BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 07:57 AM

"history is a bit more complex"

But some things arestill very clear - the 'right to religious sanctuary' is now overridden (abolished even) - I don't see too many NYPD boys not arrest a guy in church on TV - but if he has guns, knives, bombs & hostages, it does slow the process down. The same as the 'right to cannon sanctuary' no longer exists for the military.

The Pope waltzed all over Europe with his armies to hold on to his right to be supreme over Emperors and Kings. To no avail.

There once was a guy who said "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's - unto God that which is God's"

Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:30 AM

Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Poland is in Europe. Look at their anti-abortion laws (imposed by John Paul 2 and Ronald Reagan, effectively).

And the bans on Islamic clothing in France and Belgium are simply Christian bigotry enacted into law.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ian Burdon
Date: 01 May 10 - 10:40 AM

In case anyone is interested, this is the text of the actual judgement:-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html

The judge made no new law as such - the appeal was decided on the basis of existing precedent. The much quoted comments by the judge (from para 16 onwards in the judgement), with which I agree, were written in response to a statement lodged in the case by a former Archbishop of Canterbury and while they may be influential they are not binding (I think)

Ian

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Penny S.
Date: 01 May 10 - 11:30 AM

I'm interested that there seems to have been an element of dishonesty on the part of the applicant, in assuring Relate that he would work with same sex couples, while not intending to do so. I did feel, until I read that, that Relate had been at the least, inconsiderate in dealing with him. But I also felt that there was an agenda the other way, as well, and that had made me uneasy. There seems to be a movement to bring cases like this to public attention which may not be helpful to the people concerned.

I was not happy to hear the applicant emphasising the discrimination against his strongly held Christian beliefs, and have written to the BBC PM programme, suggesting that as when referring to businesses or election candidates, they should add the rider that other Christian beliefs are available, in the interests of balance.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 May 10 - 01:45 PM

If it was reported correctly, that appears to take conscientious objectors back to the status quo as of 1914. If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter.

That's a new one for me Jack. I didn't know Relate counsellors were conscripted, I thought they chose the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 01 May 10 - 03:38 PM

"Religious Beliefs....no standing in law.
My previous post, shows how Sharia Law (most of which is based on religious belief) is being incorporated into the UK legal system to appease a minority religious grouping."

As usual, the reactionary and illiberal Mr Akenaton is talking out of his rear end. Maybe he should actually read his own post, especially this bit...

"provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

Rather pissed on his own bonfire there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE
Of course, there are countries - not in Europe, where religion DOES rule over civil rights and law.

Poland is in Europe. Look at their anti-abortion laws (imposed by John Paul 2 and Ronald Reagan, effectively).
UNQUOTE

And of course these are also failures of the separation of Church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:33 PM

It's a pity that
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html
was not read by all first.

but then never let the facts get in the way of a good trolling... :-)

As demonstrated by the text of the Appeal itself - the various opinions of the law by various citizens often has little to do with what the law actually is...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 10 - 06:37 PM

I don't agree with laws that prohibit abortion; but in all fairness, I have to suspect that the Polish anti-abortion laws were enacted by the Polish legislature, and not by Ronald Reagan or John Paul II. And I have to suspect that the members of the legislature are adults who voted for these laws, did so of their own free will; and not under the control of Reagan or the Pope.
I think the mind-control exercised by religion is vastly overrated. It happens, but it is far from universal. Most people really aren't that stupid.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:30 AM

Ake, since when is thinking people should perform the duties of their job a "liberal" position? I should think any good conservative would say the same thing. Unless they were trying to make excuses for not performing the duties of their own job when it doesn't suit them. The old "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 02:54 AM

"since when is thinking people should perform the duties of their job a "liberal" position"

Since Americans tried to take over the English language. See what happens when you put the ignorant in charge?


;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 02 May 10 - 03:51 AM

You tryin' to start a pond war, punk?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 May 10 - 04:45 AM

You and what army, the piddlin' Marines? :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 01:58 AM

Sorry, they're busy somewhere in the Middle East. I have some very scary militia groups I could send over, but I'm afraid they'd all kill each other on the way over.

Hey....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 May 10 - 02:11 AM

"....Most people really aren't that stupid."
-Joe Offer-

Well...hmmm...The problem is, that they let other people do their thinking for them...then tell them what to think.

"The difference between GENIUS and STUPIDITY, is that GENIUS has its limits!"...........................................Albert Einstein


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:58 AM

Interesting to read through the posts here. Some very good arguments for and against the stance of the ex employee and the implications of the judgement.

