(January 23, 2015 at 7:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: But the time is getting late and the world is too wrapped up with the distraction of religion when we should be tackling pollution and poverty worldwide.

I wonder if this is a pond thing.

I get the impression that large numbers of Tea Party types subscribe to the view that the important thing is savin' souls for tha Laurd fer eternity amen; that the environmental message is a fraud, and helping the poor overseas un-American.

However that's certainly not true in the UK. I could go link crazy, but one example will do as a taste- the Archbishop of Canterbury during his enthronement sermon: "The present challenges of environment and economy, of human development and global poverty, can only be faced with extraordinary Christ-liberated courage."

Xians have been in the lead in the UK environmental movement (the Quakers particularly strong here). Xians of all types have been massive supporters of organisations such as Make Poverty History and the Fairtrade movement. Anecdotally, I've been doing this sort of stuff for a while now, and none of the local groups I've been involved with would have been remotely close to viable without their Xian members.

Now there are 'Save a soul first' types here, just as there are many, many socially conscious Xians in the U.S. The latter don't tend to make as much noise as the Tea Partygoers, and because they're not newsworthy just don't get the airtime.

All of which has, I believe, created a very false impression of where the worldwide Church is at.

Quote:To say one voice does not matter is absurd. It does add up.

Agree completely with this. On this and similar issues, Xians and atheists should be
working together .

(January 25, 2015 at 11:56 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(January 23, 2015 at 7:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: But the time is getting late and the world is too wrapped up with the distraction of religion when we should be tackling pollution and poverty worldwide.

I wonder if this is a pond thing.

I get the impression that large numbers of Tea Party types subscribe to the view that the important thing is savin' souls for tha Laurd fer eternity amen; that the environmental message is a fraud, and helping the poor overseas un-American.

However that's certainly not true in the UK. I could go link crazy, but one example will do as a taste- the Archbishop of Canterbury during his enthronement sermon: "The present challenges of environment and economy, of human development and global poverty, can only be faced with extraordinary Christ-liberated courage."

Xians have been in the lead in the UK environmental movement (the Quakers particularly strong here). Xians of all types have been massive supporters of organisations such as Make Poverty History and the Fairtrade movement. Anecdotally, I've been doing this sort of stuff for a while now, and none of the local groups I've been involved with would have been remotely close to viable without their Xian members.

Now there are 'Save a soul first' types here, just as there are many, many socially conscious Xians in the U.S. The latter don't tend to make as much noise as the Tea Partygoers, and because they're not newsworthy just don't get the airtime.

All of which has, I believe, created a very false impression of where the worldwide Church is at.

Quote:To say one voice does not matter is absurd. It does add up.

Agree completely with this. On this and similar issues, Xians and atheists should be
working together .

Depends, I am willing to work with any human worldwide willing to put religion on the back burner, be even with that I still reserve the right to blaspheme religion. I can get along with individuals, but as an idea religion must always be subject to scrutiny.

I don't get the feeling, it's not on the backburner in Europe. Even the conservatives aren't climate change deniers. When it comes to poor people though, it's naturally a different tune. But that's the nature of conservatives. Kick the ones already lying on the floor.

Religion doesn't play any role when it comes to the things mentioned. It's an American thing for sure.

(January 25, 2015 at 7:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Depends, I am willing to work with any human worldwide willing to put religion on the back burner, be even with that I still reserve the right to blaspheme religion. I can get along with individuals, but as an idea religion must always be subject to scrutiny.

I think the point is that many Xians in the UK work on environmental issues because that's what they think Xians should do. Mankind given stewardship of the earth with God as owner, that sort of thing. It's important they (we) don't put religion on the back burner.

Blaspheming religion, and scrutinising religion, are two different things. Those atheists I'm familiar with at the cutting edge of the latter generally don't like doing the former.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Vicki Q Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 7:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Depends, I am willing to work with any human worldwide willing to put religion on the back burner, be even with that I still reserve the right to blaspheme religion. I can get along with individuals, but as an idea religion must always be subject to scrutiny.

