A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Let people be brainswashed into following a fundemental faith
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Dalek Dave wrote:
answers that religion cannot provide
Or it provides answers you are not willing to accept. There are all sorts of groups that have their own agenda, who seek to affect public policy according to their bias. Are you prepared to deny the Cardinal the right to protest a company's decision simply because you don't agree with him?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Rubbish, if one is free to say there is a God, one should also be free to say there is a different God, a lot of other Gods, or there is no God.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Religion and mythology once had a role to play. That role became obsolete a long time ago.
I think the more cold and lonely and hopeless science reveals the universe to actually be, the more attractive and important all that religion and mythology will once again become. Of what possible use is knowledge of a universe that is without purpose or meaning? If that is the case, than shit, just make up something that sounds good and go with that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It seems that everybody at some point pulls the "WELL SOME ATHEISTS ARE JUST AS ANNOYING AND LOUD AS CHRISTIANS" shtick out
Everybody? :confused: That's a level of paranoia that only a few folks reach. (Stan with "everybody is a Marxist" comes to mind.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
because *gasp*
hmmmm, where have I seen that punctuation before. . .
Fisticuffs wrote:
both have stupid loud people yelling
And you used all caps in a couple of places. . .
Fisticuffs wrote:
Number of signs posted around the countryside suggesting I'm either going to hell or that I'll never reach spiritual or personal fulfillment without accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior: 10,000 or so
To coin a phrase: is your faith so weak that you are afraid you may start doubting because of the signs?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Number of signs on the side of a bus suggesting I probably won't: 1-2
And how many times, do you think, that atheists have spent a goodly chunk of change to go to court to eliminate creches from a downtown park? Personally, I am not threatened by the signs of either sort, I can see all the creches I need to see on the front lawns of churches and, yeah, I really wish that both sides would stop yelling.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, January 19, 2009 11:43 AM
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
So he doesn't have the right to complain?
He has the legal right, but he is behaving badly if he exercises it. I don't have any problem with him restating his belief in God or attempting to persuade others of the correctness of that belief. I have a huge problem with him attempting to deny atheists outlets for the expression of their views.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What were his actual statements?
See the link in the original post. He got his officials to write to the bus company saying they shouldn't carry the messages.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I have a huge problem with him attempting to deny atheists outlets for the expression of their views.
But yet there are athiests who seek to deny the same to the religious. Do you support them?
John Carson wrote:
See the link in the original post.
I read the linked article, yet I find no actual statements made by the Cardinal in the piece. So I have no idea how they reflect on him...neither do you.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Yes, let us brainwash them into believing there is no God.
Rubbish, if one is free to say there is a God, one should also be free to say there is a different God, a lot of other Gods, or there is no God.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If that is the case, than sh*t, just make up something that sounds good and go with that.
And that's how religion began. Ta-dah!
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
And that's how religion began. Ta-dah!
Yeah? So what? God or no God, the result of religion was human civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
To coin a phrase: is your faith so weak that you are afraid you may start doubting because of the signs?
Faith is belief without evidence. I have no "faith." I have reasonable assertions about the world around me.
Oakman wrote:
And you used all caps in a couple of places. . .
Yeah, well, he got those from me; I profoundly apologize. Seriously, if your whole argument is to try to discredit me on the basis that my typing style mildly resembles Ilion's and is somewhat hyperbolic (tee hee), then have at it. You go, girl.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have reasonable assertions about the world around me.
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? :~
Fisticuffs wrote:
Seriously, if your whole argument is to try to discredit me on the basis that my typing style mildly resembles Ilion's and is somewhat hyperbolic
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely. Atheism has become as institutionalized as Christianity once was in our society. It has simply replaced the former as the philosophical prerequisite for academic acceptance. Which is sad because it demonstrates that as a society we have really learned nothing, and have not progressed at all. It is just one group trying to possess intellectual hegemony rather than another.
