Then shouldn't Vuz be fined if he said to me "Because you are a Christian, I think you are an idiot"?
Or if he said to little Muhammed Junior, "Because your family is from the Middle East, I believe you to be a future terrorist threat"?
jogvanth wrote:
[They key word here being "offentligt". If your argumentation (qouted above) is they way the law is to be read, then the expansion of §266b, could NOT have been used in any way to help Rasmus on his, sofar, most dreadful experience. Thus the debate in FO is mute, and without just reasoning and documentation. The changing in the law, will then by no means whatsoever help the gay community in FO, unless someone actually prints "Gay-bashing-material" in the local newspapers or puts up posters or the likes.
Am I wrong?
Yeah, you're wrong about the debate being mute without reasoning and documentation. We have been through this already.
I dont know what you mean about my definition of the law, but there is no doubt that what happened in that nightclub would not have been illegal according to the danish 266b. Some law professor confirmed that too, I just can't find the link.
Still, as I have stated in the past, this does not in any way render the faroese sexual orientation debate void. There are documented cases in which a changed 266b would lead to a trial and possible conviction, while the current one would not.
Grizlas don't get me started on that guy... Does he even have an opinion? He quotes a bunch of other people, mainly bloggers, and in his conclusion he quotes the bible, where he says that we should talk together, not because it's a good idea, but because that's what Jesus said. Wow, I am so much cleverer after reading that.
I think it is interesting that religion is the only criteria of the racismeparagraf that isn't something one is born with. Think about it.
I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. This allows most people to practice their religion and even try to convert other people. I do, however, think it is ok to discriminate people's religious actions: I don't think it should be ok to circumcise children, slaughter animals in an inhumane way, demand that women should cover themselves up, forbid people to draw pictures of your god, keep slaves, discriminate against the disabled, and so on. These are all actions one should be doing if one is christian (For a moment there you thought I was gonna say muslim, didn't you? )
Some religious groups actually agree with me. Cause that way they can discriminate against religions. Why would they want to do that? Well, some religious groups like to say that the Pope is Anti-Christ. I have personally heard religious people in the Faroes say this and mean it. They also want to be able to hire people who believe the same thing they do. Imagine a muslim who applied for a job as a priest. If he was turned down because he was a muslim, he could sue the government for this (keep in mind that the church in FO is a state church). This is, after all, how women got in there in the first place. That most certainly is against the teachings of the bible... It would actually be in the best interest of every religion in FO if it was legal to discriminate based on faith and if the state-church was cut loose. Ah, the irony.
The fact of the matter, Yutani, is that special consideration is being taken with rescpects to some parts of religion. In Denmark it is ok to slaugter an animal without stunning them first, but only if your religion requires this of you. In Denmark it is ok to circumcise boys (until recently the government actually paid for it too), but only if your religion requires this of you. There are probably other examples, especially if you look at other countries too, but I think these two examples prove my point quite well. It is especially worth noting that both of these examples deal with the innocent; children and animals, who rely on us to protect them. For shame.
Vuzman, I think I understand your standpoint and I agree.
I remember that I didn't agree with John Johannesen on some points in this matter.
In my mind he sometimes pre-judged people based on their beliefs and concluded that they were evil based not on actions or individual merit, but on category alone.
Neo-nazism is something I guess we all agree on is evil and should be eradicated. But a member of said doctrine could be mentally handicapped or an undercover policeofficer for all we know. Or perhaps he just momentarily lost his way and would never hurt a fly, even if forced to by his doctrine. I know that I have had plenty of prejudice, racist, sexist and homophobic ideas throughout my life.
I think we should fight to eradicate all evil teachings, but never using means that pre-judge and violate the rights of the people that believe in them. For isn't prejudice and rights violation exactly one such enemy that we seek to defeat?
Vuz, do you eat produce from pigs? Do you know how they are slaughtered in DK? While they are alive, they are hung up by their hind-legs, on a large row, and are then submerged in a wat of boiling water (still alive), before being moved to another room for slaughter. This is done every single day, on a massive scale in DK, and it's not for any religious purpose or reason, but for the holy mammon. It makes the slaughter proccess easier down the line. In my view, this is inhumane and should be banned, but nobody says a damn about this.
If you take religion so far, that you inadvertently or on purpose cause other people harm, then I believe, that your religious standpoint is erred or misinterpreted, in relation to the teachings of the bible. Most of the laws in the old testament are made obsolete in the new testament. The laws of the bible do not include "slaughter those who believe differently than you". The Koran does, if you ask some of its preachers. These are in my view misguided individuals. Most Muslims do not believe all Jews must be killed, yet this is something that modern day propaganda-style news-reporting would have us believe. I do not seek to convert other people, but if they come to me and ask, I will let them know my religious beliefs and points.
