Religion

[cheebacheeba]

I read this the other day and (sorry if it's old news to anyone but...) I seriously think everyone NEEDS to observe this:

Religion is like a penis
It's fine to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it.
It's best you don't whip it out in public, and please don't shove it down the throats of any children.

There is is, just thought I'd share.

[Despare]

I read this the other day and (sorry if it's old news to anyone but...) I seriously think everyone NEEDS to observe this:

Religion is like a penis
It's fine to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it.
It's best you don't whip it out in public, and please don't shove it down the throats of any children.

There is is, just thought I'd share.

Oh Cheebs, come on out from under your bridge. Stop shoving your anti-religious views down my throat. If Religion is like a penis, then your ramblings are like some sort of strap-on lubricated with salty, slimy schmeck. :p

[cheebacheeba]

hAHA, yeah, but I can take the strap-on off, eh?

[Despare]

hAHA, yeah, but I can take the strap-on off, eh?

Sure, but the penis folk can simply wear pants. :)

[cheebacheeba]

Exactly.
I think that's what it's getting at.
Pants.

[Despare]

Exactly.
I think that's what it's getting at.
Pants.

I agree... pants.

[TheWickerFan]

I read this the other day and (sorry if it's old news to anyone but...) I seriously think everyone NEEDS to observe this:

Religion is like a penis
It's fine to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it.
It's best you don't whip it out in public, and please don't shove it down the throats of any children.

There is is, just thought I'd share.

Agreed. http://aworldofprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/religulous.jpghttp://bloodytheater.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/jesus_camp2_1.jpg

[Varrick]

Hey, don't be giving the penis a bad name by associating it with religion!

That is funny, but really, it is a worse problem than you might imagine.
Have you read any books by Sam Harris?
You should be able to check out of the library,"The End Of Faith".
Or buy it used on Amazon.
It might sound goofy, but the importance of people understanding what this book brings to light, cannot be overstated.

[novakru]

LMAO
good thread

[wufongtan.]

It's best you don't whip it out in public, and please don't shove it down the throats of any children..

Yeah, save that for the public school teachers. As they have a higher rate of pedophilia than religious folk.

[wufongtan.]

It might sound goofy, but the importance of people understanding what this book brings to light, cannot be overstated.
Yeah!. Christians are such braid dead people. I mean, like, you know? Following some book and their priests. They really need to read this book, that this person wrote and follow what he says.

[Sistinas666]

..............

[TheWickerFan]

Yeah!. Christians are such braid dead people. I mean, like, you know? Following some book and their priests. They really need to read this book, that this person wrote and follow what he says.

Terry F***wit strikes again.:rolleyes:http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/13047.gif

[ferretchucker]

That is one hell of an analogy, Cheebs :p It hits the nail on the head! Nobody cares if someone's religious or not - they just don't it to be shoved on them.

[Bizarre]

Haha, that's awesome!

[hammerfan]

Agreed. http://aworldofprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/religulous.jpghttp://bloodytheater.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/jesus_camp2_1.jpg

I watched Jesus Camp a year or so ago. Very scary stuff!

[BookZombie]

I do not agree that people should not be allowed to practice their religion in public. I will pray over my food when eating out, I will talk about my religion in public fora. Religion is not a shameful thing that should be hidden. People should be free to pray, do rituals and wear religious symbols all they want, for many people our religion is a huge part of our whole being and to hide it would be a shame.

I do agree though that you should not try to convert others and force your religion down other's throats, everyone should be free to worship as they want or not have a religion if they want and be left in peace with it without others trying to convert you.

No religion is braindead, while I do think it is a bit strange at times that many Christians can not even think the thought that men wrote their Bible and might have written it in a way to give themselves power. However that being said there is allot of positive aspects of the Christian religion and calling every Christian braindead is quite simply quite ignorant.

[TheWickerFan]

I don't think anyone said you shouldn't be allowed to practice your religion in public; just don't expect others to follow suit or start having conversations about how your religion rocks and everyone else is doomed.

[Deposable]

Religion is the #1 problem with the human race. There is no sky god going to help us with our problems, It seems the belief in god only causes more problems. And the sooner we can reply on ourselves and science to solve problems, the sooner we can evolve and progress as a whole.

Stem Cell research being delayed, 9/11, Countless wars, All because someone thought it was gods will. People interrupt religion anyway they want. Believe in the pie in the sky because in the end, we're all gonna die.

[Ferox13]

just don't expect others to follow suit or start having conversations about how your religion rocks and everyone else is doomed.

Unless your religion does totally rock like mine...

[cheebacheeba]

I'm surprised this got bought up again...I said it as a light hearted thing...but anyways offense may have been caused here, or not? I don't know.
Anyways...

I do not agree that people should not be allowed to practice their religion in public.

See, this to me (and I don't say this specifically to offend, I'm just trying to explain my point of view) is kind of stepping a little bit closer to being fanatical about your religion...because there's places of worship, and then there's not.
Choosing to make the entire open world a place of worship exposes other people to your religious practices without their choice or consent - and I don't think it's respectful of other people who simply choose to either
a: Not follow religion
b: Have religion, but not feel the need to have others observe them.
Of course, if you're part of a larger culture who does this as the "normal" thing, the statements above may not apply - some cultures where people are quite devout, will have this done as part of majority...in which case, I don't think you'd find any/many people to dispute you, as it's more of an appropriate forum where expressing your religious moxy is more widely acceptable.
Though I believe the original statement/play on words that started this thread is mainly applicable to "modern" multicultural societies.
Here, and I'm certain among many multicultural societies, the "normal" thing to do if one is religious is either stick to places of worship or the home.
Nobody is denying you your religion...I mean people may question your productivity if you're spending all day having your God time etc...but, but I honestly think that when you're living among a culture that this is not considered "normal" it's actually a bit disrespectful to conduct yourself in that manner. Not to mention a little strange.
As I said, there's places of worship, there's home, then there's everywhere else. Honestly, I'll say it however offensive it sounds...seeing people pray, kneel down, sing, or any such other display of worship in public...to me is like a guy walking around with a tennis racquet in full gear, swinging it around like he's still in the game, or a person walking along at a fast pace with their hands out in front of them like they're holding a steering wheel. That and, a little bit of "Yeah this is MY thing, just TRY to say anything about it so I can act all offended".

That said, don't even get me started on people who actually seek out others to join their religion in any way shape or form.
For that matter, I also find schools that devote any time whatsoever to religion to be absolutely wrong, no matter who, no matter what.
A person should have freedom to seek out information on their own on any given religion...it should not be thrust upon them like a campaigner looking for votes, and I do not think children should be bought up "in a religion", ever.
That's just my personal values there though, I believe in choice, exploration, and education.

just don't expect others to follow suit or start having conversations about how your religion rocks and everyone else is doomed.
Totally with you there.

