one where one side is as bad as the other- The hierarchy within the RCC are making up the rules as they go along, but it is up to politicians who declare themselves RCC or otherwise to give the RCC hierarchy the power to do that and bow to the influence of the RCC, or, yknow, grow a pair.

    You can't talk about the RCC without talking about its belief structure I'm afraid, they can't be separated.


    You actually can, if you really wanted to. There are many aspects to the RCC besides it's belief structure. But do you want to talk about the influence of the RCC on Irish Society, the Hierarchy of the RCC, the followers of the faith, or, do you want to just talk about the beliefs of the RCC. They're easily separated, if you actually wanted to. You can have a whole discussion about issues such as abortion and how it affects Irish Society without using phrases like "as an RC", "as an atheist", "as a woman", "as a man", "as a parent". All these phrases in my opinion anyway, lend no weight to a person's opinion and should be left out of the discussion.

    padd b1975, a megathread sounds all fine and well but given the issues presented by the RCC interference in Ireland I can't help but feel that you'd prefer for many of the discussions to be hidden away and almost brushed under the carpet.

    It's important that people can clearly see the new issues when the RCC tries to interfere with how the Irish state is run, this should not be hidden.

    Also given its the RCC and its lobby groups that are most against gay marriage does this mean gay marriage topics go into your suggested mega-thread or are they separate?, remember that once again the RCC belief structure has to be part of such a discussion because its the RCC belief's that are the cause for this restriction.

    The issues are too many to simply lump into a megathread.

    Is AH the right place for these discussions though? As I've already said earlier in this thread- AH is like preaching to the converted when it comes to "discussing" these issues from a religious/atheist perspective. It's less of a discussion, and more just another opportunity to pour scorn on the RCC.

    By all means pour scorn on the RCC, but would the message not be more effective if it was directed through the relevant channels using the right medium? The "discussions" surrounding Religion in AH are only a farce, about as effective as the useless facebook campaigns. Gathering support for something online is easy, and it's lazy, and it's directed at the wrong audience. What is the point in an atheist backslapping get-together in AH where the RCC will never give a fiddlers?

    That's not a discussion, that's a one sided emperors new clothes style mob, and anyone who finds it objectionable, is quickly put back in their confessional box or told stay out of the thread, thereby excluding them from the one sided "discussion".


  • Options
    #164
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Why do people feel the need to mock a religion though? Are they that insecure in themselves that they cannot live by what they profess to live by themselves, the whole "live and let live", non-judgemental (apparently!) philosophy?

    What does mocking a religion achieve? Absolutely nothing.

    Why can people not rise above the juvenille, immature playground insults and actually engage with each other in a discussion on an issue in an adult manner?


  • Options
    #165
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Dav wrote: »
    Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred.


    Religion is a stream of ideas and practices that one apparently chooses to follow. You don't get to choose your gender or race. Criticising an idea is not the same as criticising a person. I agree, that after hours has threads filled with inflammatory crap - this isn't just religious based. Does that mean though that religion should given some sort of special protection? Absolutely not. If so, then you must justify why you're not giving Political Parties or football fans the same amount of protection when their party's beliefs or their club is criticised or mocked.

    I've always been of the belief that if you cannot mock any idea in society then that society is hardly worth the salt it's based on.
    Mock the idea; not the person, there's a subtle but very important distinction.

    Catholics believe that they are eating the flesh of a divine living person. That's their belief. Pointing out the absurdity and logical consequences that arise from that belief is hardly intentionally offending a person.


  • Options
    #166
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Dav, curious where do you draw the line though?

    Is the following mocking or ridicule?

    - Sure there's no such thing as god, the devil or any of that stuff
    - Jesus never existed, thats all nonsense
    - There were no miracles, notice the way they there's never any video evidence...funny that eh!
    - Mary wasn't a virgin, sure she was married of course she had sex..the husband woul;dn't have stayed around otherwise.
    - The bible isn't the word of god, its a load of stories written by men..and only men, half of which contradict each other or are nonsense. in fairness its not an abomination for women to wear pants!

    To a deeply religious catholic saying all of the above could be offensive and is often considered mocking, I know, I've met them and had these discussion and never in anyway resorted to offensive language or sexual abuse comments.

    So, where do we draw the line. What you might consider light hearted could be offensive to somebody else.


  • Options
    #167
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Wibbs wrote: »
    TBH the need to mock religion(well lets face it mostly Catholicism in Ireland) strikes me as just a little adolescent at this stage.

    Off the top of my head, Bill Hicks, Stephen Fry, Dara O'Briain, Tim Minchin to name but a few, all mock religion.
    You might find them adolescent, I find them amusing.


  • Options
    #168
    Jerrica
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,813 ✭✭✭Jerrica


    Dav wrote: »

    [edit]
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who think women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who think that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.

