ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th November 2012, 05:48 PM   #81
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And weddings are religious ceremonies. So by banning them you are imposing restrictions on religions.
They aren't banned. I think Rolfe has already stated this.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:48 PM   #82
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yes, I did notice that part. We don't disagree by much. I just think you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

He's a product of his own environment and upbringing. Bigotry is astonishingly widespread, and I don't think you make any headway against it by demonising people who hold these views. You persuade, and inform.
You do with the gullible, the undecided and the people who are drip fed this crap while they are still young and believe me I do try. That being said...yeah, I still think people who express opinions like this are being douchebags. If they change their minds, then I'll change mine. I don't think I'll ever stop hating filth like Nick Griffin though. (Oh no Stankape, I just called someone filth, how horribly intolerant of me! Just keep in mind this is a guy who advocated violence against non whites and gay people and claims the holocaust never happened. He's fully free to voice his odious and disgusting opinions, and I'm fully free to consider him a waste of oxygen)
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In particular, since the thing he was expressing disapproval of is something which is still actually illegal, then I think name-calling is a bit harsh.
I disagree that this makes a difference. Would you say the same if miscegenation was still illegal and that's what he was being disapproving of?

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
(As far as forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings in future, I think you have to approach this with a bit of realpolitik. It may come in future, as the guest-house that was told it couldn't refuse a room to a homosexual couple. But if the politicos tried to press that point now, it would set the whole thing back at least 20 years.)

Rolfe.
Oh I agree they can't say that NOW, but once same sex marriage is legal, anyone who wants to perform a legally binding marriage must be made to conform to the law. Religion should never, ever be an acceptable hiding place for bigotry.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:53 PM   #83
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,652
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
This is a good reason for keeping your private and work life separate. Have two facebook accounts. One you share with your work people and one you share with only your personal friends. Either that or never say anything on a controversial topic.

An alternative of course, is to live in a country where government protects employees from unreasonable and unjustified interference in their personal lives from their employer.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:53 PM   #84
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by schplurg View Post
So what's up JREFers? Do you seriously believe that this guy should be demoted, or that people should be fired for saying something non-job related on Facebook?
What? No. I think that most UK posters have been of the opinion that they disagree with what he said, but that he should not be fired or otherwise punished by his employers for what he said personally. And the court agreed. Did I miss something?
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:54 PM   #85
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
You do with the gullible, the undecided and the people who are drip fed this crap while they are still young and believe me I do try. That being said...yeah, I still think people who express opinions like this are being douchebags. If they change their minds, then I'll change mine. I don't think I'll ever stop hating filth like Nick Griffin though. (Oh no Stankape, I just called someone filth, how horribly intolerant of me! Just keep in mind this is a guy who advocated violence against non whites and gay people and claims the holocaust never happened. He's fully free to voice his odious and disgusting opinions, and I'm fully free to consider him a waste of oxygen)

I don't think anyone is asking you not to hate Nick Griffin. Holy-change-the-subject, Batman.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I disagree that this makes a difference. Would you say the same if miscegenation was still illegal and that's what he was being disapproving of?

That's the point. We have (thankfully) reached the point where society as a whole agrees that such behaviour is not acceptable. We're moving fast on the same-sex relationships part, but we're not there yet. You're an advanced, modern young man. Adrian Smith is not. He may be a bigot, but he doesn't realise he is.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Oh I agree they can't say that NOW, but once same sex marriage is legal, anyone who wants to perform a legally binding marriage must be made to conform to the law. Religion should never, ever be an acceptable hiding place for bigotry.

Well I'm kind of glad you're not in parliament, because a stipulation like that is likely to see the cause of same-sex marriage set back at least 20 years.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 16th November 2012 at 06:12 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:58 PM   #86
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So then why classify them as illegal? They are perfectly legal, though not legally recognized.

What are you on, and can I have some? A church cannot perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. (Neither can a civil registrar, but leave that aside for now.) If any church was insane enough to go through the motions of such a ceremony, it would not be "legal", in that the marriage would not be recognised. The couple would not be married.

That is what it means to say that it is illegal.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:05 PM   #87
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24,652
To be honest I don't see how he's being a bigot. I actually agree with his position, and I'm not only in favour of gay marriage, but I hate religion.

But...

