|
Replying To MesAmis: " Replying To Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." I agree with quite a bit of what you say MesAmis. Organised religion in the past was most certainly intolerant. It did impinge upon people's lives most particularly when the way that people lived their lives was perceived to be a threat to that particular religion. That however is not a trait that is unique to organised religion. That is a trait common to societal structures in general most particularly where power was wielded. A threat to the power that individuals wielded was very seldom if ever tolerated. That is true to this day most particularly in dictatorships or indeed theocracies. Ultimately it is part of the human condition that power is to be held on to at any costs irrespective of the suffering that may inflict upon fellow human beings. It is also part of the human condition to abuse power and to inflict unspeakable suffering upon fellow human beings. That is not unique to religious institutions. That permeated all walks of life right throughout human history. Slavery is one example. Empires, conquest and systematic exploitation is another example. In today's society in Ireland institutions are still being protected at all costs. We have seen people enduring intolerable hardship as a result of measures taken to protect our financial institutions. Corruption and abuse are not the preserve of the church. It is part of the human condition. You have every right to disagree with the beliefs of people of faith. However I believe that can be done in a manner that is respectful and tolerant. To overtly sneer at someone's beliefs is intolerant and disrespectful. Sadly I believe we have replaced one intolerant orthodoxy in this country with another orthodoxy that is equally intolerant. Realdub's sentiments epitomise that."
I disagree with your last point though. The 'new orthodoxy' has a long way to go before it could ever even come close to matching the churches (and other religions) levels of real world intolerance. I also don't believe we have a new orthodoxy. We have a huge amount of differing opinions and a culture of questioning each others beliefs in the western world. It can be messy at times but I actually think it is a good thing overall. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but crucially, everyone else is entitled to their right of reply. This is often decried as 'cancel culture' but oftentimes 'cancel culture' is just a cloak that people throw up when questioned on their assertions rather than defending those assertions.
Also I don't think we can compare snide remarks with the atrocities commited by the church over the centuries. Yes, maybe snide remarks about deeply held religious beliefs are hurtful but they are nothing compared to what has gone before."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 08/06/2021 20:55:41
2349086
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Oldtourman: "But countless other agencies were complicit in that abuse. I am over 70 years of age and even when I was a child every one knew Orphanages were hell holes. Yet parents, often of both the young parents involved, Medical personnel, Social Workers, Journalists, and indeed society at large were all complicit in what went on in these places. I remember a young man called John Feeney attempting to rightly criticise Archbishop John C McQuaid on the 'Late Late Show' one night, about fifty Five years ago, and Gay Byrne, the so called 'great Liberator', practically took the head off him for having a cut off the great man that 'did so much good'. Gaybo gave an worse performance the night he belittled Annie Murphy." I think there is a bit of a sense of denial about why children ended up in orphanages and why pregnant women ended up in mother and baby homes.
It's much easier to focus on the treatment women and children got in mother and baby homes than face up to the fact that some relations of yours years ago didn't want anything to do with their unmarried pregnant daughter and the only place that would take them were these homes. It's also an unpalatable truth that these views of unmarried women were highly popular in society. People may not like it but years ago in most western countries and nowadays in many poorer countries these views were/are popular.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1347 - 08/06/2021 20:59:36
2349089
Link
1
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "Murdered babies?. I have never read anywhere the church murdered babies. The wrong committed by the church in relation to baby deaths in homes was of neglect, they didn't provide proper care and these poor babies died. This was a bad wrong by the church but stop saying crazy comments that as if there was a policy of killing babies." Same thing, neglect, and selling of 'acceptable' looking kids to the rich, stop digging that hole. I have done some really heavy research into this and you wonder why I have no time for them.
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8591 - 08/06/2021 21:00:06
2349090
Link
4
|
|
Replying To realdub: " Replying To bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1347 - 08/06/2021 21:02:51
2349091
Link
0
|
|
Replying To supersub15: "It's suggested that very many of them, - but have another read." Sorry I don't understand what you mean?