I do feel though that such dilemmas will not go away whilst;

1. You can have the view that he may well have been good at his job in other respects. Sorry, but to use his own moral stance as prejudice when helping couples breaks the first golden rule of his job, you must never compare their situation with your own ideal standard. Never judge. Clearly this idiot was not capable of seeing beyond his superstition, and that made him patently unsuitable to his work.

2. I always appreciate the input in these debates of Joe Offer, as although we wouldn't exaclty agree on much if we ever met, I do like how he explains where he is coming from and never lets preconceptions cloud his view. But Joe! What do you mean by " I'm not sure how comfortable I would be, counseling homosexual or bisexual relationships. I do my best to be tolerant, but I'm not sure I want to hear all the details..."????

Nobody asks you to be tolerant. Nobody has the right to be tolerant of other's lifestyles, or indeed intolerant. You can like, agree, not like or disagree, but to say you tolerate something stinks of saying they can only carry on whilst it pleases me to let them get away with it. Sorry, but there is a huge difference between tolerating and accepting how the world spins. You are quick to point out you cannot make a judgement as a moderator on this website, so why make them as a human?

In the UK, we do have a state religion as a tradition, and sadly, allow it's leaders to have a voice in our upper house, the House of Lords. However, they are there because it pleases the politicians to allow it, to keep their followers quiet, same as restricting my ability to buy a tap washer on a Sunday. We are a secular society and politicians know that any attempt to enforce religion will be met by ridicule ignoring it by the vast majority of the population. Nobody wants to enforce anarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 03 May 10 - 07:13 AM

I have always said that acceptance is far far better than tolerance. But there are some things that people find unacceptable for themselves that they do tolerate in other people. Tolerance is better than intolerance.

In counselling one can have your own issues and be allowed them, as long as you know what they are and do not let them affect your ability to counsel. If you know it is going to then you have a duty to pass the client onto someone you know better suited to help them. However, if you are employed to counsel certain types of problem, and accept that post, then you say you will not do it, you are bound to 'come unstuck'.

I know some brilliant counsellors in some areas that would be useless in others. They know it too. Counsellors spend huge amounts of time on personal development and knowing themselves. They also have supervision to aid them make the right choices. Going into a job where you know you will be expected to deal with problems that you cannot handle because of your own belief system/prejudices or whatever makes no sense.

Counsellors are human too and are entitled to have their own feelongs and emotions on subjects. What they are not allowed to be is discriminatory in the role they are employed in. Such questions of conscience are always difficult and, in such circumstance, there can be several 'victims'.

I wonder if the couple eventually got their problems solved and are back in 'safe space'? One can only hope they did and are.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: banjoman
Date: 03 May 10 - 10:47 AM

As a practicing Christian, I have always held the belief that everybody should be allowed to worship, and act, according to theur own conscience. However, I agree that this particular person should not have taken a job as a sex counsellor unless it was specifically to bring this matter into the public eye through the courts.
What I object to is the continued effort by this and to some extent previous governments to tell me how I should exercise or apply my beliefs.
I do not believe in abortion, or same sex marriages but respect the right of others to do so.

Overall, we are in danger of allowing government officers to force their particular stance on certain matters on us all and I cannot accept that that does good for anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 03 May 10 - 12:43 PM

Things like this do not help

Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people

and, while I fully respect the rights of individuals to practice their various needs (within the law), I do think that politics and religion should ideally be kept apart.

I would fight for the right for you to hold your beliefs banjoman, and the counsellor involved in this case, but to be able to express them in the right and proper place. I often have ethical, moral and spiritual dilemmas. I think I am lucky that seldom have they led me into a place where I was unable to do my job or practice that which I held dear. There but for the grace of God go I...

There are so many facets to the argument and it is never straightforward is it?

I just think it's time we all got on better, no matter what party or religion we are, sexuality or gender. We all inhabit the same planet. To agree to disagree on some things should not mean we have to fall out to achieve anything because then we all lose :-(

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 May 10 - 03:55 PM

Man, if only we could get that attitude to cross the Pond... and *we're* the ones who are supposed to have church and state separation!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: MMario
Date: 03 May 10 - 03:56 PM

Our constitution states that Congress shall make no laws preventing the free excercise of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 03 May 10 - 04:07 PM

"Overall, we are in danger of allowing government officers to force their particular stance on certain matters on us all and I cannot accept that that does good for anybody."