Religion is the #1 problem with the human race. There is no sky god going to help us with our problems, It seems the belief in god only causes more problems. And the sooner we can reply on ourselves and science to solve problems, the sooner we can evolve and progress as a whole.
Stem Cell research being delayed, 9/11, Countless wars, All because someone thought it was gods will. People interrupt religion anyway they want. Believe in the pie in the sky because in the end, we're all gonna die.

Yes.
That and the whole abortion issue, people being forced into marriages for family status, eating/not eating certain foods, relationship exclusion of other cultures, and in other more extreme cases "bought up" to think that totally archaic and backward practices are normal to the point they don't even realise they're not afforded basic human rights.


There are reasons that I don't really choose to follow a religion, rather a value system...it's pretty generic and "fits all", not to mention most religions always have the old "Don't fuck about with other religions or else"...how do I know I've got the right one eh?
"They are wrong, we are right", so many religions preach acceptance and forgiveness yet only the most religious folks tend to sling so much shit at others. This mentality should never apply when it comes to religion or lifestyle. It's totally subjective, and unless there's a realisation that none are more valid than the other...
Let people find spirituality to what ends suit them - I just do not think that religion is something that needs to be displayed in public...and if you need to do it, respect others enough to do so discreetly.

[TheWickerFan]

I'm with Cheeba and Deposable on the issue of religion actually being harmful. So many horrors commited and so much progress hindered in the name of religion is enough to make me hate it.

I also can't help but laugh at the religious people who scoff at another religion as being "crazy" (ie: Christians vs. Scientologists). When you start breaking down the belief systems of all the different religions out there, I would be hard pressed to say which one sounded crazier.

[Straker]

I thought the original post was pretty funny, but seriously, there are some really naive opinions flying around this thread...

You folks dont want people practising their religion in public, but then can't we all come up with a bunch of shit we hate to see people doing or advertising in public? Why target religion? I'm sick to death of listening to people flick through their ipod on a train and having to listen to their shite music, or the dick head who comes out of a pub singing his favourite football chant or that silly cow out the back of the bus who wants everyone to hear her stupid fucking conversation. There are millions of people across the world who act out and do shit in public that bugs people or make a point of advertising their way of life. Who gives a fuck if a bunch of nuns wanna sing Kumbaya in public or someone wants to say a prayer before they eat their big mac?

As for 'religion' not being taught in schools and such, I think you really need to define that opinion alot better. Religious texts are some of the best wisdom literature avaliable, it would be retarded to remove religion from education. I'll asume you are just saying you don't like the idea of teaching creationism as a science or the indoctrination of our youth through religion.

As for religion being harmful, come the fuck on, we aren't all 14 year old angry children here are we? 'Religion causes war, blah-blah'. For every one man killed in the name of religion you will find one man who will claim his life has been saved by his religion. That's ignoring the millions raised through religion for worthy causes across the globe. People kill people, sometimes in the name of religion... Are you honestly gonna let yourself believe that if you get rid of religion the world will be a safer place and we are all gonna join hands and sing 'We are the world'?

[Sistinas666]

I'm surprised this got bought up again...I said it as a light hearted thing...but anyways offense may have been caused here, or not? I don't know.
Anyways....



Its my fault this came back up. I was looking through threads and mistook this for a new thread. It took me a full day before I even realized I had replied to a 6 month old Wufong post.:o

[TheWickerFan]

While I don't think there will be absolute world peace if you eliminated religion, I suspect that a lot of the ugliness between many countries would disappear. India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Ireland and England; maybe they would manage to find other things to fight about, but then again, maybe not.

[cheebacheeba]

Why target religion? I'm sick to death of listening to people flick through their ipod on a train and having to listen to their shite music, or the dick head who comes out of a pub singing his favourite football chant or that silly cow out the back of the bus who wants everyone to hear her stupid fucking conversation. There are millions of people across the world who act out and do shit in public that bugs people or make a point of advertising their way of life.

Yeah, I don't personally appreciate those folks either. I don't target religion specifically...it was just the topic that happened to be under discussion.
We've done a "what pisses me off" thread in here somewhere already, if you can find it you'll see religion is not something I particularly focus upon.
There's lists. It's been done.
I think people who react like you have take shit too personally...I mentioned before about certain people who wait to jump at things like this, and here you are questioning my maturity when I am just giving my perspective when someone evidently took offense.
I don't sugar coat things, and I don't speak bullshit.
Hell, all I said is that I don't see a need for religion to become public spectacle...personally, I think it detracts a little bit from any actual faith when you go all out with the whole "look at my faith, world!" bit.
If someone acting in a way that's not culturally "the done thing" I find it strange, a little uncomfortable, and probably most problematically is that it's really just slinging around free advertising for your organised religion of choice isn't it? - I've already said where I stand on people campaigning, and I'm sorry if it counts for me even if it's unwittingly so, and inbuilt through conditioning, another thing I personally don't agree with.
I haven't attacked YOUR religion, or any specific religion. I have nothing *really*against any given faith, just how certain groups and people conduct themselves - and while I find some things about them illogical, people are free to believe in whatever they like and act accordingly.

Religious texts are some of the best wisdom literature avaliable, it would be retarded to remove religion from education.
So if it's not your way, it's retarded...right...
All I can say there without pointing out the fundamental "lets not judge" people bit, is, each to their own.
Chances are, had you been raised in a different way, you may have a different opinion.
Values and ethics can be taught and embraced without having to refer to religious texts. That's all religion is really about, right? I mean if you take all the random crap that's open to interpretation out...being a "good" person...?
Other than that, what is there? Fables/parables presented in different ways.
Again, why this isn't something you feel can be left out of "education", is your own view on the matter.

I'll asume you are just saying you don't like the idea of teaching creationism as a science or the indoctrination of our youth through religion
Yes I prefer fact over fiction, and open philosophical discussion over religion. Less dogmatic. Less "wrong" answers.

I suspect that a lot of the ugliness between many countries would disappear.
Agreed again

maybe they would manage to find other things to fight about, but then again, maybe not.
Probably. But they wouldn't always have the same old fallback of religion - they'd actually have to stop and THINK about why they ought to be angry at each other.

[Deposable]

France banned the burqa ! I think it's great. That's a public ban of religion. Censor religion the way it's censored personal choice. No self respecting woman that hasn't been brain washed would put a burqa on their head.

