Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

It normally means claiming that one’s weird occult fantasies entitle one to violate the rights of other people.

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

It normally means claiming that one’s weird occult fantasies entitle one to violate the rights of other people.

My old man told me never to discuss religion or politics and I should get along fine.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

Religious people see you as a lost soul that needs to be saved and nothing is going to stop them.

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

It normally means claiming that one’s weird occult fantasies entitle one to violate the rights of other people.

Not just people not from your religion but people in that religion as well, often in the guise or morality or wellness.

Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I’ll repeat that: created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent—exigent, I would say more than exigent—greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. However, let no one say there’s no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties. Religion, it might be said—it must be said, would have to admit, makes extraordinary claims but though I would maintain that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, rather daringly provides not even ordinary evidence for its extraordinary supernatural claims. Therefore, we might begin by asking, and I’m asking my opponent as well as you when you consider your voting, is it good for the world to appeal to our credulity and not to our skepticism? Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? To appeal to our fear and to our guilt, is it good for the world? To our terror, our terror of death, is it good to appeal? To preach guilt and shame about the sexual act and the sexual relationship, is this good for the world? And asking yourself all the while, are these really religious responsibilities, as I maintain they are? To terrify children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves, but of their parents and those they love. Perhaps worst of all, to consider women an inferior creation, is that good for the world, and can you name me a religion that has not done that? To insist that we are created and not evolved in the face of all the evidence. Religion forces nice people to do unkind things and also makes intelligent people say stupid things. Handed a small baby for the first time, is it your first reaction to think, “Beautiful, almost perfect, now please hand me the sharp stone for its genitalia that I may do the work of the Lord”?

… Well now, in fairness, no one was arguing that religion should or will die out of the world, and all I’m arguing is that it would be better if there was a great deal more by way of an outbreak of secularism. And I knew it would come up that we’d be told about charity, and I take this very seriously, because we know, ladies and gentlemen, as it happens, we’re the first generation of people who do really, what the cure for poverty really is. It eluded people for a long, long time. The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it’s called the empowerment of women … try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I’d be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say. But it won’t bring—I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be funny. If I was trying to be funny, you mistook me. It won’t bring back the millions of people who have died wretched deaths because of their teaching. That still goes on. I’d like to hear a word of apology from the religious about that, if it was on offer ..

… Do we grant to Hamas and to Hezbollah, both of whom will tell you, and incessantly do, “Look at our charitable work. Without us defending the poor of Gaza, the poor of Lebanon, where would they be? And they’re right, they do a great deal of charitable work. It’s nothing compared to the harm that they do, but it’s a great deal of work all the same …

…We don’t require divine permission to know right from wrong. We don’t need tablets administered to us ten at a time in tablet form on pain of death to be able to have a moral argument. No, we have the reasoning and the moral suasion of Socrates and of our own abilities. We don’t need dictatorship to give us right from wrong, and that’s my lot, thank you.

…I’m intrigued now, so religion could be a good thing after all, sometimes, we think, is now the proposition. What would a religion have to do to get that far? Well, I think it would have to give up all supernatural claims. It would have to say no, you are not to do this under the threat of reward, heaven, or the terror of punishment, hell. No, we can’t offer you miracles. Find me the church that will say, “Forget all that. Faith healing, no.” It would have to give that up. It would have to give up the idea of an eternal, unalterable authority figure who is judge, jury, and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal and who wasn’t finished with you even when you died. That’s quite a lot for religion to give up, don’t you think? But who would not say we would be better off without it if it was, or what Tony Blair would like it to be like it to be, an aspect of humanism, an aspect of compassion, an aspect of the realizations of human solidarity, the knowledge we are all in fact bound up with one another, that we have responsibilities one to another, and as I do when I give blood, partly because I don’t lose the pint forever, I can always get it back, but that there’s a sense of pleasure to be had in helping your fellow creature. I think that should be enough, thank you.

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

party_pants said:

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

Religion is habit forming and that’s probably what they are hoping for.

party_pants said:

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

It’s from here, but I find in interesting especially the celestial dictator and born sick and need healing part and the guilt and sin nonsense and no proof required about outrageous claims

https://speakola.com/ideas/christopher-hitchens-munk-debate-2010

Bubblecar said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Bringing race into the religious freedom debate could make for an ugly election

The first thing that comes into my mind with religious freedom is religious people having the religious freedom to harass other peoples rights.