Who is to say what is evil and not. What we (or you) might see as evil, is to someone else the only just thing to do. Who is to judge?
The only thing I asked in the beginning, was for Vuz to tone down his sarcasm and ludacrisation (is that a word?) of religion (Christianity in particular), as I found it tiresome and unneccesary.
He dictated what he believed should be in our News and not, can't I make such a request of him?
I'm sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. I wasn't talking about the people he quoted (they're credentials are written in the text), I was talking about his sources for the quotes. These include
An Intelligent Design blog: http://www.uncommondescent.com/
The blog of Richard Hall, a Methodist Minister in South Wales: http://theconnexion.net/
A christian blog: http://iamachristiantoo.org/
William Lane Craig, A much criticized fellow of the Discovery Institute (an Intelligent Design think tank)
Quentin Smith (This is one heck of a guy, read his Wikipedia entry, it's quite amusing, and it seems he wrote it himself)
The blog of a christian radio host: http://www.albertmohler.com/
The blog of a theist naturalist (now there's an oxymoron for ya): http://www.naturalism.org/
A New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print (which I incidentally read a few days ago, and it is not bashing Dr. Dawkins as it would seem from your text; in fact in the article Dr. Tyson (remember his quote?) likened the present to the Dark Ages )
..not to mention that the Damaris foundation, which hosts the Culture Watch and which the author Peter Williams (also the author of "A thinking fan's guide to Doctor Who" is affiliated, runs churches and schools and teaches Intelligent Design (also to children).
Now, applying some source critique to this text should make it fairly obvious that the author is just cherry-picking quotes that suit him. It doesn't make the quotes go away, of course, and certainly there are a lot of atheists and scientists that disagree. I would bet however, that none of them think that Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet should not be allowed to voice their opinion. Also, having read the aforementioned NYT article and not getting the same out of it as Williams did, leads me to believe that he is being somewhat dishonest in quoting Dr. Tyson.
vuzman wrote:
I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech. This allows most people to practice their religion and even try to convert other people. I do, however, think it is ok to discriminate people's religious actions: I don't think it should be ok to circumcise children, slaughter animals in an inhumane way, demand that women should cover themselves up, forbid people to draw pictures of your god, keep slaves, discriminate against the disabled, and so on. These are all actions one should be doing if one is christian (For a moment there you thought I was gonna say muslim, didn't you? )
I think it's funny how you presume to understand how to interpret a religious text like the bible, while at the same time advocating that it is irrational. If the premise is irrational, then you cannot use the premise as base for rational arguments. This is like arguing that according to the laws of physics, the wolf in road runner cartoons should not be able to be suspended in mid-air when walking off a cliff. The people who interpret the bible litterally are the ones we refer to as fundamentalists. You're using a fundamentalist approach to combating religion that isn't necessarily fundamentalist in nature. Discriminating against actions is fine, but that is not what you are doing. You are discriminating against actions that you think all christians should be doing according to your rational interpretation of the bible. The fact of the matter is, that most christians do not keep slaves or burn witches, etc. because that is not what they believe in. You might argue that if that's the case, then these people aren't christians. Well then by your definition of what christianity is, the only people who are christian are the ones that keep slaves, and I dont think society would have any problem with discriminating against this group by say, making a law that made slavery forbidden.
The real issue here, is whether or not you are in favor of discriminating against the action of believing in something irrational. Here you state that you do not, even if you have several times expressed your wish to do so in the past when we have been talking about this.
vuzman wrote:
The fact of the matter, Yutani, is that special consideration is being taken with rescpects to some parts of religion. In Denmark it is ok to slaugter an animal without stunning them first, but only if your religion requires this of you. In Denmark it is ok to circumcise boys (until recently the government actually paid for it too), but only if your religion requires this of you. There are probably other examples, especially if you look at other countries too, but I think these two examples prove my point quite well. It is especially worth noting that both of these examples deal with the innocent; children and animals, who rely on us to protect them. For shame.