You right-wingers really are attached to your faux victim status aren't you? I would be confident that there are few science departments without at least some Christians in them and that religious belief is virtually never a hiring criterion --- except at religious colleges. How many declared atheists are there in the US congress, by the way? "As institutionalized as Christianity once was" my arse. There is and has always been a tension between religion and science because belief on the basis of evidence and belief on the basis of faith are fundamentally different approaches. For that reason, scientists are less religious than is the general community, but scientists encounter negligible discrimination if they happen to be personally religious. It is when they attempt to assert scientific conclusions on the basis of religious faith rather than evidence that they, quite properly, get criticised.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You right-wingers really are attached to your faux victim status aren't you?
I'm not a 'right winger'. And since I'm probably as close to being an athiest as to being a fundamentalist, I'm not a victim of anything. Just making a simple observation.
John Carson wrote:
would be confident that there are few science departments without at least some Christians in them and that religious belief is virtually never a hiring criterion --- except at religious colleges. How many declared atheists are there in the US congress, by the way? "As institutionalized as Christianity once was" my arse. There is and has always been a tension between religion and science because belief on the basis of evidence and belief on the basis of faith are fundamentally different approaches. For that reason, scientists are less religious than is the general community, but scientists encounter negligible discrimination if they happen to be personally religious. It is when they attempt to assert scientific conclusions on the basis of religious faith rather than evidence that they, quite properly, get criticised.
Thats complete bullshit. Anyone who denies that there is an obvious social impetus towards exclusivity towards people with religious principles is simply blind or dishonest.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
So he doesn't have the right to complain?
He has the legal right, but he is behaving badly if he exercises it. I don't have any problem with him restating his belief in God or attempting to persuade others of the correctness of that belief. I have a huge problem with him attempting to deny atheists outlets for the expression of their views.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What were his actual statements?
See the link in the original post. He got his officials to write to the bus company saying they shouldn't carry the messages.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
He has the legal right, but he is behaving badly if he exercises it.
It may work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S. it is the people who are considered to be "behaving badly" that are protected by our constitution. After all, the people who behave "properly" don't need legal protection.
John Carson wrote:
He got his officials to write to the bus company saying they shouldn't carry the messages
Awhile back, we had some black guys announce to their local bus company that they weren't going to ride the buses until and unless some bus policies got changed. A lot of people said they were "behaving badly," and they singled out the leader of this attempt to intefere with the bus company's right to run itself as being the worst of a bad lot. We're celebrating that particular man's birthday today.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
I have a huge problem with him attempting to deny atheists outlets for the expression of their views.
But yet there are athiests who seek to deny the same to the religious. Do you support them?
John Carson wrote:
See the link in the original post.
I read the linked article, yet I find no actual statements made by the Cardinal in the piece. So I have no idea how they reflect on him...neither do you.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But yet there are athiests who seek to deny the same to the religious. Do you support them?
If you are talking about about paid advertisements, then I am not aware of any attempts by atheists to stop them. Religious advertisements are extremely common and generally uncontroversial. I think your attempt to suggest some parity here is bogus. And, for the record, I do not support anyone attempting to stop religious people taking out paid advertisements. If we are talking about some sort of state-sanctioned promotion of religion, then that is another matter entirely. I would note, however, that neither side of the religious divide in Australia is anywhere near as fierce as in the US. Churches don't try very hard to get governments to ram religion down people's throats and most atheists don't get too fussed at the appearance of some occasional religious symbolism under the auspices of government.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I read the linked article, yet I find no actual statements made by the Cardinal in the piece. So I have no idea how they reflect on him...neither do you.
You seem to have been happy to defend the Cardinal in your earlier posts without having seen any quotes. Perhaps the Cardinal's position was misrepresented by the article, but the article itself plainly implies that the Cardinal promoted censorship and was delighted when his efforts were successful.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
He has the legal right, but he is behaving badly if he exercises it.
It may work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S. it is the people who are considered to be "behaving badly" that are protected by our constitution. After all, the people who behave "properly" don't need legal protection.