In a society that protects religious freedom, I don't see how expressing the view that a religion should be allowed to practise its beliefs is bigotry. Did he actually say he was against gay marriage, or did he just express opposition to it being performed in churches?
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:08 PM   #88
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
I suspect from wider comments that he is against gay marriage. (In fact I suspect from wider comments that he is an unreconstructed intolerant religious bigot of the first water.) However, the specific Facebook posts were pretty restrained, and that's what he was demoted for.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 16th November 2012 at 06:14 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:11 PM   #89
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I don't think anyone is asking you not to hate Nick Griffin. Holy-change-the-subject-Batman.
Oh, the Nick Griffin thing was aimed at Mr "How-open-minded" back on the previous page. I just hate the ridiculous "You're intolerant of THEM" nonsense that invariably gets spouted. It was something of a derail in our conversation and I apologise to you for that.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's the point. We have (thankfully) reached the point where society as a whole agrees that such behaviour is not acceptable. We're moving fast on the same-sex relationships part, but we're not there yet. You're an advanced, modern young man. Adrian Smith is not. He may be a bigot, but he doesn't realise he is.
I don't disagree with any of what you say here, I just fail to see why the fact that not everyone in society has caught up to the 21st Century makes a difference. Hell, some people haven't caught up to the 16th Century yet.



Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

Well I'm kind of glad you're not in parliament, because a stipulation like that is likely to see the cause of same-sex marriage set back at least 20 years.

Rolfe.
I can see what you mean, and I do understand that maybe baby steps are needed. I just fail to see why this kind of crap NEEDS to be addressed with respect.

Take something different, the fight against creationism. In this country when I was at school, creationism was looked at in RE and was mostly taught as "this is what people used to believe before science". Now with the advances of these bloody religious schools that get public funding (I forget the government term for them) they are allowed to deviate from the national curriculum. Some of them even teach creationism.

Now, I don't mind if some nutter wants to homeschool their poor little buggers of children and indoctrinate them with this nonsense on their own time, but they shouldn't be expected to pass science with such ludicrous beliefs and they certainly shouldn't be allowed public money to teach it to other kids. I'm sure that a lot of these schools will only get the children of zealots attending them, but I do not think that a school, particularly a government funded school, should be allowed to deviate from actual science in science class. Similarly, I don't think that churches, mosques, temples or synagogues should be allowed to perform legally binding weddings is they will opt out of the allowance of same sex marriage. They can perform their own NON legally binding weddings, but if the couples that get married there want to actually be considered married by the government they should also o to the registry office.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:11 PM   #90
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
It's a strange topic. I have a friend and neighbour who is pretty reactionary on this and related subjects. She is also very anti-religion. So we had the peculiar conversation where the anti-religion person was expressing severe disapproval of all this "gay marriage" thing, really quite repulsed by the very idea of a same-sex relationship as far as I could make out, and the religious person was shuffling in embarrassment and saying things about two people expressing their love for each other, and it not being our business what other people did or wanted to do if it wasn't hurting us, just because it wasn't something we personally were interested in doing.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:14 PM   #91
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It's a strange topic. I have a friend and neighbour who is pretty reactionary on this and related subjects. She is also very anti-religion. So we had the peculiar conversation where the anti-religion person was expressing severe disapproval of all this "gay marriage" thing, really quite repulsed by the very idea of a same-sex relationship as far as I could make out, and the religious person was shuffling in embarrassment and saying things about two people expressing their love for each other, and it not being our business what other people did or wanted to do if it wasn't hurting us, just because it wasn't something we personally were interested in doing.

Rolfe.
I don't think that's particularly odd. I have an aunt and uncle who are happy-clappy lay preachers and they as far as I can tell couldn't give a toss about whether someone is gay or straight. On the other hand you get, no pun intended, a whole rainbow of people who are irreligious or anti-religion. There are atheist bigfooters, atheist UFO abduction believers, atheists who believe in ghosts, racist atheists...why not homophobic ones?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:19 PM   #92
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
As for my "They should make them" comments about churches and gay marriage, I feel I should make my position clearer.

If gay marriage is allowed in law in the UK, any church that wishes to opt out of marrying gay people may do so, but in doing so they should lose their rights to perform legally binding marriages to anyone much like how that B n B place was not allowed to discriminate.