    Sorry to butt in here, I think it's possible to mock religion but what you're outlining above is mocking an individual for their religious beliefs, a subtle but possibly important difference. Mock the post belief not the poster believer.
    Cabaal wrote:
    So, where do we draw the line. What you might consider light hearted could be offensive to somebody else.
    The line will be quite impossible to draw and I don't see the point in trying to define one - you could straw pick topics from lots of different forums that would offend people elsewhere on the site, but who would it be fair to to censor those views? Personally I don't think so, the flip side of belief is having the fortitude to withstand criticism from others.


  • Options
    #169
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Are they that insecure in themselves that they cannot live by what they profess to live by themselves, the whole "live and let live", non-judgemental (apparently!) philosophy?
    I suspect if everyone subscribed to the "live and let live" concept there'd be a big drop in religious threads. But for that philosophy to work it needs buy-in from all corners.

    But yeah, the church is a bit of an easy target, and catholics themselves get caught in the crossfire. I much prefer localised mirth as per our funny side thread. That way you can avoid any offence by simply not going there.


  • Options
    #170
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Jernal wrote: »
    Religion is a stream of ideas and practices that one apparently chooses to follow. You don't get to choose your gender or race. Criticising an idea is not the same as criticising a person. I agree, that after hours has threads filled with inflammatory crap - this isn't just religious based. Does that mean though that religion should given some sort of special protection? Absolutely not. If so, then you must justify why you're not giving Political Parties or football fans the same amount of protection when their party's beliefs or their club is criticised or mocked.


    They ARE given special protection though. You cannot say anything about a politician without running the risk of putting Boards on the wrong side of defamation laws. Football is particularly excluded from AH because it is considered far more contentious than religion. The only reason religion is not considered as contentious as soccer, is because the majority of the most vocal posters in AH are atheist, and given some of the silly insults- incredibly immature atheists at that.

    I've always been of the belief that if you cannot mock any idea in society then that society is hardly worth the salt it's based on.
    Mock the idea; not the person, there's a subtle but very important distinction.


    But WHY do you feel the need to mock anything? Are you that insecure that you cannot present your objections in a rational manner beyond petty regurgitated insults?

    Catholics believe that they are eating the flesh of a divine living person. That's their belief. Pointing out the absurdity and logical consequences that arise from that belief is hardly intentionally offending a person.

    Without getting into silly semantics, can you see why it would be offensive to a person? Why would you feel the need to mock something if it wasn't based on some deep seated insecurity within yourself? What do you hope to achieve by mocking the beliefs of the RCC? Cathartic relief of some description?

    And I presume since you are above the age of 13 your answer will consist of a more rational argument than "cos its stupehhhh".


  • Options
    #171
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to mock a religion though? Are they that insecure in themselves that they cannot live by what they profess to live by themselves, the whole "live and let live", non-judgemental (apparently!) philosophy?

    What does mocking a religion achieve? Absolutely nothing.

    Why can people not rise above the juvenille, immature playground insults and actually engage with each other in a discussion on an issue in an adult manner?

    I think again what it stems from is the religious order's pushing their religious views and restrictions on non-religious people. Again, their view on abortion, schools etc affecting non-religious people.

    Its very easy say live and let live, but in practice the religious orders certainly don't practice that when it comes to the Irish state, government funding and legislation on matters. So often non-religious people figure why should they?

    In an ideal world live and let live would be great....but we don't live in an ideal world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Dav, curious where do you draw the line though?

    Is the following mocking or ridicule?

    - Sure there's no such thing as god, the devil or any of that stuff
    - Jesus never existed, thats all nonsense
    - There were no miracles, notice the way they there's never any video evidence...funny that eh!
    - Mary wasn't a virgin, sure she was married of course she had sex..the husband woul;dn't have stayed around otherwise.
    - The bible isn't the word of god, its a load of stories written by men..and only men, half of which contradict each other or are nonsense. in fairness its not an abomination for women to wear pants!

    To a deeply religious catholic saying all of the above could be offensive and is often considered mocking, I know, I've met them and had these discussion and never in anyway resorted to offensive language or sexual abuse comments.

    So, where do we draw the line. What you might consider light hearted could be offensive to somebody else.

    I'd actually look at these another way.


    If I were to say that Catholics are corrupt, their deeds are vile, they do no good. Would this be crossing the line?
    (I think it would.)
    Psalms 14:1 wrote:
    The fool[a] says in his heart,
    “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
    there is no one who does good.

    So, this is basically it why should religion have a special privilege?


  • Options
    #173
    HondaSami
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭HondaSami


    Penn wrote: »
    I've said it recently elsewhere and I'll say it here, I think people should be able to attack the religion, but not the religious. Attack/question/mock the beliefs themselves, but not attack/mock/insult people for holding those beliefs, as that veers towards personal abuse.

    When you mock the religion you mock the people who practice said religion so in a way it is personal abuse.