I may be wrong. Do religious people see it that way or do they see it another way.?

What does religious freedom really mean?

It normally means claiming that one’s weird occult fantasies entitle one to violate the rights of other people.

All these religious groups are different and they go around violating other peoples rights in their own weird way in the context of their religion.

party_pants said:

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

Yeah I thought that matter was over, I must have forgotten some details, ah yes, the report created by 1 person.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

Yeah I thought that matter was over, I must have forgotten some details, ah yes, the report created by 1 person.

And not fully released until now.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

I don’t understand this. I really don’t think this is going to gain a lot of traction as an election issue. It is really a bit of a side-show issue.

Yeah I thought that matter was over, I must have forgotten some details, ah yes, the report created by 1 person.

And not fully released until now.

It seems that religious people get taught religious ideology that euthanasia, same sex marriage and abortion are things to be controlled, they don’t teach them that these are basic human
rights.

How can religious people have religious freedom but abide by the Law?

Tau.Neutrino said:

How can religious people have religious freedom but abide by the Law?

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

Australians have religious freedom up the wazoo. What some people want is a pass on Australia’s antidiscrimination laws.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How can religious people have religious freedom but abide by the Law?

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

it already is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How can religious people have religious freedom but abide by the Law?

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

Yes, ok.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How can religious people have religious freedom but abide by the Law?

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

Yes, ok.

What about the freedom to criticise religion? If there’s a religion with a repugnant rule, can one say publicly that you think it’s wrong, or is that discimination against and vilification of a religion?

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

Yes, ok.

What about the freedom to criticise religion? If there’s a religion with a repugnant rule, can one say publicly that you think it’s wrong, or is that discimination against and vilification of a religion?

I guess it comes to free speech.

What is free speech in context for both non religious and religious people.

or what are the limits of free speech for both groups.

But what about religious freedoms when it comes to scientology ?

Should scientology have the religious freedom to destroy families ?

Whats the point of sending children to religious schools when religion ideology distorts their view of reality ?

Why should they get funding for that ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Whats the point of sending children to religious schools when religion ideology distorts their view of reality ?

Why should they get funding for that ?

you ask a lot of questions, well they sort of look like questions but they’re not, they’re more rhetorical statements, with some alarm about them, which I gather you hope are contagious, that there will be some confirming agreement.

you’re squawking, in text.

putting a question mark on the end of a sentence won’t reliably get you agreement, it’s not much of an invitation really.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Whats the point of sending children to religious schools when religion ideology distorts their view of reality ?

Why should they get funding for that ?

you ask a lot of questions, well they sort of look like questions but they’re not, they’re more rhetorical statements, with some alarm about them, which I gather you hope are contagious, that there will be some confirming agreement.

you’re squawking, in text.

putting a question mark on the end of a sentence won’t reliably get you agreement, it’s not much of an invitation really.

Why should religious schools get taxpayers money when they teach how to distort reality.

Non religious schools teach reality so people don’t grow up to be a bunch of hypocrites

I think religious schools are a waste of tax payers money and it should be stopped.

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Whats the point of sending children to religious schools when religion ideology distorts their view of reality ?

Why should they get funding for that ?

you ask a lot of questions, well they sort of look like questions but they’re not, they’re more rhetorical statements, with some alarm about them, which I gather you hope are contagious, that there will be some confirming agreement.

you’re squawking, in text.

putting a question mark on the end of a sentence won’t reliably get you agreement, it’s not much of an invitation really.

Why should religious schools get taxpayers money when they teach how to distort reality.

Non religious schools teach reality so people don’t grow up to be a bunch of hypocrites

I think religious schools are a waste of tax payers money and it should be stopped.

If you teach people concepts that distort views of reality wouldn’t that place them at a disadvantage ?

transition said:

You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

How do you know what he’s thinking?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

you ask a lot of questions, well they sort of look like questions but they’re not, they’re more rhetorical statements, with some alarm about them, which I gather you hope are contagious, that there will be some confirming agreement.

you’re squawking, in text.

putting a question mark on the end of a sentence won’t reliably get you agreement, it’s not much of an invitation really.