They can be perfectly free to perform religious ceremonies on any couple they approve of and refuse any couple they disapprove of and all power to them, but if they wish to provide legally binding marriage contracts then they should follow the whole of the law and not pick and choose what bits they want, because that could set a very bad precedent.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:21 PM   #93
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
mark

i think your name calling makes you equally as intolerant as anyone else, also think that your internet tough guy act is hilarious. You don't seem to have a handle on the way the world works. Having a different opinion on things doesn't make everybody else some evil bigot, or out to take away everyone's rights. They just have a different opinion.

I suspect you are very young, maybe as you get older you will see how such a position is not going to endear you to the world (nor make life any easier)
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:25 PM   #94
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
They aren't banned. I think Rolfe has already stated this.
But they are illegal, she was clear on that. So how are they illegal but not banned?

The point is that he was not protesting an illegal thing, because you can have a religious gay wedding in britian. It would not be legally recognized as a marriage but as a civil union, but that does not impact the religious ceremony.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:27 PM   #95
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
mark

i think your name calling makes you equally as intolerant as anyone else, also think that your internet tough guy act is hilarious. You don't seem to have a handle on the way the world works. Having a different opinion on things doesn't make everybody else some evil bigot, or out to take away everyone's rights. They just have a different opinion.

I suspect you are very young, maybe as you get older you will see how such a position is not going to endear you to the world (nor make life any easier)
Meanwhile, I think that he's already stated his age within this very thread, but to bring it up in this way would be verging on an ad hom, since it is not in fact engaging with the points he's made. I'm also not seeing Internet Tough Guy in action here; no threats of any sort have been made.

Having a different opinion does indeed not make one a bigot, and I don't think that anyone has suggested otherwise (indeed MC has stated this explicitly). Views that treat people differently based on, for example, their race, sexuality, and so on, are at least potentially bigotry; this seems to me indisputable.

If it helps, I'm 38.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:29 PM   #96
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
What are you on, and can I have some? A church cannot perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.

So we are back to churches being banned from performing religious ceremonies.
Quote:
If any church was insane enough to go through the motions of such a ceremony, it would not be "legal", in that the marriage would not be recognised. The couple would not be married.
Kind of like any religious ceremony, but you don't see many people calling baptisms insane even though the child is already legally named. Illegal ceremonies abound.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:29 PM   #97
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I don't disagree with any of what you say here, I just fail to see why the fact that not everyone in society has caught up to the 21st Century makes a difference. Hell, some people haven't caught up to the 16th Century yet.

I just don't see the point in calling someone a filthy name just because he's not as tolerant as you, given the current state of play of this particular debate.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I can see what you mean, and I do understand that maybe baby steps are needed. I just fail to see why this kind of crap NEEDS to be addressed with respect.

[snip creationism argument]

Similarly, I don't think that churches, mosques, temples or synagogues should be allowed to perform legally binding weddings is they will opt out of the allowance of same sex marriage. They can perform their own NON legally binding weddings, but if the couples that get married there want to actually be considered married by the government they should also o to the registry office.

Mosques and temples do not get to perform legally binding marriages at the moment, so that's no change there then.

The concept of Christian churches performing legal marriage ceremonies goes back a very long way in the tradition of this country - all parts of it. A proposal to remove that right from the Church of England, or the Catholic church, or the Church of Scotland, is a huge, enormous leap. To say to every such bride, you have to have two marriages, one in the registry office and another one in church.

Now that is exactly what has to happen if you're Moslem or Hindu or whatever, already. But it is a huge leap to take the right away from denominations that have had it for centuries.

I can see here the trouble the proposals are causing even in the Church of Scotland, which I thought had more sense and should simply have its head smacked and told to get on with it. The impact of such a proposal on the Catholic church is literally unthinkable.

You cannot simply upend a huge section of society because you think things should be done differently. Even if you're absolutely sure you're right. And fortunately most politicians understand that.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:33 PM   #98
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So we are back to churches being banned from performing religious ceremonies.
"A church cannot perform" this rite means in this instance that it can perform it, but it will have no legal standing. Why are you finding this so hard to understand?
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:34 PM   #99
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
As for my "They should make them" comments about churches and gay marriage, I feel I should make my position clearer.

If gay marriage is allowed in law in the UK, any church that wishes to opt out of marrying gay people may do so, but in doing so they should lose their rights to perform legally binding marriages to anyone much like how that B n B place was not allowed to discriminate.