These are valid examples of how religion causes pain to be inflicted on innocent people and animals. I completely agree that such practices should not be exempt from the law. I think that it is only a matter of time before such cases of special treatment are completely erradicated from Danish society. If I were to proclaim myself a follower of a made-up religion that required me to drink the blood of a freshly slaughtered infant at every full moon, I doubt I would get it approved as a religion in denmark, even if it had a billion followers. Religions that required these practices would not be accepted if introduced today, just as cigarettes wouldn't.
vuzman wrote:
Now, applying some source critique to this text should make it fairly obvious that the author is just cherry-picking quotes that suit him. It doesn't make the quotes go away, of course, and certainly there are a lot of atheists and scientists that disagree. I would bet however, that none of them think that Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet should not be allowed to voice their opinion. Also, having read the aforementioned NYT article and not getting the same out of it as Williams did, leads me to believe that he is being somewhat dishonest in quoting Dr. Tyson.
I was fully aware that the source was not unbiased, but the quotes seem to be legitimate. As for Dr. Tyson being quoted wrong I suggest watching the youtube clip. NYT won't let me read that article unless I purchase it
Anyways, I often try my best to stay clear of all websites that are pro ID and spiritual in any way, but I've come to the conclusion that if I dismiss these sites out of hand based on their bias, then I am myself condoning their right to dismiss all scientific/atheist centered sites. So I try to keep an open mind and not make this into an "us vs. them" thing.
I think it's funny how you presume to understand how to interpret a religious text like the bible, while at the same time advocating that it is irrational
I don't presume, I lean on the interpretations that have been made throughout history. Circumcision, slavery, witch hunts, burqas, halal/kosher butchering, sexism, and countless other wrongs have been performed throughout history in the name of the bible/talmud/quran, and still are today. I can also read, and I find ample evidence in the bible to back up these practices. But what I think isn't the point, the point is that no one really understands the bible, because it simply cannot be wholly understood. Its irrationality, faulty logic, and contradictory nature is made painfully clear by the number of different interpretations of it. And this leads to these tragedies, and will inevitably lead to more in the future.
I don't think for a second that all of humanity's problems will be solved by throwing away religion, but not basing our lives on irrational dogma is a big step in the right direction.
The real issue here, is whether or not you are in favor of discriminating against the action of believing in something irrational. Here you state that you do not, even if you have several times expressed your wish to do so in the past when we have been talking about this.
I have talked about banning religion, which I still think is a fine idea. Organized religion, that is. Not belief itself, that would be banning certain thoughts, and beside from being impossible to uphold, it could hardly be farther from my wishes. I have, in fact, mentioned that we should take our churches and convert them into non-denominational "safe-houses", i.e. a place where everyone, regardless of belief or non-belief can go and meditate or pray or just gather one's thoughts in peace.
Dr Tyson's quote isn't wrong, it's the use of the quote. Watch some more clips of Dr Tyson, you will see that he has more or less the same opinion as Dr Dawkins, also an outspoken critic of ID, he just wasn't sure that Dawkins approach was the most efficient one.
As for keeping an open mind, I think I can safely say that I am most the open-minded of us all, at least when it comes to trying to understand what these religions are trying to say and offer. I am not against religion because I'm ignorant, I'm against religion because I do know what it is about, what they have to offer, and what it's effects are.
I'm not saying that religion is all bad, far from it, some people seem to get a lot of good out of it, but it has some most unwanted side-effects, and in addition to those it is also a hinderance for mankind to progress into a more tolerant, enlightened, civilized, and compassionate species.
jogvanth wrote:
Vuz, do you eat produce from pigs? Do you know how they are slaughtered in DK? (...) In my view, this is inhumane and should be banned, but nobody says a damn about this.
WTF? I'm a fucking vegetarian, and have been active in the animal rights movement, what do you think? Are you telling me I haven't said anything about this? WTFx2? Well, since you're showing a whole new sensible and tolerant side of yourself on this thread, why don't you take action on your own belief and stop eating pork/bacon/ham?
If you take religion so far, that you inadvertently or on purpose cause other people harm, then I believe, that your religious standpoint is erred or misinterpreted, in relation to the teachings of the bible.
Does this include the people who only had the OT to follow?
Most of the laws in the old testament are made obsolete in the new testament.
How so?
Who is to say what is evil and not. What we (or you) might see as evil, is to someone else the only just thing to do. Who is to judge?
I volunteer! I say it is evil to take a small child, hold it down by force and molest its genitals.
The only thing I asked in the beginning, was for Vuz to tone down his sarcasm and ludacrisation (is that a word?) of religion (Christianity in particular), as I found it tiresome and unneccesary.
He dictated what he believed should be in our News and not, can't I make such a request of him?
No, you wanted to shut me up. Fat chance. And I didn't dictate anything, I voiced my opinion (as requested!).
)
