Swipe to go to another post.
Complainer can find a new route to the bus stop.
That would be finding a way to coexist. I like it.
It would also be a way for complainer to actively seek a way to avoid being offended.
Is opposing the freedom of others an attempt at annihilating the contradiction of our freedom in order to become the dominant force? I think it is, because there is an increasing appetite for similarity. Assimilation by nook or by crook removes the cause of fear within us.
If more people didn't go out of their way to be butthurt about something, there wouldn't be so much butthurt flying around..
Accepting that people, cultures and religions are not all the same and getting on with their own lives. Well said Dandy.
Freedom is allowing people to do whatever they want without confrontation. Of course in reality it doesn't work too well.
Where the laws of the land are concerned, we must be mindful not to come into conflict with them. Even though the law is not always righteous. Tiffanee, the more people that observe free will, the more successful we become at avoiding conflicts. Do you think that there might be an issue of selfishness versus selflessness that leads to oppressing the free will of others?
There are just too many people willing to push their beliefs onto others instead of just letting people be. I never push atheism onto anyone and usually only talk about it if someone asks me an question about it. A lot of Christians have no problem forcing their beliefs onto people and so some people become confrontational about it. Believe what you believe but don't force it onto others. That is just kind of rude.
Just Christians? I feel that a few major religions are guilty of such. I'd rather face a Mormon onslaught than one where my head is chopped off .😐
I'd rather not face any of them. They are all equal in my eyes.
If you really believe they are all equal, then try publishing cartoons of Muhammad and Jesus under your own name in Denmark, and see which one gets you the most death threats.
Freedom would never work like that in a society. That would be Anarchy. In a society your freedom goes as far as the others freedom stars. It's a compromise. And people who cannot respect the compromise are punished under the law. The moment people try to put their freedom over others', they're breaking the compromise. The problem is understanding where the limits are.
Israel seem to have no problem within the walls, nobody complains, because the police have zero tolerance towards religious oppression from all sides.
funny, i bet your ok with listening to songs with **** drugs and booze and allowing kids to listen to it, but then cry over christians, hypocrites,
Is demanding that the cross be taken down, because one feels offended or insulted by it, repressive or not on freedom of religion sh9683?
You really should try looking at his profile before you start calling him names and making stupid assumptions. JMHO
I believe the number of badgers capable of finding it in their furry little hearts to forgive the otters for their sinful life is still somewhere around forty-two. In other news: this side of the pond finds the whole issue of having to worry about the freedom of speech a bit outdated. Naturally, we have our own double standards over here, I'm more than willing to admit that.
After all, it's alright to be hugging trees, speaking in silly biblical tongue or taking money from the rich fools in order to give Xenu a nasty **** ache, but Nazism is still a rather large no-no. It's weird, that we can express our love for the silly dictatorship located somewhere north of South Korea, but Mr Hilter and friends are still considered a threat to the society, to the extent of inhibiting the freedom of speech. It's just an ideology. The same as extreme consumerism, Zen or living as a world-class athlete. Nobody makes you to do stuff, that you don't want to.
Unless you are a moderator here. Then you are attached to the non-proverbial wall with black magic and given dosages of theta radiation every three hours. Just ask JD or Ser.
This person has a problem with it...it's that person's problem. They can close their eyes when walking by...possibly even if that Institution carries the Nazi sign.
I''m not religious and while it can be annoying passing by churches of all kinds I don't let it bother me over all. I would never move close to a church.
Fair and honest contribution Sukiesnow. Thank you.
There could be a response to the question in there somewhere. Being able to diagnose it is a good bit above my pay grade Zonkey. 😂
It is an opinion, however, I'm counting myself as one of those naughty little otters seeking the enlightenment that comes with forgiveness and good make up ****. Now to find Mrs Otter and begin my journey up the wall.
I am notorious for offering responses, that have absolutely nothing to do with the original stimuli. You might want to have an umbrella at hand, when you are dealing with me, since my brain waves shoot out like waves of wet otters - and carrying something you can beat me to death with is generally a good idea at any given time.
Good for you mr z. Some of the questions have nothing to do with the words they have typed. Or so it seems to me.
Live and let live.As an atheist I would never expect churches or other places of worship to remove visible signs that represent their religion.Anyone who is offended by them really does to take a long hard look at themselves.
I think each situation must be taken separately. In the example you gave my first question is about private vs. public.
