Interesting thesis from the odd Archbishop

[OldPhart]

I seldom agree with the man, but he may be on to something here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490

[Vilepagan]

I seldom agree with the man, but he may be on to something here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490

I'm not sure about the Archbishop, but the author of the piece produced some very poor examples of the persecution of Christians.

In recent times, there has been a string of cases in which it is no exaggeration to say that British Christians have been persecuted for expressing their faith.

In July, Duke Amachree, a Christian who for 18 years had been a Homelessness Prevention Officer for Wandsworth Council, encouraged a client with an incurable medical condition to believe in God.

As a result, Mr Amachree was marched off the premises, suspended and then dismissed from his job. It was a similar case to the Christian nurse who was suspended after offering to pray for a patient's recovery.

Christians are being removed from adoption panels if they refuse to endorse placing children for adoption with samesex couples.

Similarly, a Christian counsellor was sacked by the national counselling service Relate because he refused to give sex therapy sessions to gays.

What this amounts to is that for Christians, the freedom to live according to their religious beliefs - one of the most fundamental precepts of a liberal society - is fast becoming impossible. Indeed, merely professing traditional Christian beliefs can cause such offence that it is treated as a crime.

These people weren't fired for "expressing their faith", they were fired for not doing their jobs.

Take, for example, the case of Harry Hammond, an elderly and eccentric evangelical who was prosecuted for a public order offence after parading with a placard denouncing immorality and homosexuality - even though he was assaulted by the hostile crowd he was held to have offended.

Similarly, the author doesn't seem to understand the law. Anyone behaving as the man in the article would be cited for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or inciting a riot.

This passage also made me smile.

This is because among the intelligentsia, the animosity to religion runs even deeper than the upside-down value system of the multicultural agenda. It springs from the fixed view that reason and religion are in diametrically opposite camps.

Anyone who prays to God must therefore be anti-reason, anti- science and antifreedom - in other words, an objectionable, obscurantist nutcase.

But this is the very opposite of the truth. Rationality is actually underpinned by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Without the Biblical narrative, which gave the world the revolutionary idea of an orderly universe that could therefore be investigated by the use of reason, science would never have developed in the first place.

And it was the Judeo-Christian belief that all individuals are made equal in the image of God that gave rise to human rights and democracy.

I have to say I completely disagree with the last two paragraphs. From a historical perspective she's entirely wrong. First, she ignores several religions who had preceded Christianity with a mythology that includes an orderly universe. She then ignores a history of scientific persecution by the church. It was the 1990's before the Catholic Church admitted it was wrong for its treatment of Galileo. Lastly, democracy originated with the ancient Greeks, long before Christ was born, and if her reference to democracy was a reference to the US, the founders of this country believed that the idea of man's equality was "self-evident", not due to religious belief.

The author is also self-contradictory.

Of course, terrible things have also been done in the name of religion. And equally, people without religious faith can believe in freedom and equality, and lead moral lives.

But that's because they draw upon a culture that rests on religious foundations. Strip away those foundations and what's left would be a brutalised and chaotic society.

She states that atheists are capable of being just as moral as religious folk, and then says that without religion society would be "brutalised and chaotic". Nonsense.

[Mark]

These people weren't fired for "expressing their faith", they were fired for not doing their jobs.

I suppose the question I would ask is about freedom of religion. Does this policy apply to all religions or just the easy ones?

Similarly, the author doesn't seem to understand the law. Anyone behaving as the man in the article would be cited for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or inciting a riot.

Come on Vile, inciting a riot? So freedom of speech is not a level playing field?

This passage also made me smile.

Because there is a grain of truth in it or because you are blinded by your own bias.

I have to say I completely disagree with the last two paragraphs. From a historical perspective she's entirely wrong. First, she ignores several religions who had preceded Christianity with a mythology that includes an orderly universe. She then ignores a history of scientific persecution by the church. It was the 1990's before the Catholic Church admitted it was wrong for its treatment of Galileo. Lastly, democracy originated with the ancient Greeks, long before Christ was born, and if her reference to democracy was a reference to the US, the founders of this country believed that the idea of man's equality was "self-evident", not due to religious belief.

I think what often gets lost in these debates are the people who despite their religious belief have advanced the rights of human kind.

The Salvation Army, clearly a Christian organization, is notedd for its opposition to war, but could always be found giving aid to soldiers in war time.

The same would apply to members of any community, be it gay, be it downtrodden, be it drug addicted. They are always there with the fundimental believe that anyone is salvageable. And they are not alone. Many Christian organizations have worked in communities that ran contrary to the core of their faith.

The author is also self-contradictory.

She states that atheists are capable of being just as moral as religious folk, and then says that without religion society would be "brutalised and chaotic". Nonsense.

You cannot deny that many of the foundation beliefs you hold come from a place in time when there was brutality and barbarism and many have used commandments as their moral compass whether christian or not.

[Vilepagan]

I suppose the question I would ask is about freedom of religion. Does this policy apply to all religions or just the easy ones?

I wouldn't know, and I'm not sure which religions are the "easy" ones.

Come on Vile, inciting a riot?

Ok, inciting a riot is a bit thin, but the point is that it's perfectly reasonable to arrest someone when their behavior threatens to incite a public disturbance, even if they are legitimately exercising their right to free speech.

So freedom of speech is not a level playing field?

What makes you say that?

Because there is a grain of truth in it or because you are blinded by your own bias.

Because I found it amusing.

I think what often gets lost in these debates are the people who despite their religious belief have advanced the rights of human kind.

The Salvation Army, clearly a Christian organization, is notedd for its opposition to war, but could always be found giving aid to soldiers in war time.

The same would apply to members of any community, be it gay, be it downtrodden, be it drug addicted. They are always there with the fundimental believe that anyone is salvageable. And they are not alone. Many Christian organizations have worked in communities that ran contrary to the core of their faith.