Religion makes people feel ashamed of who they are. COVER YOURSELF UP ! Be Ashamed if you're black, a woman, gay, different. I'm against all forms of censorship & hate . Practice and preach "Peace & love" . That's the only way forward for us

[Straker]

I think people who react like you have take shit too personally...

Nothing personal, I just think you are talking about a social problem rather than a religious one. Anyone who imposes their belief structure on someone else is wrong, but you get force fed cock everyday, why are you stopping to check the colour?

Your views really arent all that out there, infact as this thread has proven they're pretty much mainstream. I just think its a little tragic that you don't want a religious person to pray before he eats his meal because it might make you feel 'a little uncomfortable'. Personally I think you need to get the fuck over it.


So if it's not your way, it's retarded...right...


If the way involves removing religion from schools then, yes, its totally retarded. You can't deliver a solid educational programme without acknowledging the impact of religion. You can't talk about sociology or History without discussing religion and you can't discuss literature without talking about religious texts. If you were raised in a state school, in the wester world, chances are most of those fables and parables you want to get rid of underpin most of your core values anyway.... You must see there's a huge difference between forced indoctrination or the studying and understanding of a subject.

As for the whole religion kills argument, I don't see why you arent grasping that its a circular argument. Religion kills and saves lives. I have no idea how many lives religion has saved or how many lives religion has taken, neither does anyone else, because its an abstract argument filled with way too many variables.

As for the burqa ban, if you approve of the ban, you are certainly not against all forms of censorship are you?... you just approved a ban. Wouldn't it make more sense for people to wear whatever they want and stop retarded husbands beating on their wives and forcing them to wear shit they don't want to? I don't see how a blanket ban on burqa's actually stops oppression.

[TheWickerFan]

In the U.S., religious teachings have been removed from the schools, years ago. Because not all the children are Christians! Don't you think people of other faiths or non-believers should be spared these teachings which, to them, would seem like a fairy tale or worse, a spit in the face to what they believe in?

Wait a minute! You're the same guy who believed people should be put in jail for missing parent teacher conferences!:eek:

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56513

[cheebacheeba]

You must see there's a huge difference between forced indoctrination or the studying and understanding of a subject.

That's one thing we can solidly agree on, as "religious studies" say at university/college would be a solid grounding on such knowledge, as opposed to the thinly veiled enrollment in a parents religion of choice that attending a religion-related school does.
"This is how OUR bible works" does not provide a well rounded perspective or understanding at all.

I just think its a little tragic that you don't want a religious person to pray before he eats his meal because it might make you feel 'a little uncomfortable'. Personally I think you need to get the fuck over it.

Tragic it may be...moreso that people are simply not as spiritual as they can or ought to be any more, but it is what it is.
Just saying that I don't need to see it done, in front of me?
Being in the minority as you've acknowledged the counter as the "mainstream", wouldn't you then be taking away a lot more peoples choice not to live immersed in devout religion, than they would be yours?
What I meant by that it was a "little uncomfortable" is, like seeing a person with a strange mark on their face...I don't want to have to feel rude by looking at them wondering whats up with that...and if I do, then what...I'm the prick? or I get the "why are you staring at me, if they catch me looking at them for just a moment?
It's almost like those folks who have a lot of tats then get all aggravated when you pause to take a look at them. See? it causes issues. You might not react that way and I'm not saying you do, but, you cannot tell me this hasn't, or wouldn't happen.
This is (however you choose to perceive it by your own) in my perspective, exposing others to your religion...when you needn't...the whole prayer bit anyways, again it's about spectacle. What, like your God can't hear you without throwing up whatever religious gang sign/pose you do to talk to them? :rolleyes:
By the way, quit looking at me while I'm riding my imaginary bike.

That said, I've nothing against religious garb...unless it's been imposed on people from such a young age that they don't think of their lack of choice in the matter as even a relevant factor.
You may think it's just the same thing as a person praying, but I don't think so, anyone could wear clothes in any way they like.

[Straker]

In the U.S., religious teachings have been removed from the schools, years ago. Because not all the children are Christians!

Why do you have to be Christian to have an understanding of religions or religious practises? You seem to be thinking that if you read the bible you turn Christian....

Don't you think people of other faiths or non-believers should be spared these teachings which, to them, would seem like a fairy tale or worse, a spit in the face to what they believe in?

Its wisdom literature that is steeped in your History and mine... Why on earth would you want to deny anyone access to that?

[TheWickerFan]

Why do you have to be Christian to have an understanding of religions or religious practises? You seem to be thinking that if you read the bible you turn Christian....


When did I say that?:confused:

I can see I'm wasting my time. You're only hearing what you want to hear.:rolleyes:

[Straker]

When did I say that?:confused:

I can see I'm wasting my time. You're only hearing what you want to hear.:rolleyes:

No, I just think that a balanced education should include a working understanding of religion, religious practises, the historical impact of religion, the literary impact of religion. You cant have a well rounded education without acknowleging religion, its got nothing to do with whether or not people are religious...

[TheWickerFan]

No, I just think that a balanced education should include a working understanding of religion, religious practises, the historical impact of religion, the literary impact of religion. You cant have a well rounded education without acknowleging religion, its got nothing to do with whether or not people are religious...

It's not like the schools deny that religion exists; they just leave the Bible alone. They can't win with that. Whether they teach the stories as history or as myths, you're going to get angry parents beating down the doors either way.

[Deposable]

As for the whole religion kills argument, I don't see why you arent grasping that its a circular argument. Religion kills and saves lives. I have no idea how many lives religion has saved or how many lives religion has taken, neither does anyone else, because its an abstract argument filled with way too many variables.


Religion has never saved a single life. Only science saves.


Jesus died for my sins ? That's assuming I am a sinful person. Sorry, never knew the guy.

[Straker]

Religion has never saved a single life. Only science saves.


Jesus died for my sins ? That's assuming I am a sinful person. Sorry, never knew the guy.

There are probably millions of people across the globe who would claim they owe their life to their faith... Thats ignoring the money that gets pumped into charity organisations from religion.

Religious literature, especially things like the bible, are great historical tools and help us better apprecite and understand our past and the values that underpin our society.

[slysje]

There are probably millions of people across the globe who would claim they owe their life to their faith...

if I claim cheese sandwiches saved my life, does that make it true?

[Straker]

if I claim cheese sandwiches saved my life, does that make it true?

Did a cheese sandwich save your life?

[slysje]

sure it did

[cheebacheeba]

if I claim cheese sandwiches saved my life, does that make it true?

