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
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    HondaSami
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭HondaSami


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    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 enfircing 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.

    You are probably the only mod who does have some sympathy for the RCC in AH's, some of the comments are just plain stupid and tiresome.
    This is a catholic country and we all believe what we believe, it's just not cool to be a catholic in AH's.


  • Options
    #183
    HondaSami
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭HondaSami


    Penn wrote: »
    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.


    I don't think you can compare a tv programe to religion tbf, religion is a very personal thing and for some their faith means everything and when someone mocks that faith they take it very personal.
    I have one friend who is deeply religious and we cannot talk religion because her mind is closed to the wrongs of the church and she will always make excuses for them.


  • Options
    #184
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    HondaSami wrote: »
    I have one friend who is deeply religious and we cannot talk religion because her mind is closed to the wrongs of the church and she will always make excuses for them.

    But we don't have to cater to that in an online discussion forum.

    I can see the merit in removing generalities about priests ALL being pedos, that sort of stuff, insulting a congregation for their beliefs etc.

    However the line I draw with regard to what is fair comment and what is "insulting" will be in a different place to probably anyone else posting on the thread. Trying to figure out the balance between what's fair comment and what's insulting in an every-day sense is tough ground to traverse.

    Certainly we can improve some of the dumb, lets shoehorn an insult about the RCC or whoever into a thread where it's not needed mentality. That's quite straight forward. However what one person might find insulting another person might consider a fair comment.


  • Options
    #185
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    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.

    Perhaps because many have experience and understand that often trying to "fight" the RCC with reason and logic just doesn't work (alot of the time, not all the time)

    Lets be honest, we are dealing with an organisation that believe that they are eating bread thats living flesh of a man that died 2,000 years ago,

    How exactly do you reason with that sort of organisation?

    I'm not saying its right in all cases and it honestly depends on what is being said, but frustration can lead to this.

    I don't believe in a god, but at the same time I know its not right to label all priests as sexual abusers. Most do good work, and its wrong to label these people as sexual abusers.

    However it is factual to state that the Vatican knew of the abuses and choose to cover it up and move the abusing priests around rather then deal with the issue.


  • Options
    #186
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    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.
    "Our religion"?

    What exactly are you referring to?

    As I said above, and I'm not sure you had time to read, people deserve respect and have rights (including the right not to be insulted) and it's right and proper that these rights are upheld fairly.

    Ideas do not have rights, especially those ideas which are as damaging as religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Nodin wrote: »
    I would say that calling all catholics child molesters would already be actionable under the charter.
    I would like to think so too.

    Calling all Catholics paedo enablers goes unpunished though.

    Calling all Catholics retards goes unpunished too.


  • Options
    #188
    HondaSami
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭HondaSami


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    But we don't have to cater to that in an online discussion forum.

    I can see the merit in removing generalities about priests ALL being pedos, that sort of stuff, insulting a congregation for their beliefs etc.

    However the line I draw with regard to what is fair comment and what is "insulting" will be in a different place to probably anyone else posting on the thread. Trying to figure out the balance between what's fair comment and what's insulting in an every-day sense is tough ground to traverse.

    Certainly we can improve some of the dumb, lets shoehorn an insult about the RCC or whoever into a thread where it's not needed mentality. That's quite straight forward. However what one person might find insulting another person might consider a fair comment.

    I agree and i let the comments go over my head because i see them as people who are just trying to be funny in AH's.
    I used my friend as an example of how loyal some Catholics are to the church so can see how some people find the comments in AH's offensive.

    Yes some of the silly usual comments should be removed but then the threads would not get as much traffic and die a very sudden death.


  • Options
    #189
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    robindch wrote: »
    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.

    I lost my extremely long reply to Penns post :(

    But I'l reply to this as it highlights the same area, if ideas and social constructs do not have rights does that make mutable characteristics and social groupings open to mockery?

