Censorship or Righteous Upholding of Freedom?

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

I'm not sure it matters a hang if it's on a billboard or the side of a bus, or a banner draped on the front of your own private building.

Surely it's the message rather than the medium?

The medium is the message.

Like it or not, London busses are a symbol of London and of the mayor (not personally, but as in, the executive that runs London). Since they are for ALL of the London public - at least, anyone who can afford to use them - they must be seen to be inclusive.

Advertising a TV program or a hair-product isn't going to make anyone feel like they shouldn't use the bus. The declined advert re-homosexuals obviously will.

Ben6899

It's a bit of both: the message and the medium. In my opinion.

It's just typical of a religious group thinking they can get away with this kind of thing by hiding behind the bearded Middle Eastern bloke.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

It's a bit of both: the message and the medium. In my opinion.

It's just typical of a religious group thinking they can get away with this kind of thing by hiding behind the bearded Middle Eastern bloke.

No it's not. You're borderline trolling now!

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

It's a bit of both: the message and the medium. In my opinion.

It's just typical of a religious group thinking they can get away with this kind of thing by hiding behind the bearded Middle Eastern bloke.

No it's not. You're borderline trolling now!

Rick if you ask the people behind the campaign for the buses, what the heck they are talking about, then they will direct you to the "teachings of God".

In my eye, that's hiding behind one's belief.

I am not trolling and it's ludicrous to suggest as such... unless you thought I was on about Osama bin Laden?

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

It's a bit of both: the message and the medium. In my opinion.

It's just typical of a religious group thinking they can get away with this kind of thing by hiding behind the bearded Middle Eastern bloke.

No it's not. You're borderline trolling now!

Rick if you ask the people, who came up with the campaign for the buses what the heck they are talking about, then they will direct you to the "teachings of God".

In my eye, that's hiding behind one's belief.

I am not trolling and it's ludicrous to suggest as such... unless you thought I was on about Osama bin Laden?

They're not hiding behind anything. They're making their views very clear.

This is what we believe, and this is why we believe it. Unfortunately it's a very unsavoury view.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

They're not hiding behind anything. They're making their views very clear.

This is what we believe, and this is why we believe it. Unfortunately it's a very unsavoury view.

This bit.

veronese68

I agree with Simon. The message is the problem, it should not be possible to preach intolerance of any kind and hide it behind a religious belief. The message is wrong wherever you put it.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Back on topic for a moment...

This does bring a very tricky ethical clash to the fore with two almost incompatible tenets;

1) Freedom of speech, religious and political practice and expression.
2) Prevention of offensive material

You get to the position where you can ban the 'hello boys!' Wonderbra posters for being offensive, but you cannot prevent a person / group from espousing messages and points of view that are far more offensive because they are presented from a religious standpoint.

The classic example is the Westboro Baptist Church in the States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Their message is repugnant, but you have to allow them to state it.

This is in the same country that banned Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - far less offensive, but not presented by a religious group and therefore bannable.

With the greatest respect to Singleton I find this pussyfooting around religious beliefs thoroughly nauseating. I don't give two hoots if you want to sacrifice chickens to Baron Samedi in your garage or sniff a rug five times a day whilst facing in the direction of Marble Arch - but I think that your public actions should be judged in precisely the same way as those of nonreligious groups or corporations.

If Audi started an advertising campaign stating that homosexuals were abberations and an affront to nature I suspect that not even a nanosecond of doubt would cloud the action of shutting it down instantly.

If a fundamentalist christian group does the same then we have to allow them in the current climate. Why? This to me is where the wrong lies.

Believe in whatever deity or deities you wish, enjoy your religious practices with only two constraints;

1) Your religious practices may not inconvenience anyone else - do it behind closed doors please
2) Do not expect the rest of us to treat you any differently to anyone else. Your choice of god does not make you special regardless of what your choice of supporting literature says.

...............wow, that turned into a ramble. Sitting watching little bits of paper fly from one file icon to another as I run updates to SAP. Hour two and counting.........bored.

Agree with most of that, but don't see why people should have to do it behind closed doors (subject to it not harming anyone else - shall not inconvenience would catch pretty much anything, religious or not); is this not akin to the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that the US Army had.

@Ben6899: There you go again. The "bearded Middle Eastern bloke" didn't have anything to say, that we know of, on the subject of homosexuality, and there are only references in a small number of the books of the New Testament on which there is some debate around the translation form the original Greek, and consequently the meaning. I found this which gives quite a detailed discussion:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html

As I mentioned previously, some Christians use parts of the Bible to justify their prejudices against homosexuals (plenty don't), so in that sense I agree with you, but I'd argue that those who write the Bible off as a homophobic tract have equally misunderstood it, possibly because they have never actually read any of it.

