It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





It is, you're right.

I'm not saying it should be illegal for people to talk about religion... I'm not talking about prohibition or anything
:shk:


I'm saying form a strictly personal perspective and from what is currently happening here in the UK, there is no place for it on the streets.... It's dated and out of place. It's not commonplace here anyway.

Like I said, It's not big here... you don't get many people on the streets as it is.... I haven't had any mormons knock my door for god knows how long (pun intended).... seriously.... these things are dying out.... attitudes are changing..... it's not an intolerance or a hatred of religion, that's not what I mean and if I come across like that, I apologise, I don't mean to.

It's more of a cultural shift... more of a collective realization, people are just becoming smarter... people are thinking more critically about the magic man that watches over them.... people just don't accept it any more.

People are more humanist in their thinking and humanism is good thing.

Humanism is a human thing.

Spiritualism is a good thing too.


Religion however, and I'm not talking every single religion, just the usual suspects, is not a good thing.... and most, the majority of people in the UK agree with that.
My survey shows that.

People realise that religion is divisive and causes hatred and intolerance....




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


i'm not particularly fond of religion as a social construct in our current time frame either, but just because it fails as an institution doesn't mean it fails as a spiritual construct. also, i'd be careful of using the "mob mentality" as a reason to suggest someone else's view is not relevant enough to be allowed the same freedoms you enjoy, as that kind of thinking is precisely the impetus of every human rights disaster in the history of the planet.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




I afford everyone the same freedoms I enjoy.... I don't go around preaching to people or telling them their beliefs are wrong? Well.... not on the streets anyway


But seriously, I think everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in, without fear of persecution.


The problem is, and It's the same in America, Christians have had free reign for a long, long time.

Most of our laws were founded on religious beliefs and religion was infused with every level of society up until 50 or so years ago.

It's time that everyone was equal.

Christians in this county only feel persecuted now, because they no longer have the rule... they no longer have a say in everything and are no longer as favoured and revered as they once were.

They're just people who believe stuff... like everyone else.


That's where this comes from.

It's a persecution complex.... nobody is persecuting them, they're just bringing them down a peg or two and rightly so..... It's been the same for far too long and It's about time that it was a level playing field... and should be the same over there, in America.

But until you get God out of every Courtroom and government building... and stop saying "God bless America" like it means something, It's never gonna change.

Religion has ruled the roost for far too long.... it's time to give humans a go.... to allow people to to be themselves and think for themselves.




edit on 19/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


no christians have not had free reign for a long long time. politicians, even if they claim they are christians, MUST be politicians first. it's part of the job description. do you honestly believe that it was a christian decision to allow abortion in this country? and at least some of those were "Christians" who voted it in. what you mean to say is, christians have had free speech and been allowed to hold offices of power in the usa, for a long long time. and have been allowed to vote, for a long long time.

might i remind you that SURVEY said, black slaves should remain black slaves. just because the PEOPLE agree with something, doesn't mean they are auto-correct. as i said before, mob mentality (popular vote) is trouble just waiting to happen. it's a human rights violation just waiting for enough PEOPLE to agree. i dunno about you, but i don't want my wee little part of history to be embroiled in making aggregious errors, particularly where it comes to such things as silencing people who you disagree with



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




No what I mean is when politicians say "god this and god that", it's not good.
When you have to say things about god blessing your country.... it's not good.


It's not fair either.


Religion is a personal thing.....


Of course I don't want a human rights issue.... religion has caused more human rights issues and deaths than anything... more wars, more everything.

And I don't want to ban religion.... I don't want to stop religion.

Religion is personal, keep it that way.

Sex is good.... everyone (or many people anyway) has sex.... you don't go around doing it in front of everyone... in public and saying "look at my sex" do you?

Same with religion.... whatever you do in your own home is up to you.



I'm clearly joking by the way, before you suggest I'm building concentration camps for the Religious.


Anyway, we have different view, that's cool.

I've said what I think and think (maybe not) I've made myself clear.