A church is private property. They can hang a cross, display the Ten Commandments, and put a Nativity scene on the lawn if they choose. The same would be true for homes, clubs and organizations such as the Boy Scouts, private schools, etc...
I may find a symbol personally offensive, but the First Amendment is more important than my personal feelings. You want to stick a Jesus fish on your bumper, I say go for it.
Public spaces? Different situation. Different rules.
Bottom line is we live in a society with people of different beliefs. We will all encounter situations we dislike every day, see things we find objectionable everyday, hear ideas and opinions and arguments and comments we disagree with everyday. That is the reality of living in a free society. And each of us probably offends others just as much as we are offended anyway. The same people who defend their right to have a Jesus fish on their bumper find a rainbow flag on someone else's bumper objectionable.
We just need to remember it could be much worse. Imagine living in North Korea and having to see all those gigantic hideous images of Kim Jong-un every where you turn. That would be unbearable!
Very good thought. Yes, we will always have complaints. I guess we can live with that as long as the government don't pass legislation that favours one religion over another then? However, there is maybe another consideration that tones the light down a little. A public Catholic school that had crosses in the class room. Been that way for a century or so. Then an opposing religion moves into a nearby neighbourhood and wilfully chooses to send their kids to that school, then immediately take their protest to the governor slapping the constitution in his face, we want those crosses down and the Catholic religion stopped in the school. But, but the school is Catholic. What is going on? It seems like an occupation as opposed to coexistence.
There have been several court cases dealing with that exact issue.
Every time the court has said private institutions have to right to discriminate. The legal precident is clear.
I've has this argument many times regarding same-**** marriage. People argued if gay marriage was legalized it would only be a matter of time before SCOTUS forced a church to marry two men.
Wrong. There have already been cases in which people tried to force a church to accommodate their personal beliefs. SCOTUS ruled in favor of the churches.
Churches shouldn't worry about the courts anyway. Change is coming from within not from judges. Read through the Pew reports on religion. http://www.pewforum.org/ Very interesting.
The same **** marriage law was passed here in the UK also. However, while some of our churches have buckled in the face of new law, others have protested and now the Christian church is fracturing with breakaways looking to find their continuation away from the presbytery. The laws don't force this upon the church, but some have accepted the compromise of scripture in favour of popularity to keep the pews full. There are changes and there are fight backs. Many are more than willing to live and let live for the same in return. We are being hauled into legal and political spheres by Muslims. My greatest concern is the divisions occurring within our communities and churches. It is devout v popular Christianity and devout v secular diversity. You see the devout are fighting on two fronts. It is a very sad time with our own people turning against our own. It is even becoming dangerous to discuss such things without fear of persecution.
It's our own fault. We have allowed public discourse to devolve into a "whoever screams loudest is right" free for all.
Opinion is now fact. Ideology is replacing knowledge.
Beliefs must be shared by others or they are the enemy.
Basic decorum, good manners, discretion, tact, etc...are seen as the enemy of truth. "Tell it like it is" is desirable no matter what the comment.
The world is becoming a reality show.
Very well said Chris.
In that case, I don't see anyone repressing the other on that, unless they actually brought down the cross. They can demand all they want, if it's not lawful, it's shouldn't happen. Like when I see people getting ballistic because of Holidays cups on Starbucks or because there's an Atheist billboard, or because people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, and want to make all that go away, boycotting and whatever. It's all the same. It's the era of butthurt. People get pissed when whatever doesn't get along with their views appears, and they do their best to get rid of it.
I don't see the point in getting pissed because of a building having their "symbol" up front though. It's not like they put the symbol in your property.
I've been thinking of putting together a few crosses taller than myself and standing by them on a local street preaching to whoever will choose to stop and listen. I'd get lifted by the police for breach of the peace because the passing objectivists were offended. 😵
That's a public place. The rules are not the same as private property.
So we really don't have freedom of religion. For example, one religion might call for non conformists to be promptly beheaded, while another requires the preaching of the word to the non believers. This is where free will kicks in, choose to listen or choose not to listen. It becomes a problem if they chase you down the street when you kept walking. Also, if followers begin to make compromises on the word, they are then compromising the entire faith. I try to imagine Socrates preaching philosophy on the streets back in the day, no problem, because it was the way of things. People would stop and listen or continue walking, no big deal. Sure there were scoffers, but that is normal.
You obviously have freedom of religion. If you didn't, the WBS wouldn't be able to do half of the crap they do in public places.