You should get together with a few friends, write a few more stories about the sandwich then leave it go for a couple thousand years...I'll bet a bunch of people will be living their life by it.

[slysje]

good idea! but of course Jesus had the advantage of superstition.

BTW Im not saying Jesus didnt excist. Im just saying he isnt the son of God and didnt rise from the dead. No offense

[swiss tony]

I, personally, have a lot to thank Jesus for. Making me an atheist, for one thing!

[slysje]

I, personally, have a lot to thank Jesus for. Making me an atheist, for one thing!

Amen to that brother:p

[Bizarre]

In fairness, it was going to a Catholic school that made me atheist. They tried to be liberal and told us alternative theories to religion. All that did was make me go "Hang on, these make MUCH more sense!"

Every atheist goes through an angry faze, angry that they were duped for so long. I've gotten over that and people rarely mention religon to me if I don't to them. I agree, it does a lot of damage but it can be overcome. Saying that people are blind to it doesn't help and will only make them cling to it more. I think that it has been very damaging throughout history but frankly, I am more concerned about the tabloid and mainstream media warping people's minds than I am about religion doing the same.

Being an angry atheist helps no-one. You're either going to have your words fall on deaf ears or preach to the choir.

Then again, maybe my apathy is worse. I sometimes think it is.

[Diabolical]

I worship the Christian Devil.

[Fearonsarms]

A mate of mine thinks I belong to a horror cult. I suppose in a way that's true.

[TheWickerFan]

A mate of mine thinks I belong to a horror cult. I suppose in a way that's true.

I wonder who the God of the horror cult is? Satan or Bruce Campbell?

[Diabolical]

Fuk Bruce Cambell. Hahah

[BookZombie]

See, this to me (and I don't say this specifically to offend, I'm just trying to explain my point of view) is kind of stepping a little bit closer to being fanatical about your religion...because there's places of worship, and then there's not.

No there is not places of worship and then there is not. You do not stop believing in your religion once you are out of your Church, your Mosque or your Ritual chamber and so on, for a religious person our faith is not something we do, it is something we are, it is a part of everyday life as well as times set aside for worship. Please tell me what is fanatical about this.

Choosing to make the entire open world a place of worship exposes other people to your religious practices without their choice or consent - and I don't think it's respectful of other people who simply choose to either

I do not like football, should I demand that everyone who have this interest refrain from talking about it, reading about it, or having football themed music on their cell phone as it might expose others like me who do not like fotball to it without our consent?

Incidentally your argument here is exactly the same argument that gay people often face, do not kiss or hold hands in public you might expose someone to gayness without their consent. Here is the thing, as long as people are not harming anyone, is nothing nagging people and are not loud and obnoxious people should be allowed to do whatever they please in public, that be kissing their same sex partner, recite a table prayer or watch a football match on their tablet PC.

a: Not follow religion
b: Have religion, but not feel the need to have others observe them.

And how do it harm these people to see me whisper a grace over my hamburger and chocolate milkshake at Burger King?

Of course, if you're part of a larger culture who does this as the "normal" thing, the statements above may not apply - some cultures where people are quite devout, will have this done as part of majority...in which case, I don't think you'd find any/many people to dispute you, as it's more of an appropriate forum where expressing your religious moxy is more widely acceptable.

So what you are saying is that one should never behave in a way which is contrary to the norm of one's culture in public? Goths are horrible people? What about the women in Iran who wears as little head covering as they can get away with and fight for their civil rights, that is against the social norm, or for that matter male nurses in Western hospitals also against the social norm. Or is it just when it comes to religion one should follow social norms?

Here, and I'm certain among many multicultural societies, the "normal" thing to do if one is religious is either stick to places of worship or the home.

There are many people who are quite secular about their religion, they go to Church every Sunday and do not give a shit the rest of the week, however there is allot of people to where religion is a part of our lives and is not something just practiced at sites of worship. I will not hide my religion in shame because some Atheist might be offended at seeing me pray for my food or meditate on the buss.

Nobody is denying you your religion...I mean people may question your productivity if you're spending all day having your God time etc...but, but I honestly think that when you're living among a culture that this is not considered "normal" it's actually a bit disrespectful to conduct yourself in that manner. Not to mention a little strange.

First off all I am not saying one is in a meditation position preying all day. Some religions have daily practice which can be disruptive to a normal job, like Muslim prayer time, other religions daily practice might be a muttered grace, or a whispered thank you to the God's when something favorable happens, it takes seconds and do not impair productivity. It is not disrespectful to show that one is religious nor is it disrespectful to behave, dress or be in a manner which do not conform to social norms. It is not disrespectful to be strange.

As I said, there's places of worship, there's home, then there's everywhere else. Honestly, I'll say it however offensive it sounds...seeing people pray, kneel down, sing, or any such other display of worship in public...to me is like a guy walking around with a tennis racquet in full gear, swinging it around like he's still in the game, or a person walking along at a fast pace with their hands out in front of them like they're holding a steering wheel. That and, a little bit of "Yeah this is MY thing, just TRY to say anything about it so I can act all offended".

First of all if a guy walk around with his arms around him like if he is still steering his car, do it harm you in any way? If that is how this man prefer to walk how is that any of your business? No one have denied you the right to think religious displays in public strange, however from that to wanting to deny people the right to do these things that do not harm anyone else just because your view of the world do not include the supernatural or anything Spiritual is as bad as Christians or Muslims trying to prevent people from being Atheist.

That said, don't even get me started on people who actually seek out others to join their religion in any way shape or form.

I do not have a problem with it, every so often we have a Jehovah's Witness or other on the door, I say no thank you and they leave, and are usually more polite than other door to door salesmen. Off course there are aggressive converters and they are idiots and are a pest and it is not acceptable but if someone try to give me information about their religion I am not offended.

For that matter, I also find schools that devote any time whatsoever to religion to be absolutely wrong, no matter who, no matter what.

I do not think schools should try to raise children into any religion, however to not mention it at all would mean allot of world history having to be skipped over. School should not be a way to learn about religion, but to be so afraid of religion that it is not even mentioned is equally wrong. Religion have played an important part in world history for good and for bad and this should not be forgotten.

A person should have freedom to seek out information on their own on any given religion...it should not be thrust upon them like a campaigner looking for votes, and I do not think children should be bought up "in a religion", ever.

I agree, however if the parents is religious then it might be difficult not to have any influence on the child in this regard. If I had a child then I would teach them about many religions, and also about science and let them choose when they wanted to choose.

I believe in choice, exploration, and education.

So do I.