    Can I say "feminists are just a bunch of bitter man hating whingers"

    or "Nigerians are a bunch of scumbags" (all nationality is after all, is an idea)

    or "Those mincing queens are pathetic, but bears are ok"

    or in the case of gender which is broadly regarded as a social construct as aside from biological sex e.g born female, but behave as a girl/woman, can I make sexist statments as long as a qualify it with "typical" or gender.

    Each of these statements is not attacking an immutable characteristic, rather attacking the ideas/behavior of certain groupings, none of which are unchangable.

    I'm not asking for criticism of religion to be stopped i'm asking that the rules be applied equally across the board in relation to all social groupings, OR that AH follows the more common internet idea of allowing freedom of expression where it doesn't contravene laws


  • Options
    #190
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,710 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    robindch wrote: »
    "Our religion"?

    What exactly are you referring to?

    As I said above, and I'm not sure you had time to read, people deserve respect and have rights (including the right not to be insulted) and it's right and proper that these rights are upheld fairly.

    Ideas do not have rights, especially those ideas which are as damaging as religion.
    This is the bottom line right here as far as I'm concerned.


  • Options
    #191
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,330 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    HondaSami wrote: »
    I don't think you can compare a tv programe to religion tbf, religion is a very personal thing and for some their faith means everything and when someone mocks that faith they take it very personal.
    I have one friend who is deeply religious and we cannot talk religion because her mind is closed to the wrongs of the church and she will always make excuses for them.

    I agree. I wasn't necessarily comparing a person's religious beliefs to liking a TV show, just using it as an analogy that saying you hate something other people like or which is very personal to them, isn't the same as saying you hate them. Though point taken, I could have used a better example like alternate medicine or believing in psychics etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    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.





    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?


    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".

    Tbh, the semantics are far from silly as you've totally misunderstood my post. I'd also like the ad that the comments like presumptuous comments like your last sentence are totally not constructive and unnecessary for ANY sort of discusison.

    A politician is a person.
    e.g
    Enda Kenny is an idiot! - Not acceptable.
    Enda kenny's ideas on abortions are idiotic - acceptable.

    Is it ok for me to say that Catholicism is stupid?

    Political beliefs are NOT given special protection.

    Feel the need to mock anything.
    I never said I have a desire to mock to stuff. Just because a man is attracted to a woman doesn't mean he must hit up every girl in town, but it's also not a reason to ever deny him the opportunity of hitting up a girl.
    That's basically what you've done here. Ideas should be allowed to be mocked. That doesn't mean I endorse ,or personally will, mock the living daylights out of any particular idea. It's just a principle of society I believe in. Nothing should be sacred or beyond reproach or criticism.

    So, with respect, you misunderstood my post.
    Pretty much all those questions aren't even relevant to me.


  • Options
    #193
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    HondaSami wrote: »
    This is a catholic country and we all believe what we believe...
    Does not compute.
    robindch wrote: »
    As I said above, and I'm not sure you had time to read, people deserve respect and have rights (including the right not to be insulted) and it's right and proper that these rights are upheld fairly.
    People have a right not to be intentionally insulted, but often people see general criticism of an ideology as a personal insult and that shouldn't earn a free pass.


  • Options
    #194
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Can I say "feminists are just a bunch of bitter man hating whingers"

    or "Nigerians are a bunch of scumbags" (all nationality is after all, is an idea)

    or "Those mincing queens are pathetic, but bears are ok"
    All of your comments still refer directly to people and as above, people have a right to be treated with respect, at least in the first instance.

    1. "{Catholicism|atheism} is idiotic" - fine
    2. "{Catholicism|atheism} is only accepted by idiots" - indirect insult, not permitted in respectable discourse
    3. "{Catholics|atheists} are idiots" - direct insult, not permitted in respectable discourse


  • Options
    #195
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    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.

    I think this is the crux of the prose.
    People are pissed off with banks because they are apparently responsible for all the troubles they face right now. Many people are pissed off at the RCC because of the way it apparently handled abuse claims.