I read wrong what you wrote before. You won't get lifted by the police for standing there and speaking with people who chose to listen. That's not against the law. As you said, it becomes a problem if they chase you down the street when you kept walking, but if you keep on your own, I don't see the problem.
If people call the police and say I'm offended by all of this and their numbers grow, the police move you 'for your safety, and advise that if they see you on the streets again that day anywhere, you'll be detained for breach of the peace.' One of our street pastors got detained, because Muslims gathered intentionally to pressure the police into getting him off the streets.
I used to live in Washington DC. Many times as I drove down Pennsylvania Ave, just past the White House, I passed the infamous "Westboro Baptists".
Now THAT'S freedom of religion.
It is a problem if you are disturbing people then it becomes disturbing the peace. I guess it all depends on location more than anything else. I find it offensive but I just move on.
Before Muslims started their trouble here, people had complained a lot about aggressive Christian street preachers and also aggressive beggars. Regulation was drawn up to control it. Street preaching is part of the Christian practice scripturally, so legislation stated that they can preach, but they must not harass people on the streets. They have to stand close to buildings and allow people to pass easily and not approach or pursue. Beggars have to stay against buildings too and can beg, but not harass or use threatening language or behaviour towards those that don't give. All was well defined and controlled prior to the Muslim arrivals. Everybody was happy to move on and just lived with it. Now the Muslims are going out of their way to harass Christian preachers by gathering in numbers and calling the police. It's just intimidation as they manipulate authorities to act. Street pastors are now well trained for this and you need a licence. There are police initiatives where they visit mosques to create community with them. Also now some churches are working with mosques to attempt to help them integrate more and feel a bit easier. I don't know if these things are working well or not, but violent crimes by Muslims against the native citizens is soaring each year. By 2025, it is expected by some police chiefs to become the biggest majority of crimes.
Nobody should be preaching on the streets period. That behavior is obnoxious IMO.
I think there also might be double standards. Consider evolutionary theory that is taught in public schools, but intelligent design is not permitted. Teachers have lost their jobs for simply asking the question in public school *Evolution or Intelligent Design?' Evolution is the atheist doctrine of how the universe and the diverse life on earth that has evolved through big lucky jumps, etc. Of course, intelligent design offers a contradiction and is strictly forbidden. Whether it is law or educational regulation, there is the repression within public schools in many or all US States.
I don't buy your argument.
First of all, this issue is not about presentlng alternative theories because intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It belongs in a religion class, not a science class.
Secondly, labeling Darwin's Theory of Evolution an "atheists doctrine" is false. There are many people who believe in both God and Darwin. In any case whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the theory of Evolution. Darwin based his theory on observation and proved it with research and evidence. If God exists Darwin was still correct.
Which brings us to the problem of teaching Intelligent Design as science. No one can prove the existence of God. That means Intelligent Design relies on an assumption that may or may not be true to explain something that we lack the knowledge to understand. When we can't explain something "God did it" may still be the wrong answer.
If we believe God exists, then intelligent design is not a problem. It is only a problem if we don't believe that God exists. The book of Genesis contradicts the theory of accidental evolution. If you believe in God then you believe God created everything (intelligent design). Whereas evolution is all based on survival of the fittest.
You are correct that it's not about teaching of different theories. However, I know as fact that Islam, not Judaism or Christianity is being taught as core learning at some schools. As I see things, there is a trend and it's now changing.
If you are for something you argue in support, if you are not for something then you argue against. For and against being taken over by any enemy, whether they are Islamiscists, Catholics or Republicans, our words will show us as sympathisers or as the opposition. Clear cut.
There are obviously threats or there would be no unrest or debates. Head in the sand or are we paying attention?
Freedom and tolerance go hand in hand.
I am not "free" if I entangle myself in another's business any more than I am if they entangle themselves in mine...we end up entangled either way.
Yes Bozette. We are faced with two options, roll over and let them have their way and become extinct, or fight back. The difference between how they fight and how we fight is that we use the political and judicial systems, they use violence and degradation. They are also using our own systems against us now. We educate them, then they use our own education as a deadly weapon.
Please define "them" and "us".
Strange, I saw no mention of "Islamicists" or "Westerners" in either your post or your chosen topics. Therefore I responded to your question as posted.
I wanted to see if there was an inference perceived or assumptions made. The discussion has evolved. Have you enjoyed it all?
Not particularly. I did not take from your stated question the either/or of extinction or submission that you obviously intended. Any assumptions seem to be on your part.