[BookZombie]

While I don't think there will be absolute world peace if you eliminated religion, I suspect that a lot of the ugliness between many countries would disappear. India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Ireland and England; maybe they would manage to find other things to fight about, but then again, maybe not.

One problem I have with Atheists is that they go and say religions make no sense and religious people do not think, and then they turn around and do not think themselves. It is popular to give religion the blame for every war. However think for a moment, do you really think for example with the unrest in the Middle East that religion have anything to do with it? Religion is the banner, it is the rallying point, however the reason for the war is two peoples both wanting the same piece of land.

If you look at religious wars from the Crusades to the present you see the same. Religion is the rallying point, and allot of shit have been done in the name of religion to be sure, however to think that the wars will all go away if there where no religion is naive. Religion is not the cause of these wars, various far more practical reasons are, social injustice, greed, the desire for power and so on and so on. If there where no religion the wars would still be fought, just under new banners. Just look at various Communist nations where religion is often forbidden, the same shit, the same wars just a new banner. Religion is not the big bad, people are.

[TheWickerFan]

However think for a moment, do you really think for example with the unrest in the Middle East that religion have anything to do with it?

Yes. Yes I do.

[BookZombie]

Yes. Yes I do.

I do not mean any disrespect but then you need to read up more about it. Religion is a banner, but the heart of the conflict is about land, about the Israeli and the Palestinians warring for control over land. They both want the land and they use religion as an banner to fight under, but take away religion and they both still want the land and will still fight for it.

[Diabolical]

Ive never seen so much nonsense.

[Bizarre]

I actually agree with BookZombie.

Personally, I don't get it. I don't think that is a bad thing but I simply don't get it. I don't understand how it feels to be that devoted to something. There really isn't an example. It may be a bit sad. In fact, I think it is. Maybe when I have felt like that I will empathise but for now I'll have to settle for logically understanding that I don't understand.

[Sistinas666]

As offensive as I may be at times, there are 3 things I try to stay away from here:.....my sex life(or lack of one)......my religious beliefs........my political beliefs........:p:D:p

[neverending]

As offensive as I may be at times, there are 3 things I try to stay away from here:.....my sex life(or lack of one)......my religious beliefs........my political beliefs........:p:D:p



Amen!

...........

[BookZombie]

Ive never seen so much nonsense.

So you can not counter my arguments you can just say that they are nonsense, what a great debate technique. Tell me do you think Israeli and Palestinians will immediately become friends if they where not religious? Then please tell me how would they solve their conflict over land which obviously would be quite easy if this one factor was taken out of a very complex issue, if you think I am wrong, then prove me wrong, that is nonsense makes about as much sense as when I saw this guy make a long and detailed post on why there is a difference between men and women in terms of willingness to take risks and a feminist on the thread answered biology is nonsense, no refuting his points, no actual intelligent addition to the debate just biology is nonsense, guess who won the debate.

[TheWickerFan]

As offensive as I may be at times, there are 3 things I try to stay away from here:.....my sex life(or lack of one)......my religious beliefs........my political beliefs........:p:D:p

You're right. I probably should steer clear when those subjects come up. Also the subject of child-rearing (though that's less common here).

[slysje]

sure religion is not the only problem in the middle east but religion is mostly the reason why other countries are pro Israel or pro Palenstine

[BookZombie]

Yes people's choice of who to support is often based on religion, though it often is also based on fear as many support Israel regardless of what they do as they are afraid of Muslims, though I guess fear of a religion can also be considered a religions reason for choosing a side. But the conflict itself is based on land.

[Diabolical]

So you can not counter my arguments you can just say that they are nonsense, what a great debate technique. Tell me do you think Israeli and Palestinians will immediately become friends if they where not religious? Then please tell me how would they solve their conflict over land which obviously would be quite easy if this one factor was taken out of a very complex issue, if you think I am wrong, then prove me wrong, that is nonsense makes about as much sense as when I saw this guy make a long and detailed post on why there is a difference between men and women in terms of willingness to take risks and a feminist on the thread answered biology is nonsense, no refuting his points, no actual intelligent addition to the debate just biology is nonsense, guess who won the debate.

I didnt read all that shit. You type too dam much. Isreal? Palestine? I dont give 2 flying fucks about them and what theyre doing. If you aint my religion, fuck your religion. BTW, do you wear a wig?

[wufongtan.]

Terry F***wit strikes again.:rolleyes:http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/13047.gif

Is that it? I know i hurt your feelings with wit. But gesh. Try and be a little more creative with your.....O wait. You think bill maher is leet. never mind.

See, this to me (and I don't say this specifically to offend, I'm just trying to explain my point of view) is kind of stepping a little bit closer to being fanatical about your religion...because there's places of worship, and then there's not.
Choosing to make the entire open world a place of worship exposes other people to your religious practices without their choice or consent - and I don't think it's respectful of other people who simply choose to either
a: Not follow religion
b: Have religion, but not feel the need to have others observe them.
If someone wants to pray in public they should be able to. It is what living in a free society is all about. If seeing someone say a prayer in public is distressing to you, then you are in need of a phycologist. If one can't say a pray in public because some how it exposes someone to religion without their consent. Then all forms of public demonstrations should be banned. I never gave no one permission to expose me to their political ideas. One thing about living in a free country is, if you see someone praying. You can always turn your head or look away. What you're proposing is a form of dictatorship.

I'm with Cheeba and Deposable on the issue of religion actually being harmful. So many horrors commited and so much progress hindered in the name of religion is enough to make me hate it.
Yeah, religious people be as peaceful as the atheists who, started ww1, ww2 . Or the countless genocides they introduced on the world.,

[Diabolical]

I thought the original post was pretty funny, but seriously, there are some really naive opinions flying around this thread...
I'm sick to death of listening to people flick through their ipod on a train and having to listen to their shite music, or the dick head who comes out of a pub singing his favourite football chant or that silly cow out the back of the bus who wants everyone to hear her stupid fucking conversation.ld'?

That shit is easy to handle. I tell people off all the time. If its on my mind, i say it.

[TheWickerFan]

Okay, I apologize to Wufong for comparing him to a Viz character. I'm still rather steamed up for what he did to Elvis Christ.

[BookZombie]

I didnt read all that shit. You type too dam much. Isreal? Palestine? I dont give 2 flying fucks about them and what theyre doing. If you aint my religion, fuck your religion. BTW, do you wear a wig?