    Where I draw the line is where the person says an individual banker is stupid, c*nt, paedo etc. The same line for the individual catholic.

    Where it gets messy though is when you have a publicly identifiable banker recognised as dodgy. Or a publicly identifiable priest recognised as dodgy.(Don't get me started on some of the posts about various people in the conspiracies theory forum. ) Some Catholics gets offended by posters who allege that such and such a person is actually involved in something nefarious.


  • Options
    #196
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dades wrote: »
    People have a right not to be intentionally insulted, but often people see general criticism of an ideology as a personal insult and that shouldn't earn a free pass.
    Yes, the intention is important and some people -- I'm thinking of the elevators/atheist fallout here -- are quite happy to interpret something into an insult or a threat, where none is intended, nor should one have been taken.

    As above, people cannot declare that some idea is an integral part of their identity in order to render it safe from free comment.

    And religious people are the divil for doing that!


  • Options
    #197
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    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.
    If you're attempting to equate any of those guys with the usual inane and yep often adolescent type mocking on the site, at Catholics in particular, I really think we've jumped the shark here.
    robindch wrote:
    1. "{Catholicism|atheism} is idiotic" - fine
    2. "{Catholicism|atheism} is only accepted by idiots" - indirect insult, not permitted in respectable discourse
    3. "{Catholics|atheists} are idiots" - direct insult, not permitted in respectable discourse
    This sums it up for me, but to be fair from what I've seen of posts on the matter in After Hours that's how it tends to go. It's not the mods fault that the same inane stuff comes up, or that some people take offence at said stuff.

    Basically I figure if you don't like how the mood of the majority post on any particular topic anywhere on the site, don't read it. Simples and better for your blood pressure that way.

    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
    #198
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    robindch wrote: »
    All of your comments still refer directly to people and as above, people have a right to be treated with respect, at least in the first instance.

    1. "{Catholicism|atheism} is idiotic" - fine
    2. "{Catholicism|atheism} is only accepted by idiots" - indirect insult, not permitted in respectable discourse
    3. "{Catholics|atheists} are idiots" - direct insult, not permitted in respectable discourse

    Did you take a read through the thread that paddy b19775 highlighted an issue with its full of unsanctioned 2 and 3 style posts, and this is my chief problem with AH religious threads.

    But anyway I don't see these distinctions applying in AH in relation to my statements, if I rephrased my statements to type 1

    "feminism is a twisted ideology which is all about misogyny and whining"

    "Nigerian culture encourages scumbaggery"

    "The ethos behind queen culture is pathetic"

    These would still be infracted.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Basically I figure if you don't like how the mood of the majority post on any particular topic anywhere on the site, don't read it. Simples and better for your blood pressure that way.

    Hmmm good advice but not really an applicable official forum position as such particularly after the rejig in relation to sexism on AH


  • Options
    #199
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Perhaps because many have experience and understand that often trying to "fight" the RCC with reason and logic just doesn't work (alot of the time, not all the time)


    But that's WHY it's called faith- because the idea of having faith in something goes beyond any rational reason or logic. I'll be honest Cabaal trying to approach any Religion with reason and logic is an exercise in futility.
    Lets be honest, we are dealing with an organisation that believe that they are eating bread thats living flesh of a man that died 2,000 years ago,

    How exactly do you reason with that sort of organisation?

    I'm not saying its right in all cases and it honestly depends on what is being said, but frustration can lead to this.


    Sometimes, and I know you said we don't live in an ideal world, but sometimes, it really IS best to just live and let live. I know the RCC will never adopt this philosophy, but you'll only frustrate yourself trying to argue religion with science. The two require very different approaches with two very different states of mind. Can the two co-exist in harmony? I say yes they can, extremists say no they can't, because that would mean the extremist couldn't feel superior any more. All that matters to them is their ability to feel superior, and anything that threatens that belief must be stamped out.
    I don't believe in a god, but at the same time I know its not right to label all priests as sexual abusers. Most do good work, and its wrong to label these people as sexual abusers.