Why should religious schools get taxpayers money when they teach how to distort reality.

Non religious schools teach reality so people don’t grow up to be a bunch of hypocrites

I think religious schools are a waste of tax payers money and it should be stopped.

If you teach people concepts that distort views of reality wouldn’t that place them at a disadvantage ?

what reality are you talking about?

yours, or mine, or the reality out there independent of human views?

or, perhaps you mean some convergent super reality. An ultimate reality.

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Materialism is one of those terms only used by people who disapprove of it.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Materialism is one of those terms only used by people who disapprove of it.

This thread is now going to hell.

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Your on a science forum. Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

I don’t believe in things that cannot be proved, How many priests are honest about the existence of God. A God that has never be proved or disproved yet that carry on as if God has been proved and there is no doubt, when actually its deceit. It places an element of mistrust in other people.

That is all religion is, a group of people using story telling to control other people.

Astrology, which craft, snake oil, Santa claus, fiction, story telling.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Materialism is one of those terms only used by people who disapprove of it.

i’d he interested to know if neutrino self-describes as materialist.

it was a challenge that way

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry … To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (13 Dec 1887-1985)

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Your on a science forum. Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

I don’t believe in things that cannot be proved, How many priests are honest about the existence of God. A God that has never be proved or disproved yet that carry on as if God has been proved and there is no doubt, when actually its deceit. It places an element of mistrust in other people.

That is all religion is, a group of people using story telling to control other people.

Astrology, which craft, snake oil, Santa claus, fiction, story telling.

A lot of people actually believe this stuff, it is real to them, just like some believe in Santa, although most in this instance see the light.

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

When I die I cannot take my possessions with me, I didn’t have any before I was born, so I’m sure I’ll get use to it again.

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

You often ignore the difference between metaphorical and literal use of language.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

You often ignore the difference between metaphorical and literal use of language.

i think i just posted something along these lines.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>how to distort reality.

be glad your thoughts really don’t ave that much influence.

a very modest influence, very modest

materialists distort reality, too.

you’re a materialist. You probably don’t like magic, and would like to ban telepathy.

Your on a science forum. Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

I don’t believe in things that cannot be proved, How many priests are honest about the existence of God. A God that has never be proved or disproved yet that carry on as if God has been proved and there is no doubt, when actually its deceit. It places an element of mistrust in other people.

That is all religion is, a group of people using story telling to control other people.

Astrology, which craft, snake oil, Santa claus, fiction, story telling.

A lot of people actually believe this stuff, it is real to them, just like some believe in Santa, although most in this instance see the light.

And one wonders about their education, when it comes sown to observation and critical reasoning.

Take this bottle of water blessed by myself, it will make you feel better, now, give me your money, go away.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

You often ignore the difference between metaphorical and literal use of language.

I don’t ignore it, I certainly play with it

there is territory, territory materialist it can be said, that is anti-psychological

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

Telepathy doesn’t mean influence behaviour or reading feelings from behaviour.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Your on a science forum. Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

I don’t believe in things that cannot be proved, How many priests are honest about the existence of God. A God that has never be proved or disproved yet that carry on as if God has been proved and there is no doubt, when actually its deceit. It places an element of mistrust in other people.

That is all religion is, a group of people using story telling to control other people.

Astrology, which craft, snake oil, Santa claus, fiction, story telling.

A lot of people actually believe this stuff, it is real to them, just like some believe in Santa, although most in this instance see the light.

And one wonders about their education, when it comes sown to observation and critical reasoning.

Take this bottle of water blessed by myself, it will make you feel better, now, give me your money, go away.

You see more clearly the things you know, so if you are brought up in that society, then that is what you see at the expense of any dissenting views.

dv said:

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

Telepathy doesn’t mean influence behaviour or reading feelings from behaviour.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

sibeen said:

dv said:

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

Telepathy doesn’t mean influence behaviour or reading feelings from behaviour.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

and look what happened to him!!!

dv said:

transition said:

>Prove that telepathy exists and then get validation.

don’t people mind read all the time?

anticipate each other feelings/thoughts

influencing behaviour.