Ehm...eh...right I think you need to take you medication my dear. Either that you you are making a joke and I am not just getting it and it is I who need a sense of humor. :P

[BookZombie]

If someone wants to pray in public they should be able to. It is what living in a free society is all about. If seeing someone say a prayer in public is distressing to you, then you are in need of a phycologist. If one can't say a pray in public because some how it exposes someone to religion without their consent. Then all forms of public demonstrations should be banned. I never gave no one permission to expose me to their political ideas. One thing about living in a free country is, if you see someone praying. You can always turn your head or look away. What you're proposing is a form of dictatorship.

Word! Great points.

[ferretchucker]

Amen!

...........

Love the fact that nobody spotted the irony of this post! [Intentional, I presume, Nev?]

[Diabolical]

Word! Great points.

what religion are you if you dont mind. i noticed you wear a cross, but you're an occultist? im confused.

ok, so i read its a popular symbol. itm still curious though.

[BookZombie]

I am Pagan, though the God Jehovah and Jesus is one of many Gods I worship. Mostly though I like the cross since it long before Christianity begun using it was a symbol of the material's meeting with the Spiritual and the soul's yearning for Spiritual development.

[Ferox13]

what religion are you if you dont mind. i noticed you wear a cross, but you're an occultist? im confused.

ok, so i read its a popular symbol. itm still curious though.

Its kinda like wearing a swastika and not being a nazi. Though it is alot older than a 20th century symbol, by wearing one most people (in Western society) will assume you are a nazi.

[BookZombie]

Good analogy Ferox13, though usually sun cross when worn by Buddhists and a few other religions that use it have it turned the other way, but yes basically the same symbol as the swastika though given a different meaning.

[Sistinas666]

Its kinda like wearing a swastika and not being a nazi. Though it is alot older than a 20th century symbol, by wearing one most people (in Western society) will assume you are a nazi.



Before the nazis sullied the image of the swastika the Boy Scouts used it as a good luck symbol. I came across an old boy scout "good luck" swastika coin as a kid and was kind of confused. Had to have my father explain it to me. Sorry for going off topic but that post just reminded me of that.......lol

[BookZombie]

Actually the whole thing with the sun cross piss me off. It is actually illegal to wear the symbol in public in Norway which is in reality religious persecution. I mean many Buddhists have this symbol as one of their most holy and they can not wear it in Norway. However there have happened allot of shit under the banner of the cross to, I wonder what would happen if they tried to forbid that.

Also as a side note I think it is wrong to forbid people who are Nazi to wear the symbol, I think Neo Nazis are messed up in the head and I could not disagree with them more. However part of the freedom of speech is that even idiots get to express themselves. If they harm anyone throw their asses in jail but if they just want to go around and hate and wear the swastika then by all means let them, it also makes it easier to identify them to keep an eye on them.

[ferretchucker]

Also as a side note I think it is wrong to forbid people who are Nazi to wear the symbol, I think Neo Nazis are messed up in the head and I could not disagree with them more. However part of the freedom of speech is that even idiots get to express themselves. If they harm anyone throw their asses in jail but if they just want to go around and hate and wear the swastika then by all means let them, it also makes it easier to identify them to keep an eye on them.

That's an interesting point. At what point does something become offensive enough that it has to be banned? I mean, the swastika literally means good luck. Hindus have used it for years as well as boy scouts.

But as for its use in relation to Nazi beliefs, I wonder. Consider this. Racism is illegal, or at least, public racism is illegal. As in, you can have your views, however the second they leave your mouth you are guilty of prejudice biggotry and if it offends, you can get in serious shit. The swastika has unfortunately come to represent views precisely of that nature, and therefore, in wearing it, a neo-nazi is physically displaying their hostile views with intention of letting others know. Is that different from announcing publicly in the streets "I hate n*****s and Jews!"? It has potential to offend many.

The issue with freedom of speech is that there is no way to "measure" offensiveness. Anything has the potential to offend anybody. And when it does, you're breaching their freedoms. Something as widely offensive as racism is publicly recognised as outrageous and therefore it is controlled. However the classic argument is "I have a right to my views!" and therefore in suppressing them you are removing the racist's freedoms, because they have in turn breached the offended person's freedoms.

It's a continuing cycle. I don't know. To be honest, I don't think broad laws can be put on matters which are entirely based on personal reactions such as how offended people are, because it differs so much from person to person. I just hope people aren't so disrespectful of their fellow humans that they would do something so widely recognised as offensive.

[BookZombie]

I think that one of the most important rights we have is the right of free speech, and I see it as a breech of this that Nazis and other racists can not express their views. Granted I mean there is limits to what should have been allowed, for example bothering people on the streets for example is out of the question, posting racist messages on billboards and the like to is out of the question. However wearing person symbols of one's views that should be allowed, the same with having websites or writing books and so on as long as they do not encourage people to hurt one another.

Again I do not support racism, I think it is both stupid and indescribably ignorant, however if people want to be fools I think they should be allowed to be fools as long as they do not harm anyone. I think that if someone want to say publicly I hate such and such people, that is their business what is not okey is to incite to violence or try to tarnish other's reputation or walk up to people in the streets bothering them.

[ferretchucker]

I think that one of the most important rights we have is the right of free speech, and I see it as a breech of this that Nazis and other racists can not express their views. Granted I mean there is limits to what should have been allowed, for example bothering people on the streets for example is out of the question, posting racist messages on billboards and the like to is out of the question. However wearing person symbols of one's views that should be allowed, the same with having websites or writing books and so on as long as they do not encourage people to hurt one another.

Again I do not support racism, I think it is both stupid and indescribably ignorant, however if people want to be fools I think they should be allowed to be fools as long as they do not harm anyone. I think that if someone want to say publicly I hate such and such people, that is their business what is not okey is to incite to violence or try to tarnish other's reputation or walk up to people in the streets bothering them.

I see your point, but again, the issue is that it is likely to result in public unrest. Being homosexual, if I were to see somebody with a placard telling all queers to go to hell, I'd probably get fairly pissed and start an argument. Whilst I'm aware there's a difference between holding a placard and wearing a symbol, to some they will have the same effect. Arguments, fights, street brawls and perhaps even deaths could ensue.

A religious symbol usually won't have this effect because these are simply symbols of spiritual belief - for the most part they are used in a positive way. However a racist person using a racist symbol is outwardly displaying generalised hatred towards a great deal of people. Freedom of speech is important, however it must be weighed against the result and if the cost is too great, I can understand the censorship.

[swiss tony]

Yeah, it is funny! In the UK our society says to the fascist 'we accept your right to express your beliefs of repression and control and we would fight to the death to defend these rights'. That's democracy for you. I also love consumerism and capitalism with proper taxation, imports and exports.