    However it is factual to state that the Vatican knew of the abuses and choose to cover it up and move the abusing priests around rather then deal with the issue.


    Of course they did, and for that they should have been excommunicated and punished to the full extent of the law for facilitating and perpetrating such abuse. I've said it before though that these people were pedophiles, child molesters and perverts before they were ever part of the clergy. The system within the RCC allowed them to indulge their perversions, the very same as ANY organisation where access to a vulnerable section of society provides pedophiles and perverts with the opportunity to indulge their perversions- just look at the amount of stories that have come out in recent years about people in authority in sports who used their position to abuse children. Look at the current scandals in the BBC organisation, how many celebrities abuses were covered up?


    Jernal wrote: »
    Tbh, the semantics are far from silly as you've totally misunderstood my post. I'd also like the ad that the comments like presumptuous comments like your last sentence are totally not constructive and unnecessary for ANY sort of discusison.


    I'll apologise for that comment, it was coming from a position of feeling a bit butt hurt at the constant "because religion is stupid" juvenille responses from those who when asked why they are so dismissive of religion, that's the usual immature response.
    A politician is a person.
    e.g
    Enda Kenny is an idiot! - Not acceptable.
    Enda kenny's ideas on abortions are idiotic - acceptable.

    Is it ok for me to say that Catholicism is stupid?


    You've never seen Enda being called an idiot in AH? I would say that once these people put themselves in the public eye, they leave themselves open to criticism. I won't distract from this thread by getting too bogged down with Enda, but suffice to say Enda bending to pressure from the RCC at every turn leads me to believe he is indeed an idiot, but then when he comes out with a few sympathy soundbites on national television and expresses a few crocodile tears and turns the nations revulsion on it's head, it does make you wonder is he more like the fool in King Lear!

    I never said I have a desire to mock to stuff. Just because a man is attracted to a woman doesn't mean he must hit up every girl in town, but it's also not a reason to ever deny him the opportunity of hitting up a girl.
    That's basically what you've done here. Ideas should be allowed to be mocked. That doesn't mean I endorse ,or personally will, mock the living daylights out of any particular idea. It's just a principle of society I believe in. Nothing should be sacred or beyond reproach or criticism.

    So, with respect, you misunderstood my post.
    Pretty much all those questions aren't even relevant to me.


    I'm with you on that one, indeed nothing should be above criticism, but what's important is HOW you express that criticism. Mocking something serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever only to make the person mocking appear immature and juvenille.


  • Options
    #200
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    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.

    .

    Could have fooled me
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056945796
    czarcasm wrote:
    Mocking something serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever only to make the person mocking appear immature and juvenille.

    Its usually the best way of highlighting the illogic and nonsense of things, which is why its a truism that various kinds of regime dread laughter, as it destroys their credibility.


  • Options
    #201
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    But anyway I don't see these distinctions applying in AH in relation to my statements, if I rephrased my statements to type 1

    "feminism is a twisted ideology which is all about misogyny and whining"

    "Nigerian culture encourages scumbaggery"

    "The ethos behind queen culture is pathetic"

    These would still be infracted.
    Certainly in A&A, the first one I'd leave the poster to be torn a new one by some regulars. It's an opinion about a 'movement'. Only if it became repetitive, trolling or soap boxing would it become mod-fodder.

    Regarding 2 and 3, if Nigerian or queer culture wielded the type of influence on society the RCC does, they'd be fair game too.

    The church can't have it's cake, and eat it. If it wants to dictate to the Irish what they should think and vote, then it puts itself out there for a response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Wibbs wrote: »
    If you're attempting to equate any of those guys with the usual inane and yep often adolescent type mocking on the site, at Catholics in particular, I really think we've jumped the shark here.