Cheers for the chat



edit on 19/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


god in the sense you refer to, is a very generic term. and since all the official government structures are decidedly pagan and pantheistic in origin, i don't think the government is referring to the biblical god exclusively, but ANY god, including yourself, if that's how you see it. IOW, what you view as a religious statement, is a sign of your bigotted view of certain words. and we all know how dangerous words can be.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





christians have had free speech and been allowed to hold offices of power in the usa, for a long long time. and have been allowed to vote, for a long long time.


Undo, you know what ? I'm having a very hard time figuring you out one one hand you appear open minded and willing to investigate many different avenues of life/spirituality/human history etc but cling to something that your language hints that you should be letting go of.

To use an analogy like a young bird who's known nothing but nest and has occasionally had the odd flap around and occasional swoop in the sky magnetized by occasional glimpses of the world outside.
As the eldest of your brood you are the wary pioneer, and each time you attempt to investigate the marvelous unknown world below you do so with great trepidation, and to the dismay of your siblings.

Your siblings still have no idea there is anything other than nest and their language is somewhat two dimensional in the two dimensional world that they live where you once were. The security of the nest and the persuasiveness of your ignorant siblings language seems to be keeping you on a tether each time your flight of curiosity takes you from them. When you return you appear to persuade yourself that what you have discovered and instinctively know there is a great deal more of must be a trap for you so you snuggle back up with your siblings in nest world talking nest and somehow try to rationalize (rational lies ?) your three dimentional experience into your two dimensional world and language.

You are one of a breed of birds that lived in the tops of the very highest trees roosting here and there with your own kind and had over the ages squawked whenever there was danger of a bear or wolf . Your trees had been left untouched by farmers for fear of their livestock being taken by the wolves and bears and your breed was tolerated and even revered,even when they continually consumed the grain and crops to the despair of the farmer.

One day a scientist came to the farm and pointed out to the farmer the fact that the reason his livestock was not troubled by bears or wolves,. Was not because of the squawking birds but because there in fact were no bears or wolves in his country they had long gone.

After so long having no wood for the fire and shortages of food because of lack of grain the farmer thanked the scientist and dashed straight to the barn, much to the relief of the scientist the farmer returned with his axe and not his gun.

The birds are no longer squawking about bears and wolves but about the farmer having a gun and desperately attack each other fighting for grain while moving from nest to nest.


Time to let go Undo and realize your on the last nest and the farmer is coming, the sooner you take the plunge the sooner you'll realize he's got an axe not a gun and your instincts will guide you to a new and natural source of food.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


wow you put alot of effort into that! really quite impressive and heartfelt. also incorrect
my sibling (singular) is awesome. wanna see her? she's a comedian.



i



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote to blupblup:

["the irony of your statement is you just TOLD THEM WHAT TO DO, and then told them not to tell you what to do. can't have it both ways."]

Sorry Undo, this statement is of the same semantic quality as 'atheism is a religion', where inclusion/(sometimes exclusion) by similarity is considered 'evidence' of being identical. It can be difficult to spot and defend oneself against this kind of twisted/pseudo logic, but the extremist mindset seems to run on such lines to a high degree (I'm not accusing you of having an extremist mindset just from this one example).

One of the darned things about ATS is, that many readers/contributors 'flitter'. Forum participation from idle curiousity, hit-and-run preachers, "this is just words"-attitudes. So the same situations, problems, questions and answers will endlessly be chewed over, and over, and over. Every thread (and in bad cases every post) has to start from square one, because very little accumulated information survives from thread to thread except in a core of active members. This present semantic problem was analyzed last summer; I guess to the satisfaction of most.

Simplistic example:
(Inclusion)
I have iron in my body
A toaster contains iron

(Exclusion)
I can't fly by my own
Toasters can't fly

Ergo I'm a toaster.

What Blupblup actually said was that christians should stop messing with other peoples' lives. He didn't tell christians how to run their own lives. He didn't tell christians what to do. He told them what NOT to do. These two semantic options, 'leave me alone' and 'messing with' will at a superficial glance look similar. Turning on the intellect will show, that it's two different propositions.

Basically this is the eternal basis for christian whining: You're interfering with our right to interfere. I think, I must have shot that from the hip scores of times by now, probably with the effect of trying to empty the sea of missionary zeal with a teaspoon.