Tirchonaill1 (Donegal) - Posts: 2747 - 08/06/2021 21:13:12
2349095
Link
0
|
|
Replying To realdub: "Same thing, neglect, and selling of 'acceptable' looking kids to the rich, stop digging that hole. I have done some really heavy research into this and you wonder why I have no time for them." Neglect was very very bad thing absolutely no question about that as were some of the other stuff but a deliberate policy of killing babies would be even much worse.
I haven't done research so don't know specific details but being honest it will be hard to believe stuff you will write in future based on the fact that on being pulled up on a point you still say 'same thing' and then basically confirm that it's not the same thing in the next sentence.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 1347 - 08/06/2021 22:26:17
2349118
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: " Replying To realdub: "[quote=bdbuddah: "[quote=MesAmis: "At the moment few are capable of seeing the bigger picture in terms of the amount of positive things the church did and always look towards the negative things. Yes a lot of bad things happened because of the church. But there is enormous positives also. The church basically set up and maintained an education and health system when it would not have happened to anything like the same extent otherwise. Many poor people would have got no education only for this. Years ago many girls got a great education because of the nuns at a time when girls education would not have been as high priority as now. In this way the church played a huge part in moving Ireland away from the very poor country in had been.
Reading some history of local GAA in Meath the religious years ago were often huge driving forces in local GAA which gave people great pride in local communities.
Also lot of missionary priests did huge work in poor countries helping people. I remember watching a program which talked about missionary priests, who were based local communities flying in food to starving people during war time in Biafra and having their planes shot at.
Recently I remember watching a program on the Spanish civil war which was very critical of the church for supporting the nationalist side. It was only after when I did a bit of reading I realised the program was one sided and had a very anti church bias as it ignored the fact that in the Red terror at the start of the war the left wing side murdered without trial about 50,000 innocent people including about 6,000 priests.
bdbuddah (Meath) - Posts: 858 - 06/06/2021 20:38:58
The church wanted control over education and health for their own ends though. They weren't only doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
The fact that the state, both under British and Irish rule abdicated control of health and education to the church is an inditement of how much control the church had in general, this power in health and education was used by the church to control, abuse and indoctrinate people thus holding onto power.
There were good people involved in the church and they did positive things, that is not in question. However, overall the church has generally been about consolidating power over people and accumulating wealth throughout its history, which has caused untold misery. The sheer scale of the bad far outweighs the good." I disagree with you not giving the church credit for what they did for Irish education. If it was all only about wanting control the church would have not wanted people to have minimal education. What got the church into education and health initially wasn't that they took it off the state, it was that the state wasn't providing much for the masses. The Irish state after being set up was fairly impoverished so wasn't in much of a position to take education and health off the church. I also think looking at other countries such as America I'd be careful with you wish for in terms of the state removing the church from education. In many countries secular public education turns out not to be that good."
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8591 - 08/06/2021 22:51:28
2349121
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Tirchonaill1: "Sorry I don't understand what you mean?" In this case I would dismiss Pascal simply because he was a philosopher / theologian, his theories and problems were solved mathematically and by calculation, presumably slide rule stuff if he could have one. Prisoners on death row may not be as qualified as Pascal to come to their conclusions and a slide rule is out of the question in this case as well, all he has is his mind and it's flash backs and fast forward facility.. It's also said that very many prisoners will request a prison Chaplin to pray with them and for them right up to the last minute, hardened criminals, why the turn around, hardened criminals today, on bended knee tomorrow.
One of our own a while ago was criticizing a cleric for something or other, and when he was finished he said,
- thank God I'm an Atheist..
As you are probably aware I'm not a philosopher or theologian, neither do I have a slide rule, instead he gave me a conscious.
Hope this explains a bit better.
supersub15 (Carlow) - Posts: 2907 - 08/06/2021 23:15:41
2349124
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "I think there is a bit of a sense of denial about why children ended up in orphanages and why pregnant women ended up in mother and baby homes.