They can be perfectly free to perform religious ceremonies on any couple they approve of and refuse any couple they disapprove of and all power to them, but if they wish to provide legally binding marriage contracts then they should follow the whole of the law and not pick and choose what bits they want, because that could set a very bad precedent.

That's very very intolerant. I'm no friend of the Catholic church, but there is no way in hell they will ever perform a same-sex marriage. So you are saying to every Catholic bride, no you cannot have a proper church wedding not ever again, you have to go to the registrar's office for the real wedding, and then OK you can have a pretendy religious ceremony afterwards if you like.

I'm seriously glad you're not in government.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:38 PM   #100
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But they are illegal, she was clear on that. So how are they illegal but not banned?

The point is that he was not protesting an illegal thing, because you can have a religious gay wedding in britian. It would not be legally recognized as a marriage but as a civil union, but that does not impact the religious ceremony.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So we are back to churches being banned from performing religious ceremonies.

Kind of like any religious ceremony, but you don't see many people calling baptisms insane even though the child is already legally named. Illegal ceremonies abound.

I don't know how to explain this any differently. You can have any ceremony you like in a church that the church authorities will allow. You can call it any damn thing you please.

But it will not be a wedding, if the couple are of the same sex. Just as a ceremony carried out at the registry office will not be a wedding if the couple are of the same sex. Because same-sex marriage is not yet legal in this country. The bit where you go into the side chapel and sign all the paperwork while someone sings a solo to entertain the congregation will be null and void.

You could go to the university and kneel in front of the vice-chancellor, and have the bedellus bop you on the head with the cap, and have the Latin words said over you, but if you didn't pass your exams and earn your degree, you will not be a graduate.

Any clearer now?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 16th November 2012 at 06:39 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:39 PM   #101
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's very very intolerant. I'm no friend of the Catholic church, but there is no way in hell they will ever perform a same-sex marriage. So you are saying to every Catholic bride, no you cannot have a proper church wedding not ever again, you have to go to the registrar's office for the real wedding, and then OK you can have a pretendy religious ceremony afterwards if you like.

I'm seriously glad you're not in government.

Rolfe.
Stupid birth certificates getting in the way as well. Go back to the baptism being the legally important part. We need to force the church into all facets of ones life.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:42 PM   #102
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's very very intolerant. I'm no friend of the Catholic church, but there is no way in hell they will ever perform a same-sex marriage. So you are saying to every Catholic bride, no you cannot have a proper church wedding not ever again, you have to go to the registrar's office for the real wedding, and then OK you can have a pretendy religious ceremony afterwards if you like.
It's exactly what they say to gay people now.

I fail to see why any religion should be involved in any wedding at all, actually. I don't think that ANY religious denomination should be granted government powers. I may criticise a lot of the way the US runs their government, but the whole separation of church and state thing is a very good idea.

Equally, I do not think that intolerance of intolerance is a particularly bad idea in some respects. I do understand completely what you are saying, and yes it is kind of a hardliner attitude and I fully accept that, but I do not understand why a religious group is allowed to discriminate and gets away with it because they are religious. Using my previous example, do you think it would be ok for a church to refuse to allow two couples from different racial backgrounds to marry?

Would it be acceptable for the Catholic Church (and no, before anyone says anything I do not think the Catholic Church are racists. They are many things, but racist? No) to refuse to marry black and white people? What if they just flat out refused to marry non whites? Would that be acceptable?
If you think so, then you and I differ greatly on our attitudes and hey, that's ok. You don't vote for me and I won't stand for election near you.

(incidentally this is pretty much the only place politically where you and I have differed I think excepting Scottish independence and that's only a personal preference thing for me, if Scotland votes yes, I'll wave it off with a cheerful smile because it's your choice as Scots)
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm seriously glad you're not in government.

Rolfe.
Eh, I think I'd make quite a good dictator actually.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:42 PM   #103
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's very very intolerant. I'm no friend of the Catholic church, but there is no way in hell they will ever perform a same-sex marriage. So you are saying to every Catholic bride, no you cannot have a proper church wedding not ever again, you have to go to the registrar's office for the real wedding, and then OK you can have a pretendy religious ceremony afterwards if you like.

I'm seriously glad you're not in government.