    I'd agree with this. I tend to believe that if I'm laughing at something, then it can't really be offending me. There's no reason why religion shouldn't be subject to humour just like other aspects of life. The Life of Brian (already mentioned here) is one of my all time favourite movies. Bill Hicks, George Carlin and others might make some feel uncomfortable, but I can't say that I find them offensive because they are funny, their targets often deserve it, and they don't go for a cheap laugh. Dara O'Briain skewers Irish Catholicism as only an Irish person could, but there isn't anything cruel about it, and whatever his views, I've always found Stephen Fry to be fair-minded when it comes to dealing with people with different beliefs. Bill Maher and Jimmy Carr also mock religion - but they aren't funny, they go for cheap shots, and yes, I find them offensive. All of this is IMHO of course but I don't think anyone could argue that what we are talking about here is subtle wit.

    I think this has been an interesting discussion. The AH mods have a difficult job, they know the forum better than anyone, and I'm not inclined to tell them how to do their job, particularly given the overall decline in muppetry on the forum over the last year or so. For my part, if I see something that I feel crosses that often hard to define line, I'll report it.


  • Options
    #203
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Its usually the best way of highlighting the illogic and nonsense of things, which is why its a truism that various kinds of regime dread laughter, as it destroys their credibility.


    Is it though Nodin? Or is it more a truism to say that among the non-believers against a regime, derision of the majority is the only way they have to feel better about their minority position?

    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though, as the film was almost a parody of itself, in the same way as FSM is a parody of itself. Neither would make me question my faith, but like Father Ted, I take them in the spirit they're meant- a humorous parody. They parodied religion in a way that wasn't malicious.

    I don't know if you're old enough to remember Madonna's "Like a Prayer", and the shìtstorm that kicked up around the world. She was able to use the medium of music to portray social injustice while shining the spotlight on the catholic church. She wasn't making a mockery of the church then either, but she sent waves of dissent throughout the world- the message that it was ok to be critical of the corruption of something you felt passionately about.

    Three years later nobody would have thought Ireland would see Cardinal Cahal Daly getting shredded on The Late Late Show (I couldn't find a YouTube clip but for anyone that remembers it, for the Irish it was like our own version of "Where were you when JFK was shot?". Where were you when Cardinal Cahal Daly got roasted by Gay Byrne and the Irish People on The Late Late Show?). One of the defining moments in Irish television. No mockery going on there, and the message was certainly heard by Irish society- the hissing bishop as clever as he thought he was, couldn't hold back the tide of change in the Irish psyche. The Catholic Hierarchy had lost it's iron fisted grip on Irish Society.

    Beruthiel mentioned a couple of comedians there earlier on, the only two names I would be familiar with were Dara O Brian and Stephen Fry. Both of these comedians while they wouldn't be my particular brand of humor, I would have no issue with their material.

    Tommy Tiernan on the other hand, is an obnoxious cock. He goes out of his way to make a mockery of religion. His material is thirty years out of date. I went to see one of his shows a few years back with a friend. She spent the evening laughing at his idiot ranting behaviour, I couldn't take any more of his screaming and walked out at the interval and demanded my money back. It wasn't because I was offended by his mockery of religion, it was because I couldn't understand a word he was screaming. His message was lost on me.


  • Options
    #204
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Is it though Nodin? .

    Yes it is.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though,..

    I'd suggest watching it again.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't know if you're old enough to remember Madonna's "Like a Prayer", ,..

    Yes. I'm also old enough to remember "life of Brian" and "the meaning of life" being banned.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Tommy Tiernan on the other hand, is an obnoxious cock..

    A matter of opinion. In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.


  • Options
    #205
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Nodin wrote: »
    ... In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.
    That's redolent of the "America: love it or leave it" school of discourse.

    The purpose of this forum is to address things about Boards that bother people, and there is the implied prospect that things might be changed if a sufficiently strong case is made.


  • Options
    #206
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes it is.
    I'd suggest watching it again.


    What I meant Nodin is that none of the Python movies are done with malice in mind.
    Yes. I'm also old enough to remember "life of Brian" and "the meaning of life" being banned.