It's much easier to focus on the treatment women and children got in mother and baby homes than face up to the fact that some relations of yours years ago didn't want anything to do with their unmarried pregnant daughter and the only place that would take them were these homes. It's also an unpalatable truth that these views of unmarried women were highly popular in society. People may not like it but years ago in most western countries and nowadays in many poorer countries these views were/are popular." Yes indeed. I heard of a young pregnant who was brought to an Orphanage by her Father. His parting comment to her was 'take one look at and another at the sun, because it is the last time you will see either of us'. But some will will HIS conduct on the Church as well.
Oldtourman (Limerick) - Posts: 4318 - 08/06/2021 23:27:21
2349129
Link
0
|
|
Replying To bdbuddah: "I think there is a bit of a sense of denial about why children ended up in orphanages and why pregnant women ended up in mother and baby homes.
It's much easier to focus on the treatment women and children got in mother and baby homes than face up to the fact that some relations of yours years ago didn't want anything to do with their unmarried pregnant daughter and the only place that would take them were these homes. It's also an unpalatable truth that these views of unmarried women were highly popular in society. People may not like it but years ago in most western countries and nowadays in many poorer countries these views were/are popular." But why were these views of unmarried women popular in society?
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 09:36:06
2349145
Link
2
|
|
Replying To Greengrass: " Replying To MesAmis: "[quote=Greengrass: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." I agree with quite a bit of what you say MesAmis. Organised religion in the past was most certainly intolerant. It did impinge upon people's lives most particularly when the way that people lived their lives was perceived to be a threat to that particular religion. That however is not a trait that is unique to organised religion. That is a trait common to societal structures in general most particularly where power was wielded. A threat to the power that individuals wielded was very seldom if ever tolerated. That is true to this day most particularly in dictatorships or indeed theocracies. Ultimately it is part of the human condition that power is to be held on to at any costs irrespective of the suffering that may inflict upon fellow human beings. It is also part of the human condition to abuse power and to inflict unspeakable suffering upon fellow human beings. That is not unique to religious institutions. That permeated all walks of life right throughout human history. Slavery is one example. Empires, conquest and systematic exploitation is another example. In today's society in Ireland institutions are still being protected at all costs. We have seen people enduring intolerable hardship as a result of measures taken to protect our financial institutions. Corruption and abuse are not the preserve of the church. It is part of the human condition. You have every right to disagree with the beliefs of people of faith. However I believe that can be done in a manner that is respectful and tolerant. To overtly sneer at someone's beliefs is intolerant and disrespectful. Sadly I believe we have replaced one intolerant orthodoxy in this country with another orthodoxy that is equally intolerant. Realdub's sentiments epitomise that."
I disagree with your last point though. The 'new orthodoxy' has a long way to go before it could ever even come close to matching the churches (and other religions) levels of real world intolerance. I also don't believe we have a new orthodoxy. We have a huge amount of differing opinions and a culture of questioning each others beliefs in the western world. It can be messy at times but I actually think it is a good thing overall. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but crucially, everyone else is entitled to their right of reply. This is often decried as 'cancel culture' but oftentimes 'cancel culture' is just a cloak that people throw up when questioned on their assertions rather than defending those assertions.
Also I don't think we can compare snide remarks with the atrocities commited by the church over the centuries. Yes, maybe snide remarks about deeply held religious beliefs are hurtful but they are nothing compared to what has gone before."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view."]Unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of your most recent post MesAmis. The church wasn't the main force behind the building of empires nor was it the main protagonist when it came to atrocities committed in the name of empires. Power and wealth were the main motivation when it came to building empires. Religion had nothing to do with the Roman Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of native religions and did very little to control them. Christianity contradicted the Roman belief in the divinity of the Emperor and was therefore perceived as a threat. That is why Christians were persecuted. Did Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan conquer and commit wholesale atrocities in the name of the church? No they didn't. Did Tamerlane? No. Were the more modern European empires church driven? No they weren't. They were built principally as a thirst for power and wealth. The cloak of civility was added to these obscenities by invoking divinity and by applying a veneer of "civilisation." Did Stalin, Mao or Hitler slaughter tens of millions people at the behest of the church? No they didn't. They viciously persecuted organised religions. Mankind was more than capable of inflicting appalling suffering on his fellow man without the intervention of religion.
