All-Purpose Religion Thread

[drat01]

I think it tends to be bollocks, from my humble and limited experience.

 

However, I do see a lot of traditionalist conservative types that go to church and talk church talk, as that is where they perceive the power, influence and the favours to be.

You will also find them at the golf club, and the Masons and all those old power types of places. That does not mean they believe in golf balls or nipples.

This is from that great source of wisdom (and future religion) Wiki

 

Modern use in worldwide right-wing politics

In the 21st century United States, Australia, UK and other countries, the phrases "Christian values" and "family values" are used by conservative political groups to describe some or all of the following political stances:

• censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television.^[2]
• the desirability of laws against induced abortion
• sexual abstinence outside of marriage and abstinence-only education^[3]
• the promotion of intelligent design to be taught in public schools and colleges as an alternative to evolution.^[4]
• the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage
• support for laws against the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society^[5]
• the desirability of organized prayer in public schools^[6]

Modern use in worldwide liberal politics

In the 21st century United States, Australia, UK and other countries, the phrases "Christian values" and "family values" are used by Liberal political groups to describe some or all of the following political stances:

• support for a culture of empathy and compassion, seen as central to Christianity among a diverse range of religions and worldviews; favouring individuals, families (of all compositions) and small communities' interests over the interests of large corporations and the powerful;
• protection of the environment as the product of a deep reverence for God's creation;
• the undesirability of war, other than as a last resort, and a respect for diplomacy;
• a living wage for all, seen as a mark of concern for the physical welfare of "the least among us"
• a high, progressive income tax to promote greater income equality in keeping with Jesus' words in support of the poor and against excessive riches;
• promoting separation of church and state and religious tolerance, consistent with the concept of Christ's kingdom not being "of this world" and warnings against the hunger for potentially corrupting temporal power throughout the Bible.

[legov]

By pure coincidence, was reading this article:

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/09/10_things_conservative_christians_got_horribly_wrong_partner/

[Wainy316]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AMHve4U3JA

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I doubt much of modern conservatism comes from genuine belief/fear of X (i.e. God/Allah/Whatever), but rather a reluctance to let power get away from them (read: rich men), which inevitably happens when social equality, social mobilty etc are (putatively) the corner stone of a progressive, secular government.

 

Although in reality modern progressive governments have just enabled rich men to get richer under the pretense of... well I don't know really, I'm not sure how so called (mainstream) progressive parties became Thatcherite, corporate-driven tossers, but they did.

[Ikantcpell]

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

JesusandMo

 

Recently a couple of LSE students wore t-shirts with Jesus and Mo on them, and soon found themselves in a spot of bother...

 

Student union officials told them to "lose the T-shirts" and pulled atheist literature from the stall. When the young atheists asked why they should submit to this impertinent demand, the hacks replied that the T-shirts were "of course, offensive". They did not say why. The LSE's security guards arrived and threatened to expel the atheists. Wearing the T-shirts was an act of "harassment" that could "offend others", they said. Surrounded by five of the university's goons, Chris Moos agreed to put a jacket over the offending T-shirt. This was not good enough for the LSE's head of security, because "prophet" was still visible above the jacket's neckline. That one word – "prophet" – was a horrendous insult to all right-thinking people, the LSE ruled. Chris zipped up his jacket all the way, but that still was not enough for the head of security.

 

Nick Cohen in the Grauniad

[mjmooney]

This probably pisses me off more than ANYTHING - the expectation that religion automatically deserves exaggerated respect. 

 

I'm quite happy for them to have freedom of speech to say that atheism is ridiculous, and they should extend the same right to atheists. 

[limpid]

I've mentioned it before, http://www.secularism.org.uk/

 

Secularism is the separation of religions from the state. Nothing more no matter what the religious might suggest. There are many religious members of the society, presumably because they recognise that secularism is the only way to guarantee their religion a future. Another way to word it is that rights granted by the belief in any particular magic book(s) do not override ANY of the rights that someone else has, whether they share your beliefs or not.

 

I want religion out of state education. I want an end to tax breaks for all religions where they receive them simply for being religions (if they want charity status then they can become charities). I want (English only, male only) bishops out of the house of lords. I want to see law of the land always being more important than people's feelings. Ultimately I want disestablishment but I think it'll have to be small steps while politicians still seem to think that the increasingly tiny religious minority matter.

 

Sign up and get involved.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

World Conference on Women... in Saudi Arabia

 

 

Women banned, naturally.

[MrDuck]

And yet they're all wearing dresses. Crazy world.

[legov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AMHve4U3JA

 

[mjmooney]

 

British universities shouldn't condone this kind of gender segregation

 

Secular neutrality is a pillar of higher education. We can't cave in to faith groups in our institutions – even if it causes offence

 

Separate but equal; where have we heard that before? Apartheid South Africa is no metaphor for anything else, but women of my generation and all those before were told over and over again that the sexes are different "but equal", as an excuse for excluding them from places they didn't belong: they should be doing "separate but equal" in the kitchen, bedroom and nursery. Whatever is segregated by diktat is rarely equal.

Universities once barred women altogether. Now they strive to be emblems of enlightenment, temples to reason, equality, free speech and freedom of thought. But it's not easy to balance conflicting freedoms. Universities UK, their representative body, has just published 40 pages of guidelines on External Speakers in Higher Education Institutions, wriggling and writhing over competing freedoms for women versus not causing religious offence: it ends up with excruciating nonsense.