    I do think some people take it too personal and are ott but i also feel some of the comments are said just for the sake of saying them and knocking the RCC.


  • Options
    #174
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dav wrote: »
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who think women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. [...] So why is this particular issue allowable?
    Because people have rights which should be upheld - one of which is the right not to be mocked.

    Ideas do not have rights, so they can be mocked freely.

    For the avoidance of doubt, people do not have a right to make an idea part of their identity in order to render it safe from mocking.


  • Options
    #175
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    HondaSami wrote: »
    When you mock the religion democratic party you mock the people who practice said religion politics so in a way it is personal abuse.

    Religious beliefs, politics beliefs, [insert whatever belief you want here] are all the same. Beliefs.
    It is not personal abuse to have a discussion on your differences when it comes to beliefs.


  • Options
    #176
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Jernal wrote: »
    I'd actually look at these another way.


    If I were to say that Catholics are corrupt, their deeds are vile, they do no good. Would this be crossing the line?
    (I think it would.)

    So, this is basically it why should religion have a special privilege?

    You missed the other insult,
    any none believer is also classed a fool,

    I'd find it insulting to be called fool, vile, corrupt, that I do no good in a thread. Yet a religious person could say just that in a thread sighting the word of god.

    But then what recourse do I have when the word of god calls me these things?
    :confused:


  • Options
    #177
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,284 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    HondaSami wrote: »
    When you mock the religion you mock the people who practice said religion so in a way it is personal abuse.

    I think that there's a distinction between mocking and genuine criticism and that's where the line should be drawn. For example, describing nuns as, to use the vernacular of my schooldays and apologies for any offence this may cause, "mickey dodgers", is offensive mockery that should not be tolerated. Describing them as women who have chosen to remain celibate and stating that as a result their views on abortion cannot be taken seriously is a legitimate argument that can be debated rationally.


  • Options
    #178
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    HondaSami wrote: »
    When you mock the religion you mock the people who practice said religion so in a way it is personal abuse.

    I disagree. I know what you're saying, but I think that becomes a case of the religious person being offended, rather than offense being caused.

    I could call Star Trek a steaming pile of sh*te and a Trekkie might take offense because they really like it and think they in turn are being mocked. Whereas if I said Trekkies were idiots for liking Star Trek, that's definitely personal abuse because it's directly aimed at them.

    Likewise, if I made fun of an aspect of religion or certain religious beliefs, people might be offended because that's what they believe and I'm mocking it. But I'm not intentionally making fun of them for believing it.

    It's quite similar to "Attack the post, not the poster" (if someone puts forward an opinion about say praising a video game, I can disagree with it and say why I think the game is stupid, but I can't say that they are stupid for thinking it's good) and also similar to a phrase which I've heard with regards to religious beliefs about homosexuality which is "Hate the sin, not the sinner". Well, I think we should be able to Hate the religion, not the religious.

    I don't think religious people should be attacked or mocked. Hell, at least 95% of the people I know are religious in some shape or form, including my entire immediate family. But that doesn't mean I don't think what they believe is stupid, rather than thinking they are stupid for believing it.


  • Options
    #179
    HondaSami
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭HondaSami


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Religious beliefs, politics beliefs, [insert whatever belief you want here] are all the same. Beliefs.
    It is not personal abuse to have a discussion on your differences when it comes to beliefs.

    Yes fair point but lots of the comments aimed at the RCC are aimed at the people and not the religion imo, It's not as bad as it was or else most people have grown immune to the silly comments.

    I have no problem with discussion if most of the usual comments were deleted.
    I'm not a practicing catholic but i don't like to see all priests labelled the same.


  • Options
    #180
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I think again what it stems from is the religious order's pushing their religious views and restrictions on non-religious people. Again, their view on abortion, schools etc affecting non-religious people.

    Its very easy say live and let live, but in practice the religious orders certainly don't practice that when it comes to the Irish state, government funding and legislation on matters. So often non-religious people figure why should they?

    In an ideal world live and let live would be great....but we don't live in an ideal world.


    I get what you're saying Cabaal, but to that then all I could say is-

    Why, if an atheist considers themselves to be superior to a person who believes in a deity, do they feel the need to lower themselves to the same tactics that they object to the RCC using?

    I never understood the expression "fight fire with fire", most people with any common sense would fight a fire with water.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Religious beliefs, politics beliefs, [insert whatever belief you want here] are all the same. Beliefs.
    It is not personal abuse to have a discussion on your differences when it comes to beliefs.

    Agreed, but there is a problem in AH in my opinion when it comes to the RCC. We have probably turned a blind eye to"our religion''. There is no way we would accept the the same to be said about the Jewish or Islamic faith or insert any other faith here.

    It should not be or is not free day on Catholics. I will be enforcing the charter from here on out, it tires me something awful, reading some of the sh!t directed at this group.

    Live and let live. The normal Irish Catholic has nothing to do with past crimes.


Advertisement