Rolfe.
I see your point, but I'm not so sure. Leaving aside the issue of whether churches in the past would have married black to white, or gentleman to commoner, and so on, I think I can see a (somewhat tenuous) parallel with another issue that I know is an interest of yours.

The reason that banning kosher and halal slaughter is impossible, and cannot be countenanced under any circumstances, is because the animal must be without blemish, and a bolt to the head would indeed be a blemish. Yet both of these religions have, for example, allowed eartags with barely a whisper, because they could not do otherwise. Similarly with other blemishes. I realize that gay marriage is of another magnitude, but I think the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:45 PM   #104
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Stupid birth certificates getting in the way as well. Go back to the baptism being the legally important part. We need to force the church into all facets of ones life.

Nobody is forced to have a church wedding. A civil ceremony is available for the non-religious. You want to demote the church wedding to the status of a baptism, in that it's only for the church and has no wider legal significance.

You may be right, it's how it is in several European countries I believe, and it's how it is if you're Hindu or Moslem or Sikh, but it would be a huge change that would cause enormous distress to millions of people in Britain. I always distrust the internet zealot who wants to change society to the way he thinks it should be, without any consideration of the people who would be caused real grief.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:51 PM   #105
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
I see your point, but I'm not so sure. Leaving aside the issue of whether churches in the past would have married black to white, or gentleman to commoner, and so on, I think I can see a (somewhat tenuous) parallel with another issue that I know is an interest of yours.

The reason that banning kosher and halal slaughter is impossible, and cannot be countenanced under any circumstances, is because the animal must be without blemish, and a bolt to the head would indeed be a blemish. Yet both of these religions have, for example, allowed eartags with barely a whisper, because they could not do otherwise. Similarly with other blemishes. I realize that gay marriage is of another magnitude, but I think the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative.

I think you haven't picked up on how I would, for preference, approach that issue. I would begin by making it mandatory to label all meat from animals killed without pre-stunning. I'd leave it to the animal welfare lobby to run the resulting education campaign. Then I'd see how far that got us before taking stock.

I also think this isn't all that similar. Torturing animals to death isn't quite the same as denying a couple who are voluntarily members of the Catholic church a wedding in the Catholic church. Right now, couples with one member divorced will be in that position. They have a choice. Put up with it or join a church that's more in line with their own beliefs.

Would you force the Catholic church and the Church of England to marry divorced people while you're at it? It's pretty much exactly the same thing. And I didn't see anyone saying this was anything comparable to torturing animals to death.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:56 PM   #106
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
It's exactly what they say to gay people now.

No, it isn't. Try asking a priest to bless your civil partnership in a church ceremony and see how far you get.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I fail to see why any religion should be involved in any wedding at all, actually. I don't think that ANY religious denomination should be granted government powers. I may criticise a lot of the way the US runs their government, but the whole separation of church and state thing is a very good idea.

Equally, I do not think that intolerance of intolerance is a particularly bad idea in some respects. I do understand completely what you are saying, and yes it is kind of a hardliner attitude and I fully accept that, but I do not understand why a religious group is allowed to discriminate and gets away with it because they are religious. Using my previous example, do you think it would be ok for a church to refuse to allow two couples from different racial backgrounds to marry?

Would it be acceptable for the Catholic Church (and no, before anyone says anything I do not think the Catholic Church are racists. They are many things, but racist? No) to refuse to marry black and white people? What if they just flat out refused to marry non whites? Would that be acceptable?
If you think so, then you and I differ greatly on our attitudes and hey, that's ok. You don't vote for me and I won't stand for election near you.

Snipping the smilies, I'll go back to what I was saying about divorced people. Right now, the Catholic church (and the Church of England) will not marry a couple if one of them is divorced. Nobody has started a huge fuss about forcing them to do so.

Why is this one so different?

I'll say it again. I distrust the internet zealot who wants to impost his idea of a perfect society on everyone else, regardless of the grief and distress it would inevitably cause. We're trying to legislate to allow same-sex couples to actually marry, legally. This is an enormous gain. Some of them choose to belong to churches which don't approve of this, just as they don't approve of divorced people marrying. Just as these churches already refuse to marry divorced couples, and are not penalised for it, it is proposed to allow them not to marry same-sex couples, on exactly the same basis. These couples can still have a civil marriage, so they're in no worse a position than the couple with the divorce in the background.