On another note: In another recent post you discuss OT and NT and present some sensible opinions. But there is one very big problem about seperating OT and NT. The whole redemption doctrine has its origin with the demiurge from genesis. Take that away, and the sin/repentance/Jesus-becoming-a-cosmic-credit-card becomes void.

I've seen some pretty bad examples of christians even INVERSING this argument: "Jahveh MUST be real, otherwise Jesus would have died for nothing".

Quote from a later post (maybe you after all ARE using this kind of argumentation demonstrated above):

["christians are people just like everyone else. holding up an entire group of people for ridicule or praise, is not a good idea as it is invariably going to be proven wrong or right at the personal level, making such statements (referring to your comment i've quoted), half truths or outright lies to those who have experienced differently."]

My impression is, that those christians 'bashed' on ATS (as first or third person individuals) are the invasive types. Maybe my memory is selective, but I can't remember any major attack on christians practising their religion individually or in consenting adult groups (please notice the word 'ADULT').

The bible and doctrines per se though can be criticised from an academic perspective.

For D-g's sake; try to remember that atheists and similarly oriented are FOR secular, liberal, egalitarian society. There would be no purpose for them in a forbid-theism dictatorship.

Quote from an even later post:

["too late. already revealed your hand. you want people who's opinion differs from your own, to shut up. that is not freedom, nor does it dispaly an interest in basic human rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech."]

Read this my post a few times and see if you can make any meaning of it relating to the rhetoric you occasionally seem to descend into, as the thread fluctuates.

Oh dearie me. Here's another one:

[religion has no place in public? that's what freedom of speech is.
it's not just for the people you agree with."]


When the religion presented in public contexts starts to get intrusive, there's an equal 'freedom of speech' to say "bugger off". You are reaching the 'whining' level now.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I've been living in the UK for almost 5 years now....

- You can talk about your belief freely
- You can go to church freely

There's no issue about freedom of speech at all...if you want, you can wear a spaghetti monster t-shirt and walk around in front of Buckingham Palace.

What he meant to say is that people will criticize him for making religious statements that contradict rationality/logic. For example: If he were to claim men has only been on earth 6,000 years, people would call him a nutjob because that statement is beyond ridiculous.

The number of people who stop believing because science tells them their old faith CAN'T be correct taken literally is increasing fast...but that's not only in the UK, it's the same in the US. Over the last year, the number of believers has DECREASED in most western countries, while the number of atheists has increased dramatically. In the US for example, it increased by 78% over the past 10 years! So naturally, there's going to be more people pointing out the logic flaws in religions...and that includes all religions.

Most religions are fighting a losing battle against rationality. Science shows that Judea-Christian religions clearly can't be taken literally. This means religions need to make the move from asking people to be taken literally to being taken metaphorically. That's not easy for a lot of people who took things literally for generations...and most Western religions are hellbent on enforcing their age old doctrines no matter how silly they are in modern times.

Other religions are a bit better at coping with reality and modern times as they are willing to ADAPT. What happens to things that don't adapt in nature...THEY DIE OUT!!



That radio host didn't phrase his concerns correctly. Freedom of speech didn't decrease, on the contrary, people are now finally able to criticize the obvious flaws in religion without being prosecuted or condemned. Of course that means believers suddenly have to cope with an increase in the amount of criticism, but that's not anyone's fault...it's the fault of whoever came up with the often irrational and plainly wrong doctrines of their religion!

My guess is, the host saw Ricky Gervais' "Bible" standup routine and got really upset



edit on 19-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


OF course there's an equal opportunity to disagree! no one is saying you shouldn't disagree! i'm saying, you should consider they are humans with opinions of their own, and not letting them air their opinions or vote their conscience, is trying to deny them the most basic human right of all -- free will.

i would defend your right to argue with me till you're tried of doing so, even in a public place (including ATS), but i would also ask that such consideration be allowed for those you disagree with.