But that's what religion can do. As I mentioned earlier, the Dutch Reformed Church was the bastion of the apartheid system in South Africa - they stated that god had given the white man dominion over the black man and that to oppose that was to go against god. This is still the view held by the white supremacists in South Africa. So, should these people be given the freedom to practice what they believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:29 PM

Proper nouns should be capitalized. "God" when referring to one specific God, such as the Christian God, should be capitalized. "God" in the plural, or when referring to a god you haven't already specified, should be in the lower case. Using "god" where "God" is called for is both ungrammatical and passive-aggressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 May 10 - 05:30 PM

Interesting. So, in principle, everyone who works in England actually works for the State?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 04 May 10 - 03:22 AM

"Using "god" where "God" is called for is both ungrammatical and passive-aggressive."

Using "god" to refer to an illogical theoretical concept is perfectly acceptable and I will continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 10 - 10:40 AM

I stand corrected. In future I shall use "Imaginary Friend" rather than "imaginary friend".

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 11:40 AM

yesterday, MMario said: "Our constitution states that Congress shall make no laws preventing the free excercise of religion."

This is true, and it is a fundamental part of our system....but so is the part that says matters of church & state shall be kept separate. This means that, unlike in the UK House of Lords, the government may not endorse any specific religion. Unfortunately, there IS a de facto endorsement of Christianity in practice.

It is understood that Christianity is practiced by a majority of US citizens, but the full clause in the Constitution reads ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".
This would seem to mean that any genuine religion may be practiced, but NOT imposed on those who may practice another religion, and **by implication**, does not require anyone to practice any religion.
This seems simple & fair enough, but I hear constantly from those who assert that 'this country was founded by Christians, and as such is a Christian nation and thus Christian principles and beliefs DO have a place in the laws, ceremonies and general fabric of our country.'
I don't know what to say except that this is NOT what the Constitution says! It is not even totally accurate to describe many of the founders as **Christians**. The very concept of "separation of church & state" was a basic principle introduced by Thomas Jefferson.

These days I hear almost daily of some very conservative member of Congress making some pronouncement about policy and defending his attitude by reference to the Bible. I have little doubt that many of our legislators, especially from the South, would happily write laws specifically based on their religious beliefs.

   In my 14 years on Mudcat, I have posted many times the admonition that: "Freedom OF religion must, if it is be consistent, include Freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."
   Sadly, this concept is just lost on many. It is hard to maintain my dedication to defending their rights when they have no interest in even recognizing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:46 PM

any genuine religion

Wherein lies the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:54 PM

That was intentional on my part to pre-empt any who would argue for the right to 'practice' a religion that worships the Volcano God and demands virgins be sacrificed to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:55 PM

Man, Bill, you're so TOUCHY about those virgins, dude. Chill out!!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 01:59 PM

"If you want to marry a virgin, SAVE SOME!"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:02 PM

""It is understood that Christianity is practiced by a majority of US citizens, but the full clause in the Constitution reads ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".""

It's all in the interpretation Bill.

To you or me, free exercise means that we can practise our religion, whatever it may be, without fear of resistance, or reprisal.

To the fundamentalist Christian Right, it means that they can practise, proselytise, and persecute, until they either convert or marginalise others, and override the terms of the Constitution in attempting to coerce government into doing what they require.

It's what they do, and all in the name of Christ, who wouldn't have advocated, or endorsed, any of it.

So what else is new?
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:12 PM

I know, Don T.... when the basic tenets of your religion say "go, and become fishers of men" and "I am the way, the truth and the light...no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.",* you feel righteous about declaring, in various ways, that your ways is supposed to be dominant.

*(that's from memory...apologies if I got any details wrong)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: MMario
Date: 04 May 10 - 02:21 PM

I don't particularly want "my way" to be dominant; I don't particlarly feel that churches should be tax exempt. I do feel that I should be able to at least MENTION my religion in public without being castigated and told how it infringes on someone else's right to be free of religion.

They can ignore me; just as I ignore many people with whom I don't agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 10 - 04:19 PM

"I do feel that I should be able to at least MENTION my religion in public without being castigated ...

Of course! I know many of religious persuasion who regularly note various things about their belief, and remind ME of such things as needed to schedule an event to avoid some religious holiday, etc. I see no need to complain and berate and castigate them for having their beliefs. It is just one of the things we learn about each other.

I know Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers, Jews, Baptists...and several brands of others... with whom I co-exist and cooperate on a regular basis.

I am sad if some DO go out of their way to denigrate anyone's religion on some general principle of 'not liking it'.