John Carson wrote:
He got his officials to write to the bus company saying they shouldn't carry the messages
Awhile back, we had some black guys announce to their local bus company that they weren't going to ride the buses until and unless some bus policies got changed. A lot of people said they were "behaving badly," and they singled out the leader of this attempt to intefere with the bus company's right to run itself as being the worst of a bad lot. We're celebrating that particular man's birthday today.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
It may work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S. it is the people who are considered to be "behaving badly" that are protected by our constitution. After all, the people who behave "properly" don't need legal protection.
I didn't propose that any legal sanctions should be applied against the Cardinal. I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Oakman wrote:
Awhile back, we had some black guys announce to their local bus company that they weren't going to ride the buses until and unless some bus policies got changed. A lot of people said they were "behaving badly," and they singled out the leader of this attempt to intefere with the bus company's right to run itself as being the worst of a bad lot. We're celebrating that particular man's birthday today.
Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are actually behaving well. Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are indeed behaving badly. In this case both the atheists attempting to run the ads and those trying to stop the ads are being accused of behaving badly. If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
John Carson
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But yet there are athiests who seek to deny the same to the religious. Do you support them?
If you are talking about about paid advertisements, then I am not aware of any attempts by atheists to stop them. Religious advertisements are extremely common and generally uncontroversial. I think your attempt to suggest some parity here is bogus. And, for the record, I do not support anyone attempting to stop religious people taking out paid advertisements. If we are talking about some sort of state-sanctioned promotion of religion, then that is another matter entirely. I would note, however, that neither side of the religious divide in Australia is anywhere near as fierce as in the US. Churches don't try very hard to get governments to ram religion down people's throats and most atheists don't get too fussed at the appearance of some occasional religious symbolism under the auspices of government.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I read the linked article, yet I find no actual statements made by the Cardinal in the piece. So I have no idea how they reflect on him...neither do you.
You seem to have been happy to defend the Cardinal in your earlier posts without having seen any quotes. Perhaps the Cardinal's position was misrepresented by the article, but the article itself plainly implies that the Cardinal promoted censorship and was delighted when his efforts were successful.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You seem to have been happy to defend the Cardinal in your earlier posts without having seen any quotes.
Just to be clear, I could care less what the Cardinal said...I am not Catholic and he doesn't speak for me. I personally wouldn't waste my time protesting some silly sign. My only point is that he had the right to do it. The bus company wasn't obligated to listen to him. Aside from making a "statement" one way or the other, you can look at from a business perspective...not censorship. I think the company probably decided it was in its best interest to listen to the Cardinal, than to make a few bucks off an ad. Those sorts of decisions are made by businesses everyday in response to one influence or another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
digital man wrote:
being able to read a variety of views or having a variety of views presented can hardly be called brainwashing
On what subjects? Human sacrifice? Necrophilia? Cannibalism? Ancestor Worship? The equality of races? Not exposing my child to views different than my own on these subjects is tantamount to child abuse?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, January 19, 2009 11:46 AM
Oakman wrote:
On what subjects? Human sacrifice? Necrophilia? Cannibalism? Ancestor Worship? The equality of races? Not exposing my child to views different than my own on these subjects is tantamount to child abuse?
Er, no. We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies. :laugh:
-
John Carson wrote:
You right-wingers really are attached to your faux victim status aren't you?
I'm not a 'right winger'. And since I'm probably as close to being an athiest as to being a fundamentalist, I'm not a victim of anything. Just making a simple observation.
John Carson wrote:
would be confident that there are few science departments without at least some Christians in them and that religious belief is virtually never a hiring criterion --- except at religious colleges. How many declared atheists are there in the US congress, by the way? "As institutionalized as Christianity once was" my arse. There is and has always been a tension between religion and science because belief on the basis of evidence and belief on the basis of faith are fundamentally different approaches. For that reason, scientists are less religious than is the general community, but scientists encounter negligible discrimination if they happen to be personally religious. It is when they attempt to assert scientific conclusions on the basis of religious faith rather than evidence that they, quite properly, get criticised.