UndercoverElephant

Edit: A placard from some of the latest gay rights protests in the US. Perfectly true; almost all of the anti-gay stuff in the bible is Old Testament, the only bit in the New Testament is from Paul, who was always a bit of a the John Prescott to Jesus' Tony Blair.

rjsterry

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Exactly.

SimonAH

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Edit: A placard from some of the latest gay rights protests in the US. Perfectly true; almost all of the anti-gay stuff in the bible is Old Testament, the only bit in the New Testament is from Paul, who was always a bit of a the John Prescott to Jesus' Tony Blair.

Absolutely - you can read just about anything into the bible that you want - and if you want proof of that then just look slaughter count between groups of people who read the same book slightly differently and burnt each other at the stake for it..... :roll:

I stand by my 'behind closed doors' bit though. By all means practice your religion but don't do it in my face please. Oh and most especially don't knock on my door and then get really uppitty (as one of two ladies did a couple of months ago) because I calmly and politely told her that I was a humanist and rejected her reality of burning in hell for not going to church.

SimonAH

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Edit: A placard from some of the latest gay rights protests in the US. Perfectly true; almost all of the anti-gay stuff in the bible is Old Testament, the only bit in the New Testament is from Paul, who was always a bit of a the John Prescott to Jesus' Tony Blair.

Absolutely - you can read just about anything into the bible that you want - and if you want proof of that then just look slaughter count between groups of people who read the same book slightly differently and burnt each other at the stake for it..... :roll:

I stand by my 'behind closed doors' bit though. By all means practice your religion but don't do it in my face please. Oh and most especially don't knock on my door and then get really uppitty (as one of two ladies did a couple of months ago) because I calmly and politely told her that I was a humanist and rejected her reality of burning in hell for not going to church.

notsoblue

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Edit: A placard from some of the latest gay rights protests in the US. Perfectly true; almost all of the anti-gay stuff in the bible is Old Testament, the only bit in the New Testament is from Paul, who was always a bit of a the John Prescott to Jesus' Tony Blair.

Redacted by subsequent editors of the New Testament?

Seriously though, I have no idea how you can base your entire world view on a crowdsourced, chinese whispered account of events thousands of years ago. To each his own

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

I stand by my 'behind closed doors' bit though. By all means practice your religion but don't do it in my face please. Oh and most especially don't knock on my door and then get really uppitty (as one of two ladies did a couple of months ago) because I calmly and politely told her that I was a humanist and rejected her reality of burning in hell for not going to church.

To be fair, most CofE people I know are basically just humanists who like a bit of ceremony.

rjsterry

UndercoverElephant wrote:

...the only bit in the New Testament is from Paul, who was always a bit of a the John Prescott to Jesus' Tony Blair.

Now that I am offended by

Although Blair did seem to think he was some sort of messianic figure on occasion.

If you look at that link I posted, it gives quite a detailed explanation of how those particular references can be (mis)interpreted. It's not surprising that we might now translate a text in ancient Greek differently from the 17th century scholars who produced the King James Bible.

rick_chasey

It's not just about the book though is it?

It's literally millenia of thought, teaching, values, culture, the lot.

cooldad

SimonAH wrote:

I stand by my 'behind closed doors' bit though. By all means practice your religion but don't do it in my face please. Oh and most especially don't knock on my door and then get really uppitty (as one of two ladies did a couple of months ago) because I calmly and politely told her that I was a humanist and rejected her reality of burning in hell for not going to church.

Just ask them if they want to come in and join in a discussion on naked satanism and free love.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not just about the book though is it?

It's literally millenia of thought, teaching, values, culture, the lot.

Well, that depends on what flavour of Christian you are. For some it is *all* about the book, but yes, the prevailing culture will obviously have an effect on how passages are interpreted, which then gets incorporated back into the culture. Let's also not forget that Christianity is not the only faith that has a difficulties dealing with homosexuality, not least because the Abrahamic faiths are so intrinsically linked.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not just about the book though is it?

It's literally millenia of thought, teaching, values, culture, the lot.

Values and culture that have changed constantly throughout the millenia to suit the society they exist in. The most boasted about values are ones that are pretty hardwired into human culture no matter what the religion.

EKE_38BPM

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not just about the book though is it?