You want to turn this all upside down, for reasons that are pure zealotry. No wonder some religious people's backs go up and they start running scared of the whole idea.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 16th November 2012 at 07:03 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 06:57 PM   #107
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
No, you're correct, which is why I inserted the "somewhat tenuously". All I really mean is that it's dangerous in the longer term to allow religious exemptions, since to then change that later makes it explicitly about that religion, whereas if it's implemented universally it by definition applies to everyone.

I actually have no problem at all with putting the Christian churches in line with the other religions and having them perform whatever ritual they consider necessary, and then register the marriage to make it official. It seems odd to me now, notwithstanding the religious past of Britain, that this isn't already the case.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:04 PM   #108
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

Snipping the smilies, I'll go back to what I was saying about divorced people. Right now, the Catholic church (and the Church of England) will not marry a couple if one of them is divorced. Nobody has started a huge fuss about forcing them to do so.

Why is this one so different?

Rolfe.
For one thing, you choose to get a divorce...

In all seriousness though, I stand by the idea that religions should get out of marriage. I almost wrote I don't understand why they inserted themselves into it in the first place, but that's not true. What I mean is, I don't understand why the UK is still a Christian nation to the extent that it is. I argue with my girlfriend that it doesn't really mean anything when it is said that the UK is Christian, but that isn't true. There are two major ways in which religion forces itself into the way this country operates that should be cut out with the political equivalent of a scalpel.

Firstly, churches should not be granted the power to grant wedding licences.

Marriage was a secular institution originally, and churches provided an extra blessing by god for the couple ifthey wanted it after the fact. It's only that the power of thechurch became so much in this country that it was able to force itself into such a ludicrously powerful position in the first place.

Secondly, and on a different subject really, the Lords Spiritual should be removed from the House ofLords prior to it becoming a part or wholly elected second chamber.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Rat View Post
All I really mean is that it's dangerous in the longer term to allow religious exemptions, since to then change that later makes it explicitly about that religion, whereas if it's implemented universally it by definition applies to everyone.

I actually have no problem at all with putting the Christian churches in line with the other religions and having them perform whatever ritual they consider necessary, and then register the marriage to make it official. It seems odd to me now, notwithstanding the religious past of Britain, that this isn't already the case.
This is pretty much exactly what I mean.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 16th November 2012 at 07:05 PM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:09 PM   #109
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
No, you're correct, which is why I inserted the "somewhat tenuously". All I really mean is that it's dangerous in the longer term to allow religious exemptions, since to then change that later makes it explicitly about that religion, whereas if it's implemented universally it by definition applies to everyone.

I actually have no problem at all with putting the Christian churches in line with the other religions and having them perform whatever ritual they consider necessary, and then register the marriage to make it official. It seems odd to me now, notwithstanding the religious past of Britain, that this isn't already the case.

Your first point may be why only Christian and Jewish religious marriages are recognised. Maybe they don't want to go further down the slippery slope.

I'm sure you have no problem drastically curtailing the rights of the Christian community. But what benefit would this bring? Nobody is insisting that anyone who doesn't want a church wedding should be forced to have one. Why should you want to force those who do to do it your way?

It's back to the internet zealotry thing again. Live and let live won't cut it. However harmless, these religious types must be smacked down and shown their place!

Look, if that's the way you're thinking, start on the Bishops in the House of Lords.

Please!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:14 PM   #110
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
For one thing, you choose to get a divorce...

In all seriousness though, I stand by the idea that religions should get out of marriage. I almost wrote I don't understand why they inserted themselves into it in the first place, but that's not true. What I mean is, I don't understand why the UK is still a Christian nation to the extent that it is. I argue with my girlfriend that it doesn't really mean anything when it is said that the UK is Christian, but that isn't true. There are two major ways in which religion forces itself into the way this country operates that should be cut out with the political equivalent of a scalpel.

Firstly, churches should not be granted the power to grant wedding licences.

Marriage was a secular institution originally, and churches provided an extra blessing by god for the couple ifthey wanted it after the fact. It's only that the power of thechurch became so much in this country that it was able to force itself into such a ludicrously powerful position in the first place.

Secondly, and on a different subject really, the Lords Spiritual should be removed from the House ofLords prior to it becoming a part or wholly elected second chamber.

This is pretty much exactly what I mean.