I am also sad when I have to watch Jews and atheists feel supremely uncomfortable and leave the room when the 'majority' of a group (whose basic purpose has nothing to do with religion) always begins a meeting by a long supplication to Jesus. A number of these members are adamant, rigid Christians, and have NO inclination to respect those who are not.

It ain't easy...............

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 May 10 - 06:33 PM

Hear hear, Bill D.

Unfortunately, an individual's right to have unreasonable beliefs trumps society's duty to educate its members as to what is reasonable, here in the USA. If only it were the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Donuel
Date: 04 May 10 - 07:28 PM

TOO BAD that insurance companies still use acts of GOD as an excuse for not paying their customers.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 02:40 AM

Then there's "Only a fool says there is no God"....Albert Einstein

Ok, smart guys!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Gervase
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:12 AM

Ah, Einstein. That quote is often cherry-picked. The poor chap would be turning in his grave if he knew how often it was used to bolster a religious argument.

It was the same Einstein who wrote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And the same Einstein who wrote: "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests."
        
And the same Einstein who wrote: "Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."

And even the same Einstein who wrote: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

There is enough of his writing to know conclusively that he did not believe in a personal god, and would certainly not consider himself Jewish or Christian in anything but culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:30 AM

What the ruling restates, in effect, is that same stance taken over the years by philosophers like Descartes, Holles and Hume, that there is a difference between freedom of belief and freedom of action - where it impinges on the rights and freedoms of others. This is where I get so angry with evangelists of any denomination and people who claim they are fulfilling god's will - not because of their beliefs per se but because they think they have freedom (or indeed a duty) of action (hence my earlier remark about apartheid and the Dutch Reformed Church).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 03:35 AM

Then he wrote, in a letter to Sigmund Freud: "Why do you ask? I feel fortunate. All I what I do, is admire God's handiwork"

There is a difference between God, and 'Religion'. As Far as being 'Religious, that he was not! There is a difference between 'religion's' concept of spiritual, and the unseen, and the force that manifests itself, as all matter, time, space and dimension.

The Bible states, God is light, and all things are made By Him, and all things are in Him. In Him we live, move and have our being....."

Now, is that not true of light? Do you think he MISSED this???

Just not in 'religious terms'!

Perception, perception, perception!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 May 10 - 04:08 AM

WHo would have thought my PhD in quantum mechanics could have been useful to this debate? (It ain't useful to me in any other way, mind...)

Having had to study and interpret a lot of Einstein, perhaps I can help here with a middle ground?

Whilst Einstein never professed a belief in a personal god, he did feel that as you can express physics by mathematical solution, it cannot be just chaos that developed in such a manner.

He said "God doesn't play dice." By this, he expressed his concern over probability and chance at the quantum level, as the laws around classical Newtonian physics were so fixed and worked at every observable level.

Whilst I don't have the quote to hand, (somebody else might?) he did clarify his position regarding the God concept by saying that aethiesm is chaos and under that condition, no laws of physics would work. Therefore, there is an order to the universe as expressed in mathematical terms. If you want to call this god, you are most welcome.

Obviously, he had no time for the concept of supernatural beings that can break the laws of physics or that mankind had some special status other than being special to each other. (I suppose by that, he meant you can go to a human and say E=MC2 and hope to impress them, but you would be disappointed if you tried impressing a goldfish by stating it.)

Oh, guest from sanity... Nobody "makes" light, it is a quantum event which we loosely describe as a photon. If you really must use biblical quotes to prove the god concept, I personally prefer God is Love. At least that calls out to human interaction and interventionalism. And is as much bollocks as the light quote....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:33 AM

""The Bible states, God is light, and all things are made By Him, and all things are in Him. In Him we live, move and have our being....."""

The classic pratfall situation of the guy who misunderstood the question!

You state that God and religion are two entirely different things, and on that we are totally in accord, as I have been saying the same thing for years, both here and elsewhere.

Then you shut your eyes and jump right over the edge with the above piece of nonsense.

It may have escaped your notice, but God didn't write the Bible. Religious men did, and their descendants still claim to have the definitive "word of GOD"!

You have just failed at the first hurdle in trying to separate God and Religion, so what do you really believe?

Or are you, as usual, making it up as you go along?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 10 - 09:53 AM

Don, as usual you make little or no sense. Let me try to simplify, the difference.