FYI Rudyard Kipling's works were initially released with the elephant and swastika crest on the cover but he soon stopped when National Socialism took off. It seemes strange that a symbol of Hinduism for 2000 years can be hijacked and ruined after 30 years of a distasteful association.

[TheWickerFan]

It's a fine line between exercising your right to free speech and inciting a riot. If some moron decides to preach white supremacy in the middle of Harlem, he's going to cause big trouble that will inevitably involve the police. That sounds like inciting violence to me. I don't know the story behind banning the swastika in Norway, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that every time some fool decides to wear one, he gets his butt kicked and has to be rescued by the cops. Maybe they got sick and tired of all the trouble it was causing.

The Reverend Phelps seems to know exactly where that line is drawn. He's managed to avoid any legal trouble as far as I know.

[ferretchucker]

It's a fine line between exercising your right to free speech and inciting a riot.



Exactly.
...

[Fearonsarms]

I wonder who the God of the horror cult is? Satan or Bruce Campbell?

Well I'd say neither but you make an interesting point as to who the god (or leader or whatever) of the horror cult could be. Who is the spiritual leader of horror? Who do members of the horror cult worship? We could say anything really-HP Lovecraft, Dario Argento, Freddy Krueger etc-any horror writer, director, character, producer, artist, filmmaker-another question could be=do we worship such people when we are self confessed fans? Especially as fan is short for fanatic...

[wufongtan.]

My brother inlaw is from india. He has a "swastika" tattooed on the webbing on his hand. I asked why do you have that, you a nazi or something? He said "no, it is a sathio. and its a hindu thing blah blah" Or something i tuned out. As he likes to ramble. Any way if you have a look. You will see the arms on the swastika and sathio face opposite directions. Sort of like a mirror image.

[BookZombie]

Greetings

I see your point, but again, the issue is that it is likely to result in public unrest. Being homosexual, if I were to see somebody with a placard telling all queers to go to hell, I'd probably get fairly pissed and start an argument. Whilst I'm aware there's a difference between holding a placard and wearing a symbol, to some they will have the same effect. Arguments, fights, street brawls and perhaps even deaths could ensue.

I am bisexual and I to do take offense at statements such as gays to to hell, however I also see that it is an individual's right to hate. If they for example want to wear a tshirt with such a message I would think that they where complete idiots, but I would tolerate their views. I do not think that the way to change people's minds away from bigotry is to outlaw them from expressing their views. I mean they can turn right back and say, well I think it is offense to see two gays kiss, and then in addition to the hate that is already there they get a feeling of resentment as they feel unfairly treated. However by letting them have their views but working against such ignorance that way one can change minds.

It's a fine line between exercising your right to free speech and inciting a riot. If some moron decides to preach white supremacy in the middle of Harlem, he's going to cause big trouble that will inevitably involve the police. That sounds like inciting violence to me.

There is a fine line, however what crime an idiot preaching white supremacy Harlem is doing is not that he preach his views, it is that by action of doing it exactly there he is insulting people beyond just expressing personal views. I mean that if someone walk around with a I love bacon tshirt that might offend some Muslims and PETA, however they will just have to accept that. Going into a Mosque or for that matter PETA's yearly meet up however with said tshirt that I would say is begging for trouble and is far less acceptable.

I don't know the story behind banning the swastika in Norway, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that every time some fool decides to wear one, he gets his butt kicked and has to be rescued by the cops. Maybe they got sick and tired of all the trouble it was causing.

It was outlawed after WW2 because it was the symbol of the Nazi, no other reason than that.

I wonder who the God of the horror cult is? Satan or Bruce Campbell?

I would say it would be fear itself, after all that is what we are searching for is to be scared so the God of horror have to be fear.

[TheWickerFan]

This seemed relevant to the debate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/24/david-mitchell-piss-christ-religion

[ferretchucker]

Greetings



I am bisexual and I to do take offense at statements such as gays to to hell, however I also see that it is an individual's right to hate. If they for example want to wear a tshirt with such a message I would think that they where complete idiots, but I would tolerate their views. I do not think that the way to change people's minds away from bigotry is to outlaw them from expressing their views. I mean they can turn right back and say, well I think it is offense to see two gays kiss, and then in addition to the hate that is already there they get a feeling of resentment as they feel unfairly treated. However by letting them have their views but working against such ignorance that way one can change minds.



In the example of them getting offended by seeing two gays kiss, the difference in the nature of the stimulus must be noted.


Being offended by a person with hate filled placards and spouting their anger is caused by the fact that said person is displaying hatred. Their views are negative and as such, people react negatively.
Two gays kissing is - like anybody kissing - caused by attraction. It's a positive emotion and whilst many feel uneasy about it, it is not inherently a negative thing.


I completely understand your arguments, but I'm sticking to my guns that when freedom of speech is likely to result in such an overwhelmingly negative emotional response and is attached to historic events which many would like to forget -


Stastika when linked to neo-nazis - WW2 and Holocaust
Anti-Semetism - Years of oppression and pogroms for the Jews
Racism - The slave trade, segregation and continual animosity


it is sometimes better to control it. For societies' sake.

[BookZombie]

* Two gays kissing is - like anybody kissing - caused by attraction. It's a positive emotion and whilst many feel uneasy about it, it is not inherently a negative thing.

Off course it is not a negative thing not to me and you at least, but to many people this is offensive and is as in your face as someone wearing a hateful sign. I do not understand such a reaction to it, it is two people kissing but still it can generate just as negative a response as a hateful sign.

I completely understand your arguments, but I'm sticking to my guns that when freedom of speech is likely to result in such an overwhelmingly negative emotional response and is attached to historic events which many would like to forget -

I do see your point, however my problem with it is, 50 years ago a black man in USA wearing a tshirt that said my kid have as much the right to a good eduction as your kid, could cause just as much overwhelming negative response. My hubby had a teacher who was a sailor in the 1950's, one time he was in USA and he saw that blacks and whites could not sit in the same place on the buss. Now this sailor said fuck this, it is not fair and sat down in the black section. As a result he was beaten up but a gang of white men who was offended that he had sympathies with the black population, today men like this sailor is the heroes, however if he and the others of any race who thought segregation where bullshit had considered, oh, well I should not express myself in a way that could lead to overwhelming negative emotional responses then there might still be a black and a white part off the buss.

One have to tolerate idiots using the freedom of speech and freedom of expression because one day one might need that right to fight for what is just and right but which might not be accepted by mainstream society. The protection of the freedom of expression have never been about protecting popular expressions, but rather it is about everyone having the right to express their views, no matter what those views might be.

it is sometimes better to control it. For societies' sake.

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

[cheebacheeba]

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to.