It's people like you who take other peoples freedom's away.Grow up.
I don't agree with a lot of things,that's life.Ignore it.
Imagine a world where nobody spoke out against what they didn't agree with. Imagine a world where we didn't fight... I'm here because some people didn't agree with and ignore it, what Hitler was doing.
We are not talking about Hitler.He was evil.Doe's a cross bother you so much?Move to a country,where there is no freedom of religion.
The cross is not a problem. The problem for those that do have a problem with it, do so because it represents the Son of God. Go to Saudi Arabia and wear a cross on your neck chain and see if you last a day on the streets.
This is why I thank God that I was born in America.
I know how you feel, I don't like kids but I have to listen to them yelling for hours in my community, but let my dog bark once they complain. Not fair and we want to change things to our ideal . I was wondering if thousands of years from now - will archologists look at telephone poles and think we all loved crosses so much they lined the roads everyplace.
For a country that prides itself on freedom it sure does oppress others from receiving it when their freedom of election offends them. It's a shame the majority doesn't even read their own bible otherwise they'd find this little gem Ecclesiastes 7:16 be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? - lol
Agreed Sally. We can never be to righteous or to wise. God's righteousness and wisdom are unlimited and we are encouraged to strive to be more like Him, even though we never will be God, but can strive to be more like Him in nature. The verse quoted is a stark reminder against being holier than thou, thinking we are morally superior to others when God has equipped each with the ability to live righteously and wisely if we so choose to and strive for it daily. Our human nature seeks to challenge all things and attempt to somehow show it as inferior to our own ideals. This is certainly a warning for the fool in his arrogance and sense of superior self-worth.
I don't understand your problem. If you don't like the sight of a cross on a church wall, don't look at it! It does not obstruct your path to your destination and it isn't making a noise so you won't even know it's there if you don't look at it. The cross is on the church property and is for the benefit of churchgoers to identify it as a Christian church to those who may wish to find one to attend. I see no repression of your faith occurring since I'm sure it did nothing to change yours after you walked past the church.
I'm trying to address your issue with freedom of expression interfering with others' freedom of expression. Fortunately, that is not the case (yet) in this country. Did you ever read the letters to the editor section of a newspaper? That is one of my favorite things to do with the Sunday edition of our local paper because it is larger and is full of opposing opinions about current issues for me to read arguments from both sides of each one.
I am Christian and have no problem with the cross. I'm posing a question concerning an issue that has cropped up in various countries.
Oh, thanks for the clarification. The way you worded your post, you used "I" when referring to who saw the cross and who was offended by it so it sounded like you were the offended one. I wasn't aware about the issue in other countries.
I was interested in learning more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) recently and went to several of their church services. I noted that their church did not display the cross even though they are definitely a Christian denomination.
The defining term 'example' means hypothetically implied.
Also not all Christians bare the cross, since it does not have the same importance for all Christian denominations. There were none after Jesus, except mad men that claim to have received golden tablets. Lol
There is no freedom from offense. Nobody gives offense, you have to take it. You are free to decline to take it.
I've been considering for several years the connection between diversity and conflict. How might this connection be relevant when considering cultural and religious clashes? Looking throughout history, I have seen a correlation between diversity and conflict. As diversity has increased, so to has conflict until the dominant ideology, religion, etc prevails to establish the next era of power and control. Where there are theoretical options (variety), cultures (diversity) and religions (diversity), conflict has inevitably followed. Would this then suggest that conflict is unavoidable in the pursuit of diversity, something that we have to live with?
Yes, conflict is inevitable when diversity is encouraged. Especially where freedom of speech and religion are constitutionally legal. The trick is to keep the differences of opinions to a level of civility and not raising the discourse to a level of shouting and violence. That was the way I remembered that it used to be in the U.S. when I was growing up.
Diversity as a means to bring greater control over the people by repressing further the freedom of speech. Divide and conquer is not new, Western politics have been using this means of controlling the masses ever since the inception of party politics, freedom of expression, speech, diversity, etc etc etc. 😂
With so many manufactured causes, parties with alleged differences, etc, there are not enough people united under a banner to collectively watch both the sun and the moon simultaneously. 😂😂😂
The people are the cause that needs help. Lol
Sounds to me like this is more of an issue of whether we have a legal RIGHT to NOT be offended. I don't believe there is such a right, nor can I conclude that I want such a right.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2017. Icons by DryIcons.