It's literally millenia of thought, teaching, values, culture, the lot.

Values and culture that have changed constantly throughout the millenia to suit the society they exist in. The most boasted about values are ones that are pretty hardwired into human culture no matter what the religion.

Greed, selfishness and nepotism?

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

@Ben6899: There you go again. The "bearded Middle Eastern bloke" didn't have anything to say, that we know of, on the subject of homosexuality, and there are only references in a small number of the books of the New Testament on which there is some debate around the translation form the original Greek, and consequently the meaning. I found this which gives quite a detailed discussion:

There I go again what? Expressing my opinion on religion? An opinion that evidently doesn't sit easily with you? Well I'm not here to cause offence, but to merely add to the discussion.

The fact that "God" probably didn't actually have an aversion to homosexuality only adds to any disdain I have for this kind of tripe.

"I think this paragraph makes reference to God hating gays and that they can be cured of the terrible illness. I'm not sure, because it's written in an ancient scripture. But let's hate gays to be on the safe side."

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@Ben6899: There you go again. The "bearded Middle Eastern bloke" didn't have anything to say, that we know of, on the subject of homosexuality, and there are only references in a small number of the books of the New Testament on which there is some debate around the translation form the original Greek, and consequently the meaning. I found this which gives quite a detailed discussion:

There I go again what? Expressing my opinion on religion? An opinion that evidently doesn't sit easily with you? Well I'm not here to cause offence, but to merely add to the discussion.

The fact that "God" probably didn't actually have an aversion to homosexuality only adds to any disdain I have for this kind of tripe.

"I think this paragraph makes reference to God hating gays and that they can be cured of the terrible illness. I'm not sure, because it's written in an ancient scripture. But let's hate gays to be on the safe side."

My point is you are criticising something without having taken the time to actually read what you are criticising. The Bible and homophobic Christians are two different things. I have as much disdain for the latter as you, but the fault lies with them alone.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

@Ben6899: There you go again. The "bearded Middle Eastern bloke" didn't have anything to say, that we know of, on the subject of homosexuality, and there are only references in a small number of the books of the New Testament on which there is some debate around the translation form the original Greek, and consequently the meaning. I found this which gives quite a detailed discussion:

There I go again what? Expressing my opinion on religion? An opinion that evidently doesn't sit easily with you? Well I'm not here to cause offence, but to merely add to the discussion.

The fact that "God" probably didn't actually have an aversion to homosexuality only adds to any disdain I have for this kind of tripe.

"I think this paragraph makes reference to God hating gays and that they can be cured of the terrible illness. I'm not sure, because it's written in an ancient scripture. But let's hate gays to be on the safe side."

My point is you are criticising something without having taken the time to actually read what you are criticising. The Bible and homophobic Christians are two different things. I have as much disdain for the latter as you, but the fault lies with them alone.

I think you're mistakenly reckoning I'm lumping all religious folk into the same basket. I'm not.

rick_chasey

The way I see it is this: The issues people have with religion are, as far as I can see, political, rather than spiritual.

I don't think anyone would want to deny someone something that people feel gives them guidance, strength, spiritual enlightenment and the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

Where people object with faith, is where people tie their politics with their faith. E.g. "I have a political opinion which I am justifying with the rules and regulations of my faith".

The objectionable bit is still the political bit.

For some reason, being obstinate and saying "I believe this political statement because of my faith" irritates people more than the Rick Chasey school of politics, which is "my politics is correct. Period." At least, in my experience. That shouldn't be the case.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way I see it is this: The issues people have with religion are, as far as I can see, political, rather than spiritual.

I don't think anyone would want to deny someone something that people feel gives them guidance, strength, spiritual enlightenment and the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

Where people object with faith, is where people tie their politics with their faith. E.g. "I have a political opinion which I am justifying with the rules and regulations of my faith".

The objectionable bit is still the political bit.

For some reason, being obstinate and saying "I believe this political statement because of my faith" irritates people more than the Rick Chasey school of politics, which is "my politics is correct. Period." At least, in my experience. That shouldn't be the case.

Not even a little bit Rick.

Has anyone, ever, heard of anyone who has a problem with Zen Budhism? No, because they spend their days in meditation and a little light pebble raking.

It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, and wrong is evil, and therefore smiting you is not only right but makes me even more favoured by my god. Eli! Get the matches, we're going burnin' "

It has to do with evangelism.

It has to do with, fundamentally, religiously sanctioned hate.