    Yes, and why were they banned? Because the Hierarchy at the time had an overbearing influence on Irish Society. The only people that can be blamed for their influence on Irish Society today is Irish Society itself. This is how the RCC are able to get away with saying that any RCC politician who would vote pro-abortion shall be threatened with excommunication. I have no sympathy for them, because Michael Noonan was able to make similarly thinly veiled threats about the then upcoming budget if the Irish diem't ratify the Lisbon Treaty. People crumbled. Will politicians crumble? You're damn right they will, because they fear they won't be re-elected come the next general election if they openly defy the Hierarchy of the RCC.

    Enda was A-OK giving it socks from the Dail when he told the RCC Hierarchy where to go in front of the Irish public, then shed a few crocodile tears for the States collusion in the Magdelene Laundries, but when he's actually backed into a corner- not so much as a whimper out of him. Now tell me who's to actually blame for the influence of the RCC again?

    A matter of opinion. In a shared space, the choices are to put up with what doesn't suit you, or reduce the place to such white-bread blandness that no-one is offended and nothing really takes place. Or go somewhere that suits you.


    Everything is only a matter of opinion Nodin. That's the second time you've mentioned the shared space analogy. If we were to apply that same logic to Irish Society, we would never have seen the changes we see taking place now and the RCC Hierarchy would still have the iron fisted grip they had decades ago and would continue to abuse their position of influence. Would YOU accept being told if you don't like it, go somewhere else?

    You don't make progress by offending people, you make progress by understanding them, then working together towards a cohesive society with respect for your fellow human beings at it's core.


  • Options
    #207
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Is it though Nodin? Or is it more a truism to say that among the non-believers against a regime, derision of the majority is the only way they have to feel better about their minority position?

    The Life of Brian is a classic comedy satire, it didn't highlight any illogical nonsense though, as the film was almost a parody of itself, in the same way as FSM is a parody of itself. Neither would make me question my faith, but like Father Ted, I take them in the spirit they're meant- a humorous parody. They parodied religion in a way that wasn't malicious.

    You missed the part about Father Ted upsetting the catholic church in Ireland, it happened and they bitched and moaned about it big time on the late late.

    So whilst you may not have found it offensive, they did at the time. This brings us back to how different people can find different stuff offensive. ;)
    You don't make progress by offending people, you make progress by understanding them, then working together towards a cohesive society with respect for your fellow human beings at it's core.

    True, in theory and it can be done country v country, and people v people.

    Its however another story with a religious ideology, its hard to respect and work with an organisation who refuse to even consider that there is a better way.

    - How can you respect a organisation that in this modern day still see's women as second class in its own organisation and refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that see's fellow human beings as abominations and refuses to change their view on them?
    - How can you respect an organisation who's stance on sexual health has meant the death sentences of millions throughout the developing world and again refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that demands that rape or incest victims must give birth to baby's if they become pregnant as part of a rape?

    You can't work with an organisation who change at the pace of an ice age and who claim to cherish life but at the same time don't take steps to respect people that are alive, even governments for all their failings change their views faster then the RCC.

    And again with a government, atleast if you don't like them you can take them out of power.


  • Options
    #208
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You missed the part about Father Ted upsetting the catholic church in Ireland, it happened and they bitched and moaned about it big time on the late late.

    So whilst you may not have found it offensive, they did at the time. This brings us back to how different people can find different stuff offensive. ;)


    The Hierarchy though Cabaal were always going to find anything that'd shine a beam in their eye offensive. Ordinary Joe Catholics though were able to enjoy the show for what it was. In reality it was the Hierarchy who ended up with egg on their faces when they desperately tried to enforce their will on their followers. People couldn't take a Hierarchy seriously when they were dismissing a program like Father Ted while at the same time trying to defend their covering up of the various scandals at the time. This is the corruption of influence and authority I was talking about earlier and why I have no sympathy for the likes of Cahal Daly and the current incompetent Sean Brady.