I agree we have diversity of opinion in the country. However that diversity comes under the umbrella of an orthodoxy of thought that would look upon itself as liberal and inclusive. It has become a consensus. People whose opinions don't concur with this consensus find themselves labelled. "Conservative" is a favoured label. This consensus is highly intolerant. My understanding of this so called "cancel culture" is that it is nothing more than extremism under another name. I never attempted to equate the atrocities of the church with the new consensus nor would I. I spoke about them in terms of the fact that both orthodoxies (for want of a better word) were/are highly intolerant of those who hold contrary points of view.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5399 - 08/06/2021 20:55:41 2349086
Just because monstrous things have been done by someone other than the church doesn't change the fact that monstrous evil has been done by the church over the centuries.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 09:38:14
2349148
Link
2
|
|
Replying To realdub: "Same thing, neglect, and selling of 'acceptable' looking kids to the rich, stop digging that hole. I have done some really heavy research into this and you wonder why I have no time for them." Oh you have done "heavy research" have you?? Does that mean we should all agree with your viewpoint, no questions asked............maybe your research was a bit lopsided seeing as it was so "heavy"
the creeler (Cavan) - Posts: 512 - 09/06/2021 09:47:47
2349150
Link
1
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: " Replying To tonguey: "[quote=MesAmis: "You are being highly disrespectful of the people who profess a genuinely held faith. Those people have a right to profess that faith without their beliefs being insulted. Sadly in the shiny, newly inclusive, "liberal" Ireland sneering at people who profess a faith and sneering at their faith has become all too common. Your post and attitude epitomises that.
Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 5395 - 08/06/2021 11:24:55
I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive but religious people do not have a right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at imo.
I think that a lot of what religious people believe is silly. They have the right to believe these things ( as long as they do not impinge on others' rights which we know has been a problem in the past and indeed the present with religions) and I have the right to think that they are silly beliefs." Yes you may have that right indeed but you do not have the right to insult people on their beliefs- that is bullying. So would it be ok for a religious person to sneer at you because of your beliefs?? If you did it to another religion it would be discrimination. Just because you do not believe (which is your right and nobody really cares anyway what your rights are) does not give you the "right" to sneer at other people because they do not share your view. As I said it is bullying so please mature a little bit and behave like an adult. Thank you."
You, or anyone, doesn't have an automatic right to never be offended. It's more complicated than that. Something that insults one Christian might not insult another Christian etc.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that I find insulting but that does not mean that I have some sort of right to never ever be confronted by those beliefs. Some people will find my offence to their beliefs as offensive in and of itself.
I reject the notion that everyone has a right to not be ever offended."]You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
the creeler (Cavan) - Posts: 512 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01
2349152
Link
0
|
|
Replying To realdub: "Let's get this straight, I didn't use the church, the church is where the people went so that's where I went. If it had of been in the depths of hades that's where I would have gone." Let's get this straight indeed- you DID USE the church. You went there to pay your respects- why did you not go to the person's home? Or the funeral home?
You also went there to get married?????? Even though you don't agree with any of it??
Yes you DID USE the church because it suited you to do so.
the creeler (Cavan) - Posts: 512 - 09/06/2021 09:54:01
2349154
Link
0
|
|
You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 10:42:32
2349158
Link
2
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: "You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs." You also said you would "sneer" at people who are religious?? If you do not believe me read your previous posts- so you think it is ok to insult and sneer at people who are religious?? How very mature of you.
That is ok, we have cleared that up anyway.
the creeler (Cavan) - Posts: 512 - 09/06/2021 10:49:09
2349161
Link
0
|
|
Replying To tonguey: " Replying To MesAmis: "You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs." You also said you would "sneer" at people who are religious?? If you do not believe me read your previous posts- so you think it is ok to insult and sneer at people who are religious?? How very mature of you. That is ok, we have cleared that up anyway."
Do you want to respond to my last post?
My contention is that religious people (or otherwise) do not have an automatic right to never have their beliefs insulted or sneered at.