And because religion is faith, and faith requires no proof, it is not even possible to discuss this rationally! How totally bonkers is that?

Again, behind closed doors do what the hell you like, bow to whatever you prefer and chant the chant of your choice. Just keep it there.

The bit that really burns my buns though is "the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner".

You what?

Quite apart from the litany of horrors perpetrated by religion from the crusades to the Sudan let's just, for a second, consider that nobody sane requires a holy book to tell them not to shag their sister or rob a bank.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The way I see it is this: The issues people have with religion are, as far as I can see, political, rather than spiritual.

I don't think anyone would want to deny someone something that people feel gives them guidance, strength, spiritual enlightenment and the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

Where people object with faith, is where people tie their politics with their faith. E.g. "I have a political opinion which I am justifying with the rules and regulations of my faith".

The objectionable bit is still the political bit.

For some reason, being obstinate and saying "I believe this political statement because of my faith" irritates people more than the Rick Chasey school of politics, which is "my politics is correct. Period." At least, in my experience. That shouldn't be the case.

Not even a little bit Rick.

Has anyone, ever, heard of anyone who has a problem with Zen Budhism? No, because they spend their days in meditation and a little light pebble raking.

It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, and wrong is evil, and therefore smiting you is not only right but makes me even more favoured by my god. Eli! Get the matches, we're going burnin' "

It has to do with evangelism.

It has to do with, fundamentally, religiously sanctioned hate.

And because religion is faith, and faith requires no proof, it is not even possible to discuss this rationally! How totally bonkers is that?

Again, behind closed doors do what the hell you like, bow to whatever you prefer and chant the chant of your choice. Just keep it there.

The bit that really burns my buns though is "the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner".

You what?

Quite apart from the litany of horrors perpetrated by religion from the crusades to the Sudan let's just, for a second, consider that nobody sane requires a holy book to tell them not to shag their sister or rob a bank.

Zen budhism doesn't take on the role of policing society in the same way the monotheistic religions do - hence it's rather more a-political.

I can't think of a concrete example where the problem presented by faith isn't actually a political one.

SimonAH

Well, yes. But everything to do with human interaction is political - 'tis the definition of the word.

What a religious framework allows someone to do it step outside of the moral framework within which they treat their fellows when dealing with those of a different persuasion.

You wouldn't set your neighbour on fire - but if he's a Papist then that's OK.
Sling a senator to the lions? Never! But he's a Christian! Oh, that's fine then!
Let's keep shelling Split! It's full of Moslems

etc.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can't think of a concrete example where the problem presented by faith isn't actually a political one.

Religion and religious faith are just an extension of human politics perpetuated by those who pretend to have or actually have (pick one) backing from a higher power.

Whether you're criticising religion for causing bad things to happen, or excusing it you can't conveniently pick religion and politics apart.

veronese68

SimonAH wrote:

The bit that really burns my buns though is "the ability to behave in a socially acceptable manner".

You what?

Quite apart from the litany of horrors perpetrated by religion from the crusades to the Sudan let's just, for a second, consider that nobody sane requires a holy book to tell them not to shag their sister or rob a bank.

It does seem utterly ridiculous. But we sent both of our children to a catholic primary school because when we looked at a few schools it was the one that felt right. The fact that it had a stronger sense of morality was a part of the decision. The non church school next door is a lot bigger and didn't seem to have the same feeling, it seemed the kids were more unknown. I believe the personal development of the kids is just as important, actually more so, than the academic aspect. I don't regret the decision one bit.
There have been times when one of them has come back and repeated something dreadfully bigotted that one of their friends has said and I've been horrified. But, I very quickly correct them and explain why it is wrong. I'm very proud of my kids, they are growing to be well rounded, caring and tolerant individuals. I do believe the school has helped in this.
I am not implying that this could only happen in a church school, that is patently untrue. It's just that this particular one seemed to give that aspect more consideration. Being a smaller school probably has more of an affect.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Well, yes. But everything to do with human interaction is political - 'tis the definition of the word.

What a religious framework allows someone to do it step outside of the moral framework within which they treat their fellows when dealing with those of a different persuasion.

You wouldn't set your neighbour on fire - but if he's a Papist then that's OK.
Sling a senator to the lions? Never! But he's a Christian! Oh, that's fine then!
Let's keep shelling Split! It's full of Moslems

etc.

I think it's more that religion provides one of many ways of defining two groups of people as 'us' and 'them'. Once they are 'them', it's a lot easier to do bad things to them, because they are not like 'us'.