In the beginning, God (light, love, life, consciousness) created man, in His own image,... and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor.(Religion)

Steamin' Willie: "Nobody "makes" light, it is a quantum event which we loosely describe as a photon. If you really must use biblical quotes to prove the god concept, I personally prefer God is Love. At least that calls out to human interaction and interventionalism. And is as much bollocks as the light quote...."

Correct, nobody makes 'light'. ..and yet, all things are made of light. Which correlates another verse, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

I hope that sheds new 'light' on the subject.
Perhaps, what confuses a lot of folks, is they assume the HE, and Him, are exclusive to a singular 'personage',..like themselves...in which case refer to my reply to Don T.

Concept, concept, concept!

That being said, being as I've quoted the New Testament a couple of times, (which quotes happen to be consistent with science, and Einstein's quotes, I wasn't planning on getting into 'proving' that there is, or is not a God'. I'm not exactly a fundamentalist evangelical type....nor have I expressed, subscribing to any 'religion', or 'denomination' on here. So I don't want to get pigeon-holed, by those whose limited brained 'anti-God rap' is aimed at, just by the thought of a God.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 05 May 10 - 10:53 AM

"So I don't want to get pigeon-holed, by those whose limited brained 'anti-God rap' is aimed at, just by the thought of a God"

But you're prepared to pigeon-hole those with a differing opinion from you as 'limited brained', whereas most will have given this a great deal of thought, consideration and probably read far more widely than you before reaching a considered and deeply held opinion - a belief that is just as strongly held as those who are 'believers'.

I think this merits pigeon-holeing you as an ignorant, arrogant twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 11:33 AM

theleveller: there is a difference between freedom of belief and freedom of action

We don't need the Constitution to protect freedom of belief. It's not observable and it's nothing you can change. I will believe what I believe and nothing the government does will change that. It's freedom of action that needs protecting. Meeting together. Worshipping. Not being made to go to the government-sponsored church(es). These are the things that need protecting. My internal states, not so much so.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 May 10 - 12:31 PM

mmmm... interesting.

At the risk of going off on tangents, (laws of physics rather than UK laws and their interpretation by courts,) no, I can't accept that all things are made from light. So your argument falls at the first hurdle.

I reckon the problem is that you are trying to put physics and metaphysics in the same room and expecting them to have sex. As much as many superstitious people would love that to happen, it is an idea put forward by those who reckon astrology and astronomy are one and the same.

there may be a sense of order to the otherwise chaotic, but there is not a shred of evidence I have seen that it is something to do with an interventionalist being. In fact, as Einstein pointed out, intervening would negate the laws that prove a sense of order. My take on that is that by intervening a god would prove he / she / it doesn't exist. Not as hard a concept as you think really, as quantum physics (we are talking about light, yes?) allows reality based on probability of observation.

So, in the wonderful words of Douglas Adams, "That just about wraps it up for God."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stu
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:07 PM

"Correct, nobody makes 'light'. ..and yet, all things are made of light."

What a heap of steaming shite - this is the sort of bilge that might wash with the airy-fairy angel brigade but anyone with a mildly enquiring mind understands this is totally and utterly wrong. Can a statement be more wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 10 - 01:36 PM

""Don, as usual you make little or no sense. Let me try to simplify, the difference.

In the beginning, God (light, love, life, consciousness) created man, in His own image,... and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor.(Religion)""

And you base that twaddle on a collection of books, written, refined, altered, and corrupted, over a period of two thousand years, by generations of men with widely differing agendas, but all with the desire to control the behaviour of populations, and governments, sometimes with good intentions, but very often not.

The old testament was a chronicle of what Hebrews believed to be their history. It was largely composed of stories which had been handed down orally for thousands of generations. Anyone who has played Chinese Whispers will know how reliable that is.

The New Testament, as I said, much corrupted, and even the basics were not laid down until about one hundred years after the death of Jesus.

I don't deny the existence of God, but I do have serious doubts about the ultimate Purity and Saintliness of many who profess to serve or represent Him.

If you dispute that, tell me which part of the bible covers Jesus suggesting anything remotely like the Spanish Inquisition?

I am a Christian because I believe in the basic tenets of the gospels, but Christianity, for me, is nothing to do with a place to which I go, once or twice a week, to ask God for favours I do not deserve.

It is how I live my whole life, every single day of it, and it is about how I treat my neighbour, not how I want to be treated by God.

So, GfS, being regarded as a limited thinker by one who is congenitally incapable of sustaining a consistent point of view for even five sentences is something of a compliment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 05 May 10 - 05:29 PM

Oh goody! It's pile on religious believers hour! Bile by the bucket! Let me go get a flask.