Should, should, should. Society should be remodelled to the way you want, to conform to your belief system, and to hell with the millions who don't share that belief system, who will be indescribably distressed by these pointless changes.

I'm just glad we're still a democracy, and one group doesn't get to impose its ideology on the rest of us willy-nilly.

I don't even think you're right about the church forcing itself into an originally secular society and institutions. Organised religion has been an integral part of human society since about the time they discovered fire.

But having said that, I'm bang alongside you about the Bishops in the House of Lords.

And I think your space-bar is sticking.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:17 PM   #111
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm sure you have no problem drastically curtailing the rights of the Christian community. But what benefit would this bring? Nobody is insisting that anyone who doesn't want a church wedding should be forced to have one. Why should you want to force those who do to do it your way?
Curtailing as in bringing into line with other religions. It seems to me that an ideal solution is indeed to have an adherent's chosen religion bless or otherwise 'validate' the marriage that is conferred by the state. I don't really understand the concept of marriage in the first place, to be honest, but insofar as it gives additional rights in law regarding, for example, tax and benefits, it seems to be an entirely secular thing. In that sense, the Christian religion appears to have a unique right that no other religion does. I will not be told that my disapproval of that is zealotry.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:18 PM   #112
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
mark

i think your name calling makes you equally as intolerant as anyone else, also think that your internet tough guy act is hilarious. You don't seem to have a handle on the way the world works. Having a different opinion on things doesn't make everybody else some evil bigot, or out to take away everyone's rights. They just have a different opinion.

I suspect you are very young, maybe as you get older you will see how such a position is not going to endear you to the world (nor make life any easier)
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
Meanwhile, I think that he's already stated his age within this very thread, but to bring it up in this way would be verging on an ad hom, since it is not in fact engaging with the points he's made. I'm also not seeing Internet Tough Guy in action here; no threats of any sort have been made.

Having a different opinion does indeed not make one a bigot, and I don't think that anyone has suggested otherwise (indeed MC has stated this explicitly). Views that treat people differently based on, for example, their race, sexuality, and so on, are at least potentially bigotry; this seems to me indisputable.

If it helps, I'm 38.
Well said Rat.

To take it further, I'm really really sick of this "You're just as intolerant!!@111!" crap that gets sprayed around all the time whenever anyone says mean things about homophobes or racists.

No. No I'm not just as intolerant. These people want to restrict the rights of others. The guy in the OP doesn't want churches to allow same sex marriage, and reading around his other opinions doesn't seem to want gay people to be allowed to marry. This is the opinion of someone intolerant. He wishes for one rule for straight people, one rule for gay people. I don't think much of that, so I call him a douche. Rolfe has stated that she disagrees with the name calling because she doesn't think it's helpful. I conceded to her point, but disagreed that anything much would be helpful with this guy.

How is "You're a douchebag for being homophobic" on the same level as "You shouldn't be granted the same rights as I am because you're gay"? Please, explain it to me. In detail.

Further to this, I also mentioned the BNP. Now, I don't know if you read my reply to you properly, and I'm pretty sure that you didn't, but I did mention exactly what the BNP are. How would YOU refer to an organisation that had, at one time, as it's slogan: "BNP BNP, 'aint no black on the Union Jack so send the [rule 10]ers back!"?

Would you be respectful to them at all times? I wouldn't. I'd let them spew their hate openly, give them a soapbox from which they can preach and then ridicule them for being the simple minded scumbags that they are.

I have no problem with people who are conservative. I have a great deal of respect for many conservative posters on these forums. I have no problem with the religious. I have a great deal of respect for many religious people, Rolfe included. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me in many positions. I have got a problem with bigotry. Some people spout bigoted views because it's all they know. Those poor young girls who were in that horrible White power singing duo who managed to get away were manipulated and twisted by their scumbag parents. That little kid who sang the "aint no homo gonna make it to heaven" song that got a lot of attention a while back had no idea what he was saying really, but the vicious bigots who cheered and applauded the hate he was regurgitating certainly did.

