But there's a difference. A major difference. A difference of gargantuan proportions. Someone who is homosexual hasn't chosen to be so. Someone who is religious has. If someone self-defines themselves as something, what right do they have to demand that people aren't "offensive" about the flaws in that religion and that they should "respect" (where "offensive" and "respect" are defined by the people choosing to feel disrespected and offended). I've quoted this before on this subject but I make no apologies for reposting: it's something that should be read and thought about whenever this subject comes up. It's the start of a speech by Douglas Adams. "Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. " The whole speech is at: http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/douglas-adams-speaks-about-religion.html The easiest line to draw is the one I subscribe to, which is just not to be offended. A statement is only offensive if someone takes offence. If the religious chose not to be offended then the problem about which they complain would vanish. Vin
There is questioning a religion (which is part of freedom of speech) and being just gratuitously offensive (generalised statements calling it tosh for instance). Sadly, some Muslims don't recognise the difference and believe you cannot question anything. The problem comes when a religion is violently against something we regard as a basic freedom...such as female equality and sexuality. If they can't live in a society where such freedoms are the norm, they really have to consider moving elsewhere...that isn't racist it is common sense. I couldn't and wouldn't live in a fundamentalist Muslim state.
What right, mmm, I don't know, what about the right to expect people not to be a dick towards you? Why is it in your mind that rights go in only one direction? Do I not have the right to go about my life without people having the right to insult me or my beliefs? It's fine for them to insult me, but it's not fine for me to be offended by it? And anything about your identity or personality that is the result of choice is fair game then? So calling a girl a slut because of how they dress is fine? Or calling someone dirt because they choose to work in a vocational job? What about calling your daughter a slag because she chooses to go out with someone you don't think is good enough? Or what if they choose to go out with someone of a difference race? You might not do that, but I expect there are plenty of people who would. Or your views are pathetic and don't deserve any respect because you choose to be religious? So you have a right to say all that, but they don't have the right to be offended? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. For the record, I'm talking about outright offensive (let's not get into an argument about what's offensive, I think for the purposes of this conversation it's fairly obvious what I mean) stuff, not just being critical. The way I see it, you should treat everyone and their views with respect even if you don't agree with them, so long as their views don't impinge on the right of others. It's not hard.
Pomps: ''you should treat everyone and their views with respect, so long as their views don't impinge on the right of others'' That's what I feel....Western society believes in freedoms...you can believe what you like, but you can't interfere in others lives (including the rights of members of your family who want to behave differently to their ancestors). Don't bring your family here and attempt to live like the Middle East. I have limited the criticism to Islam, mainly because Christians and Jews generally seem to jog along with modern society.
As it happens, I don't go out of my way to offend anyone. As well as that code of practice I ensure that no-one offends me as I choose not to let them. I can tell you that if you act like that, people don't tend to even try. Call me any name you like, say anything you like about me, say anything you like about my kids and I really, genuinely, won't be offended. You know why? Because I know they are just words and opinions and, most of all, I have a sense of humour. I have never, ever, not once, met someone who has a sense of humour about their religion. Vin
To be fair, I'm not easily offended either. But I'm talking generally. Just because I'm not offended by something, doesn't mean other people might not. My level of tolerance to insulting/offensive behaviour is by no means the benchmark for which I base other people's tolerance towards insulting/offensive behaviour.
Like I stressed, " it should be fair game," This criminalising of insults and abuse is infantile and incredibly subjective. You might be alarmed and distressed by something which wouldn't cause me to blink. The whole sorry mess encourages a victim culture. Note the grouping of abusive and insulting words with "threatening" which merely (and probably deliberately) equates threats of violence with upsetting someone's sensibilities. Pathetic!
Well this is where I think the reasonable person test comes in. You could say something fairly mild to me and I can claim I was alarmed or distressed but that doesn't mean a judge (or, more likely, the police) would do anything. They have to ask whether a reasonable person would be alarmed or distressed by what was said. There was a guy on Question Time the other night who summed it up nicely. Yes, you have the right to be offensive. You also have the right to fart in a lift. That doesn't mean you do it though.
Islam offend me. Any religion that oppresses women offends me. I mean, if Dapper Laughs is too sexist to be on telly, how can it be justified having women in this country forced to cover up!
I no longer enjoy going to London because the sight of women dressed in dustbin bags offends my soul. My great fear is that we are failing Muslim girls if Muslim schools are allowed to get away with teaching extremely limited curriculums and not allowing them to exercise properly.
And why did we quite rightly alienate South Africa for apartheid, but permit countries like Saudia Arabia to virtually imprison women...what else can you call it if they can't have a passport or leave the country without permission or a male escort. The answer sadly is money.
Have you asked any women in abiya how they feel about it? When I came here, I actually had the conversation with both women and with the girls at my school. Their answers about it were actually extremely enlightening and made me change my perspective on it. Now, that is very different here as Kuwait is light years away from Saudi, but what I find curious is how so many white men are able to decide the abiya is oppressive when there are many Muslim women around the world who follow the tradition (as it is not a religious requirement) through their own choice. There are of course families who force it on their children, just as there are families of other religions who will pressure or force their children to follow their traditions or beliefs.
I would argue a bigger reason to alienate or sanction countries in the Middle East would be their appalling treatment of low-income laborers from various nations around the world. Kuwait is better than most but there are still Filipino/Ethiopian/etc. workers who are trapped here essentially as slaves. But that won't happen for the same reason that people all have housemaids and staff here. They got oil and the world needs it.
To be controversial, how has a homosexual not chosen to be so? How is a person who knows there is a god, chose not to be religious?
Very flawed reasoning, based I asume on prejudices, science like religion has mantra that cannot be talked against without ridicule, the start of life and evolution for for examples, now being touted as defined fact, though in fact the evidence is far from it. Conversely the same thinking person can look at the evidence and come to the logical conclusion there is a God. The "dogma" in both is man made. Science is as great a religion as any other as the majority follow it without little knowledge or personal understanding.
Unlike religion, science tests itself and will change if new evidence appears. There is always the current accepted view, but that view is open to challenge. Sometimes (especially in cosmology) accepting a theory as likely and then testing it is the way forward.
Science is not a religion and it's not a religion if only for one reason. If you can come up with a better explanation for how something works, then science will change to encompass the new knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, is absolute. A common phrase from scientists is "we don't know". You won't hear that from someone who thinks absolute truth has been gifted to him by an invisible being. So, if you think that there is a better explanation for the diversity and richness of life on this planet than evolution, put it up for scrutiny. You'll need some evidence and you'll need to be prepared for doubt about your theory (that's how science progresses; I'm afraid people won't take you at your word) but if your theory fits the known world better than the current one, your theory will win out. Some theories have taken a hundred years to break through but break through they did. Vin
Does your religion suggests that homosexuality is chosen rather than inherent? Genuine question. As to the second question, it requires translation into English. Vin