allow me to give you an example (since i've seen this from both sides of the fence, and can say for certain that it's a predilction of human beings in particular, and not isolated to "religious" people or topics):

one day i told my mother-in-law that i was concerned about the current view of biblical prophecy, as it seemed to ignore the events of 70 AD in favor of a future event of the same description (long story regarding the destruction of solomon's temple in jerusalem), she proceeded to tell me to leave her house, because what i was saying was akin to blasphemy, as far as she was concerned. i mean she was MAD! that's an example of believing in something so firmly, that you can't bear to hear any argument against it, whatsoever. she wanted me to be silenced ASAP.

in high school, we had a think tank class which was an elective that went in tandem with our school newspaper. one day the discussion was going to be about whether or not pot should be legallized. i was the only person who said no, not because i was a christian (because i was a full bore heathen with a capital H, at the time). the other students were upset that i had disagreed and began to complain loudly. except for one guy. who said, "she has her right to her opinion! and furthermore, we haven't even asked her why yet!" at this point the teacher intervened and said, "Yes, WHY do you feel that way?" but had it not been for that one student recognizing the right of people to disagree with each other, i think they would've resorted to trying to beat me up in the restroom or something. lol THANK GOD! for people that can think past the end of their own paradigm!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote:

["might i remind you that SURVEY said, black slaves should remain black slaves. just because the PEOPLE agree with something, doesn't mean they are auto-correct. as i said before, mob mentality (popular vote) is trouble just waiting to happen. it's a human rights violation just waiting for enough PEOPLE to agree. i dunno about you, but i don't want my wee little part of history to be embroiled in making aggregious errors, particularly where it comes to such things as silencing people who you disagree with"]



Waiting for enough people to agree, what you call mob mentality (popular vote), is by many of us called democracy.

You are outright stating fascist ideals, the way you are opposing democracy and its procedures, and it explains your mindset's inability to understand or accept liberal, egalitarian and secular principles.

Hidden behind your recent rhetoric and demagogy is a fulfledged fascist craving privileges.

(PS I DID notice your slave-example. I ignored it because I'm not in the mood to teach you logic or general semantics. Maybe later if you insist).



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Originally posted by MrXYZ
That radio host didn't phrase his concerns correctly. Freedom of speech didn't decrease, on the contrary, people are now finally able to criticize the obvious flaws in religion without being prosecuted or condemned. Of course that means believers suddenly have to cope with an increase in the amount of criticism, but that's not anyone's fault...it's the fault of whoever came up with the often irrational and plainly wrong doctrines of their religion!






reply to post by bogomil
 




Originally posted by bogomil
What Blupblup actually said was that christians should stop messing with other peoples' lives. He didn't tell christians how to run their own lives. He didn't tell christians what to do. He told them what NOT to do. These two semantic options, 'leave me alone' and 'messing with' will at a superficial glance look similar. Turning on the intellect will show, that it's two different propositions.

Basically this is the eternal basis for christian whining: You're interfering with our right to interfere. I think, I must have shot that from the hip scores of times by now, probably with the effect of trying to empty the sea of missionary zeal with a teaspoon.




Fantastic posts both of you



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


no, we have a house of representatives and a court system that may over rule the vote of the people, if it is plainly wrong (this is a necessary function of a republic, to keep the masses from trying to vote away each other's human rights, to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and etc.). there have been times in the past, where this has happened here in the usa because the public at large, wanted to refuse these basic human rights to a group of people they disagreed with for whatever reason.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



See I actually like ancient cultures, history and many aspects of religious history and myth.... It's fascinating.
How there are so many similarities and so on... the flood, sky gods and so on.

It really does interest me.


What I cannot stand.... are religious zealots who make it their lifes mission to challenge and control every aspect of other people's lives and society in general.... you know, busy-bodies.


I think organised, mass controlled-mass religion is awful and so far removed from the core principles and purpose of religion, that's it's actually quite sad to see so many people who claim to believe in God and Jesus and so on..... they don't have a clue about what they're talking about.

They use religion as a weapon and a crutch.


I live my life in a positive way... I don't tell others how to live their life, I don't campaign against any gender or sexual orientation or race or colour or religion.

Live and let live man.

Every human being is a wonderful and unique entity.