Thats complete bullshit. Anyone who denies that there is an obvious social impetus towards exclusivity towards people with religious principles is simply blind or dishonest.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats complete bullsh*t. Anyone who denies that there is an obvious social impetus towards exclusivity towards people with religious principles is simply blind or dishonest.
How ironic. I note that you haven't given me the numbers for declared atheists in the US Congress (last I heard, there was a grand total of one). Atheists vote for and hire Christians without a thought. Christians are much less likely to reciprocate.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
You seem to have been happy to defend the Cardinal in your earlier posts without having seen any quotes.
Just to be clear, I could care less what the Cardinal said...I am not Catholic and he doesn't speak for me. I personally wouldn't waste my time protesting some silly sign. My only point is that he had the right to do it. The bus company wasn't obligated to listen to him. Aside from making a "statement" one way or the other, you can look at from a business perspective...not censorship. I think the company probably decided it was in its best interest to listen to the Cardinal, than to make a few bucks off an ad. Those sorts of decisions are made by businesses everyday in response to one influence or another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Aside from making a "statement" one way or the other, you can look at from a business perspective...not censorship.
You seem to have this view that unless the government does it, then it is not censorship. I find that legalistic nonsense. A group is being denied the opportunity to express its point of view because of pressure --- possibly economic pressure --- from another group. That is censorship. But call it ^%^$%&*$$% instead if you prefer. It is still morally equivalent to censorship.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
It may work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S. it is the people who are considered to be "behaving badly" that are protected by our constitution. After all, the people who behave "properly" don't need legal protection.
I didn't propose that any legal sanctions should be applied against the Cardinal. I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Oakman wrote:
Awhile back, we had some black guys announce to their local bus company that they weren't going to ride the buses until and unless some bus policies got changed. A lot of people said they were "behaving badly," and they singled out the leader of this attempt to intefere with the bus company's right to run itself as being the worst of a bad lot. We're celebrating that particular man's birthday today.
Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are actually behaving well. Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are indeed behaving badly. In this case both the atheists attempting to run the ads and those trying to stop the ads are being accused of behaving badly. If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Censorship can only be carried out by the government. The bus company has the right to display or not display anything it chooses - and to take into account anyone's opinions it values - doesn't it?
John Carson wrote:
If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
How clever. Assign a belief to me I never advocated and then pity me for having it. Here's 3 clues: my opinion is that atheists who run around trying to make believers feel bad are foolish. Believers who try to make atheists feel bad are foolish. Australians who run away from the question and hide by setting up and knocking down straw men are pitiable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have reasonable assertions about the world around me.
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? :~
Fisticuffs wrote:
Seriously, if your whole argument is to try to discredit me on the basis that my typing style mildly resembles Ilion's and is somewhat hyperbolic
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? Unsure
As any good scientist knows, proof is impossible except for mathematicians. All we can do is act on best evidence. :)
Oakman wrote:
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Agreed, my apologies.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
On what subjects? Human sacrifice? Necrophilia? Cannibalism? Ancestor Worship? The equality of races? Not exposing my child to views different than my own on these subjects is tantamount to child abuse?
Er, no. We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies. :laugh:
digital man wrote:
We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies
So it's only religious beliefs where one has to assume that a young child needs to be exposed to views not considered acceptable by his parents - or be accused of something tantamount to child abuse? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Are there going to be any "There's probably no Allah" buses?
-
digital man wrote:
We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies
So it's only religious beliefs where one has to assume that a young child needs to be exposed to views not considered acceptable by his parents - or be accused of something tantamount to child abuse? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Boy, you're hard going today! We were talking about religious belief and the imposition of those beliefs or the notion that, somehow, theism should be allowed to trump atheism whereas I feel that both need to be discussed and that doing so is not brainwashing. The flip side of that is that to impose your beliefs on anyone is brainwashing and that, by extension, to do that to a child is abuse (it's abuse to anyone actually). Are we getting there: I'll not be back tonight as about to eat supper and watch some Sopranos (the missus loves it).