Telepathy doesn’t mean influence behaviour or reading feelings from behaviour.

explore the nearest thing to whatever it is (that doesn’t literally exist), that does exist.

How about those religious people having the religious freedom to cut down all those trees ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about those religious people having the religious freedom to cut down all those trees ?

Why would they do that in the name of religion?

Its hard for individuals to look at themselves from a distance so imagine what its like for groups of people to look at themselves as a whole from a distance.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By freely following all the requirements of their religion, except those that contravene the law.

IMO, it is very important that religious freedom is recognised in the constitution as a fundamental freedom, including the freedom not to follow the requirements of any religion.

Yes, ok.

What about the freedom to criticise religion? If there’s a religion with a repugnant rule, can one say publicly that you think it’s wrong, or is that discimination against and vilification of a religion?

It depends.

As with everything else, there are grey areas

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its hard for individuals to look at themselves from a distance so imagine what its like for groups of people to look at themselves as a whole from a distance.

Personally, I think they are too close to the wood to see the trees.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about those religious people having the religious freedom to cut down all those trees ?

Why would they do that in the name of religion?

Religious leaders who think that they are above the law or exempt from it

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-18/islamic-leader-accused-of-land-clearing-claims-exempt-from-law/10133930

Islamic leader accused of illegal land clearing claims his group is exempt from Australian law

Thing is these are people doing what ever they want to the environment.

but as a religion they think they are exempt from it.

A bit Like the priests who do not want cooperate with the police in child abuse investigations with pedophile priests, they are placing themselves above the law.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its hard for individuals to look at themselves from a distance so imagine what its like for groups of people to look at themselves as a whole from a distance.

Personally, I think they are too close to the wood to see the trees.

Observation and reasoning skills, life skills, tolerance and emotional intelligence, these are things which should be taught but are not.

I wonder if Morrison brought this subject up as a distraction from Pell ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder if Morrison brought this subject up as a distraction from Pell ?

Possibly but it isn’t only Pell. He is talking to those Christians he knows are out there and those who should be Christians because of their birthright but need to be converted to stop this Muslim menace. A mere fraction of the population are Muslim and very nice people, the ones I know.

>Religious leaders who think that they are above the law or exempt from it

it could be said most people are exempt from the law most of the time

dead people are all of the time.

i’m not sure about the unborn

Deeply religious people are so controlling like John Howard with his Ramsay centre teaching western traditions

Controlling others, keeping women in the kitchen. Bash gays too I suppose. Cricket. must have Cricket.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Deeply religious people are so controlling like John Howard with his Ramsay centre teaching western traditions

Controlling others, keeping women in the kitchen. Bash gays too I suppose. Cricket. must have Cricket.

Look, leave cricket out of it. OK?

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Deeply religious people are so controlling like John Howard with his Ramsay centre teaching western traditions

Controlling others, keeping women in the kitchen. Bash gays too I suppose. Cricket. must have Cricket.

Look, leave cricket out of it. OK?

I don’t mmind if you leave football meat pies and holden cars in.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Deeply religious people are so controlling like John Howard with his Ramsay centre teaching western traditions

Controlling others, keeping women in the kitchen. Bash gays too I suppose. Cricket. must have Cricket.

Look, leave cricket out of it. OK?

ok, I’ll leave cricket out of it.

What I like about religion, the anglo christian thing, for me, is that it gives an amplified appreciation of naughty, sort of analogous to wearing clothed most of the time, then getting naked. If I was native all the time it wouldn’t be half as much fun.

It’s a genius idea really. Put clothes on people.

So, you could argue religious beliefs are something like wearing clothes.

Fairly much everybody wears clothes.

> What does religious freedom really mean?

Good question. I’ll give it some thought. Eg.

The latest popular African deities:
1st : SHANGO
2nd : ORISHAS
3rd : BUMBA
4th : OBATALA
5th : ESHU
6th : OLORUN
7th : ELEGUA
8th : YEMAYA
9th : ABASSI
10th : ANANSI

The Sikh religion includes the carrying of weapons.

As does the Klingon religion.

transition said:

What I like about religion, the anglo christian thing, for me, is that it gives an amplified appreciation of naughty, sort of analogous to wearing clothed most of the time, then getting naked. If I was native all the time it wouldn’t be half as much fun.