It's a shame that religion hasn't caught up with the rest of us.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


i understand what you mean about busy bodies. been there, done that, and even perpetrated it on others to some degree, till i realized what i was doing. like my friend who would confide to me all of the infamous exploits of her unruly teenager, and of course, i felt it was my duty as her friend to give her advice. eventually i realized, she didn't want advice, she just wanted to unload her frustration about her son, on the first person that would listen and care.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


every world view has a set of .......... (i have to choose my words carefully as people tend to have problems with some words they attach emotional value to, including me)........ viewpoints attached, that they share with others. this thread is an example. had i written a thread about how an atheist was complaining about atheism being viewed with less popularity than it did before, i would expect atheists to show up to support their world view. i would also expect some people who disagree with atheism to show up and try to suggest atheists should just be quiet about their opinions and keep it to themselves. and i would also suggest that people who think that way, should check themselves because you don't want to live on a planet where freedom of speech is limited, based on world view. you just don't. such things have a habit of revolving. which is why i don't believe in mob mentality being the final arbiter. or to put in the words of a hindu, what comes around, goes around. we don't need any more of that merry-go-round, pendulum swinging, negative karma generating ugliness.

let's hop off.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Two mothers and their toddler children banned from council-funded playgroup - for being BRITISH



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote:

["no, we have a house of representatives and a court system that may over rule the vote of the people, if it is plainly wrong (this is a necessary function of a republic, to keep the masses from trying to vote away each other's human rights, to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and etc.)."]

I suggest, that you together with some contemplation of logic and general semantics also include some thoughts on political philosophy.

What is "....the vote of the people, if it is plainly wrong...." referring to (relating to the word "plainly")? Are 'authorities' (beloved in christian worldviews) some kind of ultimate reality-interpretators, or are they (ideally) just administrators of an even higher democratic principle: A constitution, which even authorities must bend to.

And a democratic constitution is ALSO an expression of majority ruling, and fortunately so embedded in safe-guards (AND public opinion), that it can't be toppled by palace revolutions just like that, but requires some complex procedures to change. Ofcourse all the competing power-groups, be it politicians, ideological leaders, military or the money-grabbers try to get around it, as they best can (to my knowledge US has been in a 'state of emergency' for decades, thus centralizing power), but in a functional democracy the ultimate 'power' lies with the herd (which you called mob) for good or bad.

What seemingly is your alternative suggestion: Elitism, has been tried in many different versions, from 'representatives' of the proletariat, 'god's elected', social Darwinists expressing alpha superiority (grabbing money is a sign of competence) to nazi ideals of ethnic perfection. And the resulting oppression is always more brutal and more extensive than in a functional true democracy.

Quote: ["there have been times in the past, where this has happened here in the usa because the public at large, wanted to refuse these basic human rights to a group of people they disagreed with for whatever reason."]

Nothing new here. This has happened everywhere and still happens somewhere, and only demonstrates a/ that these cultures/nations/political constellations were NOT egalitarian, liberal, secular democracies (but elitist) and b/ that they sorely needed to become such democracies.

A, possibly pop-psychology, interpretation of your mindset suggests to me, that you start from some basis of general competitiveness, which you have taken down to an individual level, instead of seeing it in the context of a society we all have to live in, in spite of our differences on 'reality'.

Democracy is a compromise and all its institutions' main function is to balance the various power groups into an (maybe uneasy) armistice.

You are constantly hinting at some undefined 'injustice', you want to repair. But you're never really getting to any demonstrable point, but circle around alpha attitudes of: I have rights, because I'm right. Putting you at the fringe or outside democracy.

Try to get some basic social principles in order, from where you can refer to this or that example. I have a bid for such principles as a conceptual and practical starting-point: "There's freedom FROM........And there's freedom TO......".

Should you choose to remain with elitist principles, it would be more convincing if you formulated such principles clearly instead of falling back on quarulous whining on 'the oppressors are oppressed', the same old self-pitying song all extremists from all camps have been singing for eternities.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kidohno
 


Hilarious how this only shows up on Daily Mail (toilet paper) and godlikeproductions.com


Coincidence...I don't think so




top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join