You just wrote what the author of the article should have written in her piece. Her examples are much poorer.

You cannot deny that many of the foundation beliefs you hold come from a place in time when there was brutality and barbarism and many have used commandments as their moral compass whether christian or not.

You've made more than one statement here for me to potentially deny, but since I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part, I'll just say that I'm certain many have used religion as a moral compass in their lives...I'm not sure what conclusion one is supposed to draw from that, but there it is.

[grainfedprairieboy]

the point is that it's perfectly reasonable to arrest someone when their behavior threatens to incite a public disturbance, even if they are legitimately exercising their right to free speech.

:thumbsdown:

[Vilepagan]

:thumbsdown:

Profound. ;)

[Mark]

I wouldn't know, and I'm not sure which religions are the "easy" ones.

Easy as in easy targets.

Ok, inciting a riot is a bit thin, but the point is that it's perfectly reasonable to arrest someone when their behavior threatens to incite a public disturbance, even if they are legitimately exercising their right to free speech.

Well that's dubjective isn't it? Evey year in Toronto we have Caribana which is a huge multicultural celebration where food culture and such from the Jamacian Community draws 1000's. Often there is gaing activity and the occasional shooting. Where do we draw the line?

What makes you say that?

Free speech is free speech unpopular or otherwise. We have laws about indecent exposure and I don;t see anyone running to arrest these guys.

Because I found it amusing.

Okay why?

You just wrote what the author of the article should have written in her piece. Her examples are much poorer.

Well thankyou, I'll bet she had lest typos.

You've made more than one statement here for me to potentially deny, but since I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first part, I'll just say that I'm certain many have used religion as a moral compass in their lives...I'm not sure what conclusion one is supposed to draw from that, but there it is.

I'm just backing up what the author said. Religion along with its many faults has also brought order, morality and education to the world. Religion has been responsible for many things including war, persecution and milk toast television, but it has also brought much good to this world.

[Vilepagan]

Easy as in easy targets.

And which religions would be easy targets?

Well that's dubjective isn't it? Evey year in Toronto we have Caribana which is a huge multicultural celebration where food culture and such from the Jamacian Community draws 1000's. Often there is gaing activity and the occasional shooting. Where do we draw the line?

Well, I'm not sure about Canadian law, I was speaking about US law. The US Supreme Court has ruled more than once, that the police may arrest someone for disturbing the peace even if they are legitimately exercising their free speech rights, if they represent a threat to public order.

http://allsupremecourtcases.com/feiner-v-new-york

And specifically on religious speech:

http://allsupremecourtcases.com/cantwell-v-connecticut

"The Court decided that convicting the Cantwells violated their freedom of religion. The freedom to exercise religion has two parts. One is the freedom to believe, and the other is the freedom to act on that belief. The freedom of religious belief is absolute, meaning the government cannot tell a person what to believe and what not to believe. The freedom of religious action, however, is not absolute. The government may regulate religious activity for the safety and general well-being of society. The Court said that as long as it does not discriminate against any religion (meaning treat religions differently), Connecticut may pass laws affecting the time, place, and manner in which a person may engage in religious activity, including solicitation."

Free speech is free speech unpopular or otherwise.

Of course, but the right to free speech isn't absolute.

We have laws about indecent exposure and I don;t see anyone running to arrest these guys.

I'm not familiar with your local indecent exposure laws, and I fail to see how indecent exposure laws relate to free speech.

Okay why?

Because I often find the absurd to be amusing, and the following statements are absurd IMO.

"Rationality is actually underpinned by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Without the Biblical narrative, which gave the world the revolutionary idea of an orderly universe that could therefore be investigated by the use of reason, science would never have developed in the first place.

And it was the Judeo-Christian belief that all individuals are made equal in the image of God that gave rise to human rights and democracy."

IMO, religious belief and rationality are almost completely unrelated. That's not to say that a rational person can't hold religious beliefs, just that they did not arrive at this place of religious faith by following a rational path. Faith isn't logical.

Well thankyou, I'll bet she had lest typos.

Can't argue with you on that point. :)

I'm just backing up what the author said. Religion along with its many faults has also brought order, morality and education to the world.

I would say rather that religion has brought religious order, religious morality, and religious education, to those it chose to bring them to, and denied these same things to others for religious reasons that had little or nothing to do with order or morality, and everything to do with their specific religious beliefs.

Can you give me an example from history where Christianity has brought order and morality to an otherwise chaotic and immoral people?

Religion has been responsible for many things including war, persecution and milk toast television, but it has also brought much good to this world.

No one has said otherwise, but is religion improved when it is backed by the state, or when it's separated from the state?

[Owl]

I found…in life….that ex smokers are the worst anti smoking fanatics..

Ex drinkers and ex drugies are the most fanatical preachers on the evils of abuse

I wonder how this would apply to Atheists.....

[OldPhart]

IMO, religious belief and rationality are almost completely unrelated. That's not to say that a rational person can't hold religious beliefs, just that they did not arrive at this place of religious faith by following a rational path. Faith isn't logical.

...and therefore humans are not computer programs.

Logic does not make one right or wrong. Faith, intuition, love, etc. is what makes us human. It's the application of our "non-logic" that defines us.

What you deem "rational" may not have the same definition to me.

Does that make you a superior human being?

Am I attuned to thoughts and processes that you are incapable of?


I do not consider myself wise enough to say that either one of us is right... just that there are many things in life that we can only pretend to know the "reason" for.

I know you hate my analogy of love concerning my family. There are far too many reasons that I should not love my wife, daughter, or son (or they, me).

But yet I do.

I would do anything to make them happy. The logical thing would be to worry about my happiness... but my happiness is based on them.

Illogical.