 

Some students may want a "no platform" policy for speakers they find obnoxious – the BNP or members of unsavoury governments. Demonstrating opposition is a freedom, but banning or yelling down free expression within the law is a denial of freedom. However, Universities UK's guidelines give the sexist eccentricities of some religions priority over women's rights, by allowing religious speakers the right to demand women and men are segregated in the lecture hall.

 

Universities UK tells universities that "concerns to accommodate the wishes or beliefs of those opposed to segregation should not result in a religious group being prevented from having a debate in accordance with its belief system". If "imposing an unsegregated seating area in addition to the segregated areas contravenes the genuinely held religious beliefs of the group hosting the event, or those of the speaker, the institution should be mindful to ensure that the freedom of speech of the religious group or speaker is not curtailed unlawfully".

 

Good grief. The compromise is that women can't be put at the back: "The room can be segregated left and right, rather than front and back." Depressingly, the National Union of Students has endorsed this. What's wrong with "side by side" segregation? Just ask how that would look if universities allowed speakers to demand separation by race.

 

Muslim speakers demand segregation to make a very public point about their belief in women's "separate" role in the universe, one step behind a man, even in a place of learning. After all, as Maryam Namazie, head of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, says, the speakers and the audience have all travelled there on trains and buses that are not segregated. Mosques and synagogues may hide women out of sight, but by agreeing not to "offend", the universities condone what they should confront.

 

The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Student Societies has found at least 40 cases within the last year where religious speakers demanded – and got – segregated university audiences. At the LSE freshers' fair, two atheist students were told to take off T-shirts showing Jesus and Mo holding up placards, saying "Stop drawing holy prophets in a disrespectful manner", and "Religion is not funny". The LSE student union pulled its literature off the stall and summoned security guards to force them to cover up their T-shirts: wearing them was an act of "harassment" that could "offend others".

 

Of course it might offend, but universities are supposed to be places that challenge beliefs. Atheist offenders will have their beliefs challenged too, by those who say Muslims are a persecuted minority who deserve protection from the dominant culture. What's more, Muslim students are more vulnerable, as the government asks universities to spy on them for signs of radical violence.

 

My own view is that religion is like any other opinion and deserves to be subjected to the same challenge or mockery as anyone's political views, with no special respect or forbearance. Universities are the anvils for hammering out these ideas, not for setting religious sensibilities above women's rights, and beyond challenge, trumping all other argument.

 

The power of religion in education is growing, not shrinking, even faster than under Tony Blair. The Al-Madinah free school in Derby that collapsed as "dysfunctional" a year after opening demanded all women staff wear headscarves, and segregated boys and girls in class and canteen – girls at the back. Michael Gove has sanctioned six new Islamic free schools. How could he not, when he has rapidly increased both the number and proportion of faith schools, to over a third, most of them Christian?

 

British Social Attitudes research finds 73% of respondents opposed to all religious state schools; yet once in place, faith schools are never dismantled by local mergers or closures. Recently it looked as if Archbishop Welby might open his schools to fair admissions in a recent interview, but the thought was withdrawn by a Lambeth Palace press release only hours later, recanting thus: "I fully support the current policy for schools to set their own admissions criteria, including the criterion of faith".

 

Next month the British Humanist Association publishes the most detailed social map so far showing how strongly religious schools have become a proxy for class. Muslim state schools also take many fewer free-school-meal pupils than the average for the neighbourhoods. Non-religious state schools with a high majority of ethnic minority pupils are caused mainly by local faith schools drawing away white children in the name of "faith". These 100% state-funded faith schools far outnumber grammar and private schools together. Andrew Copson, head of the BHA, says "they are easily the largest source of discrimination in our education system today". Universities, at least, should abide by secular neutrality.

• • The Guardian, Tuesday 26 November 2013

Edited November 26, 2013 by mjmooney

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Yes, I saw that too. It's disgusting.

 

Religion, please **** off out of education. Faith schools should be illegal too.

Edited November 26, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[CrackpotForeigner]

Yes, I saw that too. It's disgusting.

 

Religion, please **** off out of education. Faith schools should be illegal too.

 

So you don't think it's a good idea to raise children in an environment where faith in a sky fairy is taken for granted and they are encouraged to live a life devoted to the sky fairy?

 

What's the worst that could happen? Surely not religious fundamentalism, mutual radicalisation, sectarian violence, and terrorism?

 

Tony Blair was a huge fan of the damn things, otherwise they probably would have been made illegal by now. Instead they get government funds. It really defies belief, if you pardon the choice of words.

[bickster]

Tony Blair was a huge fan because he was at the time a closet Catholic and Catholic schools are all over the country, spewing out their daft idiotic "morals" to the most impressionable minds of the country.

The education system should be free of religion, totally free. Faith schools of any denomination or creed should be abolished. Parents want to brainwash their kids, then at least it should be done without state funding

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

PopeFace has come out with some rather agreeable points on capitalism.

 

Now, if only he were to, I don't know, give those millions if not billions of dollahs the CC is sitting on to charity, perhaps some HIV/Aids charities which no doubt need the help after the previous few popes condoned safe-sex in Africa.

[AVFCforever1991]

Nice bling...

 

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[tonyh29]

Gulp:

Blame TonyH as I went to youtube to get a pisstake for 'praise' and this was the first thing I came across.

Just catching up on this thread

What did I do now

[tonyh29]

Thing is Mike, typically Left wing thinking is more in line with what traditional Christian teaching - care, share etc . Whereas Right wing thinking is pretty much built on selfishness

I really did have some catching up to do in this thread ...

I know you were trolling but with respect , that is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on the Internet and I once visited the Barry Bannan thread

[snowychap]

I don't know.

Two months ago?!?!

C'mon I struggle to remember yesterday in anything other than a haze.