I think the point is that many Xians in the UK work on environmental issues because that's what they think Xians should do. Mankind given stewardship of the earth with God as owner, that sort of thing. It's important they (we) don't put religion on the back burner.

Blaspheming religion, and scrutinising religion, are two different things. Those atheists I'm familiar with at the cutting edge of the latter generally don't like doing the former.

If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.

A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.

A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.

A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.

A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.

There's pretty much always a polite way of putting exactly the same argument.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Vicki Q Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.

A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.

A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.

There's pretty much always a polite way of putting exactly the same argument.

Couldn't help but notice there wasn't a rebuttal in your response.

I'll post it another way, then. Just because a religious person doesn't want someone blaspheming/insulting their religion and their beliefs, it doesn't automatically mean it is thus 'wrong', or indeed not a form of critique and scrutiny.

As above, religious organisations excel on forwarding esoteric structures and language, creating a barrier between those that believe and those that don't. A very good way of demolishing this barrier is making light of it; ridiculing and criticising till people on both sides of it can laugh about it.

If this is not a barometer of the level of scrutiny a religious organisation will accept, then what is it, in your mind?

(January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: I think the point is that many Xians in the UK work on environmental issues because that's what they think Xians should do. Mankind given stewardship of the earth with God as owner, that sort of thing. It's important they (we) don't put religion on the back burner.

Blaspheming religion, and scrutinising religion, are two different things. Those atheists I'm familiar with at the cutting edge of the latter generally don't like doing the former.

If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.

A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.

A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.

There are liberal theists and atheists who are well intended in wanting to protect multiculturalism but fall for lines like the Pope equating religion to your mother.

What you just said is the curtain powers hide behind to avoid challenge to their power.

You cant simply equate "blasphemy" to shouting or cussing. Religion can and often does equate "that is not true" or "I want to leave", or "look at your own transgressions" as blasphemy.

If humans never evolved to ignore social norms and placating the emotions of the powers that be we never would have left the dark ages. Blasphemy and ridicule are extremely important to maintain pluralism. And blasphemy isn't just about religion. Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jong Un consider any dissent to the state an act of blasphemy.

Humans need to get more to the point of accepting the bitching and even cussing and learn to leave it at words. You allow any type of power, state or religion the power of absolute censorship it is a short ride to fascism.

When the Pope said insulting religion is like insulting your mother and no one should do it, he was protecting his power, his institution, he was hiding behind the word "civility".

Quote:Blaspheming religion, and scrutinising religion, are two different things.

Not to the true believer they aren't.

Took the West 1,000 years to get xtians assholes under control and the muslims still haven't managed it.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: If I may I disagree. They're not mutually exclusive.

A good barometer on the tolerance shown to others by religious organisations is their reaction to blasphemy and specifically the people (be they individuals or groups) doing the blaspheming.

A lot of religions desire a world in which scrutiny of their affairs is limited to those who have the power to affect them. By making light of this desire (perhaps through blasphemy), one is effectively scrutinising and critiquing it at the same time.

There are liberal theists and atheists who are well intended in wanting to protect multiculturalism but fall for lines like the Pope equating religion to your mother.

What you just said is the curtain powers hide behind to avoid challenge to their power.

You cant simply equate "blasphemy" to shouting or cussing. Religion can and often does equate "that is not true" or "I want to leave", or "look at your own transgressions" as blasphemy.

If humans never evolved to ignore social norms and placating the emotions of the powers that be we never would have left the dark ages. Blasphemy and ridicule are extremely important to maintain pluralism. And blasphemy isn't just about religion. Stalin, Hitler and Kim Jong Un consider any dissent to the state an act of blasphemy.

Humans need to get more to the point of accepting the bitching and even cussing and learn to leave it at words. You allow any type of power, state or religion the power of absolute censorship it is a short ride to fascism.

When the Pope said insulting religion is like insulting your mother and no one should do it, he was protecting his power, his institution, he was hiding behind the word "civility".

Good point.

It's the sleight of hand tactic of imagining anything you want to be a blasphemy. It stymies debate; stymies critique; stymies scrutiny.

That's the real issue.