I believe that, yes it is quite a mature and reasonable assertion.
The alternative, that no one can ever be offended or challenged in their beliefs, is juvenile and immature imo.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 11:00:10
2349165
Link
3
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: " Replying To tonguey: "[quote=MesAmis: "You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs." You also said you would "sneer" at people who are religious?? If you do not believe me read your previous posts- so you think it is ok to insult and sneer at people who are religious?? How very mature of you. That is ok, we have cleared that up anyway."
Do you want to respond to my last post?
My contention is that religious people (or otherwise) do not have an automatic right to never have their beliefs insulted or sneered at.
I believe that, yes it is quite a mature and reasonable assertion.
The alternative, that no one can ever be offended or challenged in their beliefs, is juvenile and immature imo."]Do we really need to have "rights" for something not to be acceptable and decent behavior ? It's perfectly fine not to agree with someone's beliefs, have no issue with that at all.
Is it perfectly fine to sneer or insult their beliefs ? Absolutely not.
You might get away with mocking other peoples beliefs in small town Dublin but if ever visit a big city and try that on, it wont be long before you're landing on your hick town a**e.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 09/06/2021 11:37:16
2349173
Link
0
|
|
Replying To MesAmis: " Replying To tonguey: "[quote=MesAmis: "You said "religious people do not have the right to their beliefs not being insulted or sneered at"
If you genuinely think it os ok to insult and sneer at people based on their beliefs, well then there is no point even talking to you.
I hope you have heard of the word "respect"- you may not agree with people, you may not follow the same path, in fact you may differ greatly, but to insult people and sneer at them based on their beliefs says more about you than anything else.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 508 - 09/06/2021 09:52:01 2349152
I don't think anyone (religious or otherwise) has the right to never be offended. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should live in such a sanitised version of life where everyone has the right to never be offended.
If you think that lacks respect then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it seems strange to me.
I've no issue with people insulting religious beliefs.
Gay people living openly in society insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Unmarried mothers insult some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Children not being cleansed of their original sin insults some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that. Women having equal right is insulting to some people's religious beliefs and I am fine with that too.
Some religious beliefs insult me too. Like the ones mentioned above and I reserve the right to be able to sneer and insult those beliefs but I can't put my hands over the ear and eyes and claim I have some sort of right to never be confronted by some people's deeply held religious beliefs." You also said you would "sneer" at people who are religious?? If you do not believe me read your previous posts- so you think it is ok to insult and sneer at people who are religious?? How very mature of you. That is ok, we have cleared that up anyway."
Do you want to respond to my last post?
My contention is that religious people (or otherwise) do not have an automatic right to never have their beliefs insulted or sneered at.
I believe that, yes it is quite a mature and reasonable assertion.
The alternative, that no one can ever be offended or challenged in their beliefs, is juvenile and immature imo."]That is ok, you are entitled to your opinion and that is your "right". I would not like to "insult" you by disagreeing and I certainly would not "sneer" at you. Maybe look up the definition of the word "sneer" and you will see what the issue is. I won't be responding to you anymore as I think what you have written and what you contend here is extremely poor form and I do not want to engage with someone who thinks it is ok to openly insult and sneer at people.
the creeler (Cavan) - Posts: 512 - 09/06/2021 11:41:52
2349174
Link
0
|
|
That is ok, you are entitled to your opinion and that is your "right". I would not like to "insult" you by disagreeing and I certainly would not "sneer" at you. Maybe look up the definition of the word "sneer" and you will see what the issue is. I won't be responding to you anymore as I think what you have written and what you contend here is extremely poor form and I do not want to engage with someone who thinks it is ok to openly insult and sneer at people.
tonguey (Cavan) - Posts: 510 - 09/06/2021 11:41:52
Do you not think you're hypocrite?
I don't see your sneering or disagreement as insulting.
You've sneered at my points on this thread consistenly (I don't actually have a problem with someone sneering at my points).
If you can't engage further that is your right and to be respected.
MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13707 - 09/06/2021 12:14:04
2349180
Link
1
|