It’s a genius idea really. Put clothes on people.

So, you could argue religious beliefs are something like wearing clothes.

Fairly much everybody wears clothes.

I have a l;ong time friend who always used to go naked if we were at the river, in the bush or at his home.
Yet I think he has come to adopt your viewpoint over the years and ddecades,

roughbarked said:

transition said:

What I like about religion, the anglo christian thing, for me, is that it gives an amplified appreciation of naughty, sort of analogous to wearing clothed most of the time, then getting naked. If I was native all the time it wouldn’t be half as much fun.

It’s a genius idea really. Put clothes on people.

So, you could argue religious beliefs are something like wearing clothes.

Fairly much everybody wears clothes.

I have a l;ong time friend who always used to go naked if we were at the river, in the bush or at his home.
Yet I think he has come to adopt your viewpoint over the years and ddecades,

:)

neutrino wears clothes I bet, out of some religious-like commitment.

an effective initiation into the power of culture, norms etc.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

What I like about religion, the anglo christian thing, for me, is that it gives an amplified appreciation of naughty, sort of analogous to wearing clothed most of the time, then getting naked. If I was native all the time it wouldn’t be half as much fun.

It’s a genius idea really. Put clothes on people.

So, you could argue religious beliefs are something like wearing clothes.

Fairly much everybody wears clothes.

I have a l;ong time friend who always used to go naked if we were at the river, in the bush or at his home.
Yet I think he has come to adopt your viewpoint over the years and ddecades,

:)

neutrino wears clothes I bet, out of some religious-like commitment.

an effective initiation into the power of culture, norms etc.

Sometimes it fun walking down the street in the nude.

The look everyone gives you, like there in some sort of shock.

If everyone grow up nude like kids nude on the beach then no one would give it a second thought

Asking Missy and Mrs m about this.

One comment is that “religious freedom” in Australia means less freedom for Christians because it means that Christianity can no longer be taught in schools.

Another comment is that people are allowed their beliefs, so long as they don’t break the law or harm people.

But some religions don’t see theft as bad. Some insist on the killing of people who are convicted of witchcraft. Many condone slavery. Some still practice cannibalism.

And if psychotics are allowed their beliefs and claim under the freedom of religion giving them the right to refuse treatment then … But the flipside of that is in Starlinist Russia where people who believe in religions are treated as insane. There can be a fine line between religion and insanity.

If Muslims were allowed to wear the Burka during their passport photograph.

If workers couldn’t be penalised if they opted to do all their work with only one hand because the other hand is unclean. In an industry that requires both hands.

Freedom to be a pacifist when your country is at war has been a religious issue. Some countries such as Israel had or still have compulsory military training for all citizens.

There has to be some give and take here.

>There has to be some give and take here.

i’d expect the subject’s come up because religion’s a warhorse, if not military then ideology, not that they’re entirely separable.

anglo-christian’s (those that identify with, even marginally) are being mobilized into the geopolitics, as a countervailing force.

transition said:

>There has to be some give and take here.

i’d expect the subject’s come up because religion’s a warhorse, if not military then ideology, not that they’re entirely separable.

anglo-christian’s (those that identify with, even marginally) are being mobilized into the geopolitics, as a countervailing force.

I see religions as memes.

Memes were invented to help explain evolving beliefs that transcend individual humans. Such as religions.

So I think of humans as a host for religion, in the same way that we can be host to a virus.

One religious minister said to me. “Christianity is like a disease, you catch it from hanging around with Christians”. There’s a lot of truth in that.

As memes, religions fight for their own survival, good old Darwinism is at work here. Religions can have sex with each other to create new child religions.

Whatever happened to cults?

There used to be a plethora of them. Now there are only two, or perhaps three.

But anyway. Does religious freedom extend to cults like, for example, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Esoteric Nazism, or Scientology?

mollwollfumble said:

Whatever happened to cults?

There used to be a plethora of them. Now there are only two, or perhaps three.

But anyway. Does religious freedom extend to cults like, for example, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Esoteric Nazism, or Scientology?

Scientology is an interesting case. The High Court has ruled that it is a religion. 

Scummo is sending a lot of the tricky questions off to a committee post election.

Is this what “religious freedom” means?