    As a member of the RC, I despair that the Hierarchy is represented by these individuals, but that doesn't mean that when I go to mass on a Sunday I cannot worship God with the rest of the congregation. It just means I know corruption and frustration at the loss of influence when I see it. These individuals in my mind do not represent the views of the RCC. How can they when they are corrupt as fùck? Talk to the ordinary members of the congregation and I assure you they share the same contempt for anyone who colludes to shield child abusers from prosecution.

    True, in theory and it can be done country v country, and people v people.

    Its however another story with a religious ideology, its hard to respect and work with an organisation who refuse to even consider that there is a better way.

    - How can you respect a organisation that in this modern day still see's women as second class in its own organisation and refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that see's fellow human beings as abominations and refuses to change their view on them?
    - How can you respect an organisation who's stance on sexual health has meant the death sentences of millions throughout the developing world and again refuses to change their view on this?
    - How can you respect an organisation that demands that rape or incest victims must give birth to baby's if they become pregnant as part of a rape?

    You can't work with an organisation who change at the pace of an ice age and who claim to cherish life but at the same time don't take steps to respect people that are alive, even governments for all their failings change their views faster then the RCC.


    All of the above are issues that as an RC I struggle to square with my compassion for humanity on a daily basis. Of course it's not easy, but it's not made any easier by a Hierarchy that goes against it's own teachings. The only solace I have is that there is far more good being done by on the ground so to speak by ordinary members of the faith who are raising the future generations of the RCC.

    You'll never make changes within an established Hierarchy by starting at the top down. You have to work from the ground up. It's the same way you have to tackle the problems with the powers that be in Government, because they are just as resistant to a change in the status quo as the hierarchy within the RCC. They've dragged their heels over as many issues in the last 20 years as the RCC.

    And again with a government, atleast if you don't like them you can take them out of power.


    And with the RCC, as I've stated time and again, Society is the only reason they had any power in the first place. The only difference with the RCC Hierarchy is that people have become intolerant of their corruption, whereas people still put up with and re-elect a bastard like Michael Noonan after the Hepatitis C scandal when he bullied Bridget Cole and her mother until she died, and only then after a lengthy tribunal did he issue a snivelling "apology".


  • Options
    #209
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    What I meant Nodin is that none of the Python movies are done with malice in mind..

    I bow to your mind-reading abilities.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yes, and why were they banned?..

    I'm fully aware of why they were banned, thanks.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Everything is only a matter of opinion Nodin. That's the second time you've mentioned the shared space analogy. If we were to apply that same logic to Irish Society, we would never have seen the changes we see taking place now and the RCC Hierarchy would still have the iron fisted grip they had decades ago and would continue to abuse their position of influence...

    You don't seem to get the analogy. I advocate the freedom to speak, you want freedom from being "offended". The former is far more liberal and inclusive than the latter.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You don't (......)it's core.

    Your opinion, for whats its worth, is noted.


  • Options
    #210
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    I bow to your mind-reading abilities.


    Come on Nodin, of course I'm not a mind reader, so it'd help if you explain the above in relation to my opinion that the Python movies were made with no malice intended. The above comment comes off like you found something to be offended about?

    You don't seem to get the analogy. I advocate the freedom to speak, you want freedom from being "offended". The former is far more liberal and inclusive than the latter.


    How many times have I seen it explained to posters that there is no such thing as free speech on a privately owned website? The one defining rule of Boards that over-rides all others is- Don't be a dick. There's a way to express yourself in a respectful and mature manner and it doesn't take much effort to do that. Why should anyone entertain a person who seems hell bent on being contentious and sets out to offend people? What does anyone expect to gain from being knowingly and deliberately offensive?


    The right to offend people might be a more liberating stance, but it certainly isn't an inclusive one, in fact it's quite the opposite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Dav wrote: »
    No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway

    Because the alternative is quite frightening?


Advertisement