Religion is a choice, being homosexual (I don't call them gays any more than you'd like to be called "prays") or black is not.
Bringing this up doesn't really validate or further back up your point.
Just saying.
It's like comparing apples and paperclips...

[ferretchucker]

Off course it is not a negative thing not to me and you at least, but to many people this is offensive and is as in your face as someone wearing a hateful sign.

I do see your point, however my problem with it is, 50 years ago a black man in USA wearing a tshirt that said my kid have as much the right to a good eduction as your kid, could cause just as much overwhelming negative response. My hubby had a teacher who was a sailor in the 1950's, one time he was in USA and he saw that blacks and whites could not sit in the same place on the buss. Now this sailor said fuck this, it is not fair and sat down in the black section. As a result he was beaten up but a gang of white men who was offended that he had sympathies with the black population, today men like this sailor is the heroes, however if he and the others of any race who thought segregation where bullshit had considered, oh, well I should not express myself in a way that could lead to overwhelming negative emotional responses then there might still be a black and a white part off the buss.

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

But in these examples - the homosexuals kissing, the black man wanting his children to have an education and the sympathetic white man on the bus - whilst their actions cause offense, that was not their initial intention. Their personal intentions were positive - acts of love and kinship. However a racist baring their symbol does so with intent of showing others their hatred towards a group of people. Both stimuli cause offense - however it is the intention behind them that makes the racist's case weaker when it comes to their freedom.

[Ferox13]

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

How do ppl feel about political direct action and 'no platform for fascists'.
Meaning that you nip these people in the bud by anyways necessary. Think of it as if you heard Hitler preaching in the beerhalls would you have liked to stop his freedom of speech?

[cheebacheeba]

I don't really like to see anyone making out in public...irks me...too much of a pronunciation of ownership or insecurity if you ask me. Not saying it is in all cases but yeah sometimes you look and just think "For fucks sake you two, get over yourselves".

Yeah, hatred based rants and behaviour ought to be kept in check...
I don't personally hate religion as such, I don't really approve of how a lot of people handle it though.

[BookZombie]

Religion is a choice, being homosexual (I don't call them gays any more than you'd like to be called "prays") or black is not.

I agree. I am bisexual and humosexuality is something one is born as. However I do not share your idea that gay is a bad word. And also if you want to call me a pray then go ahead, though as I am Pagan I would thing paggy might fit better.

Bringing this up doesn't really validate or further back up your point.
Just saying.
It's like comparing apples and paperclips...

Really? How do bringing up one activity which some people find offensive not relate to discussing if one should disallow things which people find offensive?

But in these examples - the homosexuals kissing, the black man wanting his children to have an education and the sympathetic white man on the bus - whilst their actions cause offense, that was not their initial intention.

I get your point here, however let me take another example. Not long ago Facebook took down a picture of two men kissing. Allot of other facebook users, myself included posted the article and picture of this on our pages in outrage. Now reposting this picture was done in a way offend Facebook to show support to the user that had his picture taken down, however with the hope that with enough people doing this Facebook would see how ridiculous their policy was.

Their personal intentions were positive - acts of love and kinship.

Who is going to judge if someone's intentions are positive? Many of those that fight gay rights do so thinking they are loving and positive protecting marriage or whatever they are doing, not that I understand how denying gays to marry protects marriage but that is another debate. Like they say the path to hell is often paved with good intentions, so who devides what is good and positive?

However a racist baring their symbol does so with intent of showing others their hatred towards a group of people.

In their world view showing off Nazi symbols can be a way to do good, to protect what they believe in. Remember it might be twisted but hardly do someone think their own actions are evil. Let me make an example, in Norway during WW2 many Norwegians secretly wore symbols that showed their hatred for the Germans, some even wore them openly and died for it. Now today we see them as brave and I agree, I am on their side I am just playing devils advocate her, racists and new Nazis might think just the same way, they are bravely displaying the symbols of their cause,and while I think their cause is bullshit, who is going to sit and judge? I mean the Germans in WW2 took great offense to the anti Nazi pins and symbols that Norwegians wore, where those Norwegians wrong to?

Both stimuli cause offense - however it is the intention behind them that makes the racist's case weaker when it comes to their freedom

I do agree that intention play into it, and that when one express oneself with the intention to cause offense one have a weaker case when it comes to the freedom of expression than when one do not wish to cause offense. However I have a example about this, could you tell me how you would judge in this.

Two years ago on May 8, women's day in Norway a Muslim woman who are a outspoken advocate for women's rights in Islam was hosting a demonstration. This demonstration would culminate in her coming onto the stage wearing a Abaya and then would rip it off, wearing Western clothing under it, and toss the Abaya into a fire.

Now this demonstration was off course meant to demonstrate disgust for the garment and the practice behind it, but it was also meant to offend and prove a point. Now there where a fair number of Muslims at the demonstration and they where working them self up into a frenzy. The Norwegian police came in and stopped the demonstration and told the hostess that no, she was offending the Muslims and she could not burn the Abaya. Do you think the police where right in their actions or should the hostess have been allowed to burn the garment and continued with the demonstration?

How do ppl feel about political direct action and 'no platform for fascists'.
Meaning that you nip these people in the bud by anyways necessary. Think of it as if you heard Hitler preaching in the beerhalls would you have liked to stop his freedom of speech?

Me personally would I have liked to stop him, yes. And had I stood there with knowledge of what came of his speech off course I would. However would I think it morally right to stop him from expressing his views, no. It is a slippery slope when one say freedom of speech will be denied one group as that make it far easier to deny it to someone else.

I don't really like to see anyone making out in public...irks me...too much of a pronunciation of ownership or insecurity if you ask me. Not saying it is in all cases but yeah sometimes you look and just think "For fucks sake you two, get over yourselves".

I actually agree on this, a little kiss to show affection not a problem, but when people are sucking on one another faces and their hands are everywhere and they are sticking their tongues down one another's throats then that irk me, I think they can take that at home no matter who they happens to be kissing. However I do not think one should outlaw this behavior just because I am not so fond of seeing it.

[Diabolical]

Hail Satan on this Easter Sunday! Christ is still dead.

[ferretchucker]

Hail Satan on this Easter Sunday! Christ is still dead.

That was Friday. He's back now, didn't you hear?

[Fearonsarms]

Wow bookzombie great answer-we worship fear cos we want to be scared by it-that is a great sentiment-I should have put fear worshipper on this year's census had I thought of it at the time-as it was I put "pagan" down though I'm no die hard pagan-I am very interested in pagan beliefs (especially shamanism for me personally) and the occult so I went with that.