I have no problem with opinions that differ from my own in politics, social opinions, music or food because people are different. Some people are conservative, some are moderate, some are socialists and I may not agree with them but I can discuss their views. However if you judge someone to be inferior based on their sexuality, the colour of their skin, their gender or even their gender identity then yeah, I'm going to call you out on it.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:20 PM   #113
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
Curtailing as in bringing into line with other religions. It seems to me that an ideal solution is indeed to have an adherent's chosen religion bless or otherwise 'validate' the marriage that is conferred by the state. I don't really understand the concept of marriage in the first place, to be honest, but insofar as it gives additional rights in law regarding, for example, tax and benefits, it seems to be an entirely secular thing. In that sense, the Christian religion appears to have a unique right that no other religion does. I will not be told that my disapproval of that is zealotry.

If we didn't have the situation as it is at present, then I don't think anyone would be agitating to change it. However, we are where we are. Your reasons for wanting to deprive churches and synagogues of the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies seem entirely ideological and based merely on a desire for tidiness. Or a desire to impose your own belief system on others.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 16th November 2012 at 07:21 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:23 PM   #114
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,233
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
It's exactly what they say to gay people now.

I fail to see why any religion should be involved in any wedding at all, actually. I don't think that ANY religious denomination should be granted government powers. I may criticise a lot of the way the US runs their government, but the whole separation of church and state thing is a very good idea.
Why exactly do you think weddings fall under goverment powers? I seem to recall that that issue was one of the fights that the british empire picked with Gandhi. Didn't end well.


Quote:
Equally, I do not think that intolerance of intolerance is a particularly bad idea in some respects. I do understand completely what you are saying, and yes it is kind of a hardliner attitude and I fully accept that, but I do not understand why a religious group is allowed to discriminate and gets away with it because they are religious.
Given the current level of technology and catholic theology there is no discrimination going on. Your mistake is in thinking that what you think of as marriage is identical to the catholic concept. A same sex catholic marriage makes no sense at the present time.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:27 PM   #115
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Should, should, should. Society should be remodelled to the way you want, to conform to your belief system, and to hell with the millions who don't share that belief system, who will be indescribably distressed by these pointless changes.

I'm just glad we're still a democracy, and one group doesn't get to impose its ideology on the rest of us willy-nilly.

I don't even think you're right about the church forcing itself into an originally secular society and institutions. Organised religion has been an integral part of human society since about the time they discovered fire.

But having said that, I'm bang alongside you about the Bishops in the House of Lords.

And I think your space-bar is sticking.

Rolfe.
My spacebar isn't the only key that sticks. Believe me, it's annoying to try and get my points across when half of it lokslikethis.

So, please explain to me why setting the nation on an even keel would be so bad? I don't want religion banned, I just want fairness. I want all religions (and non religious views) to be put on the same level. To have the C of E treated the same politically as Sikhism. Islam to be on a level with Catholocism. Judaism to be neither above nor below Jehovas Witnesses.

I find the idea that millions of people will be horrified and distressed to be a poor argument against it. The idea isn't to crush religion under my jackboot, it's to make sure that no religion is given priority or power over any other. Why SHOULD Catholic churches be allowed to perform legally binding marriages while Hindu temples are not? Why is that form of discrimination still allowed, exactly? Why is Christianity held to a higher level than any other religious group?

I find it rather laughable that you consider removing the special privileges that are granted to the Christian churches in this country to be curtailing the rights of Christians. How is it not curtailing the rights of Hindus to make them have two ceremonies?

I think that the absolute arrogance of Christianity in this country is rather well represented in what you said to both myself and Rat in your most recent comments. You think that stopping Christianity from lording it over everyone else is curtailing rights. You think that removing marriage granting powers from Christian churches is a shocking, awful thing whereas you seem completely unmoved by the fact that Jewish temples and synagogues don't have the same rights.


As for the church forcing itself into marriage...yeah, it did. Marriage started out as a government contract, and you could get religious bells and whistles applied later. Now people seem to think it was the other way around.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:28 PM   #116
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
If we didn't have the situation as it is at present, then I don't think anyone would be agitating to change it. However, we are where we are. Your reasons for wanting to deprive churches and synagogues of the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies seem entirely ideological and based merely on a desire for tidiness. Or a desire to impose your own belief system on others.

Rolfe.
Your first sentence seems tautological, or at least a truism. I don't necessarily want to deprive churches and synagogues as much as I don't understand why they have the privileged position that they do, other than historical accident. If that seems like tidy-mindedness, I can only conclude that you've never met me, as is indeed the case. As I say, I don't really get what the definition or purpose of marriage is, but if it involves state benefits, then it seems wrong to grant it to selected religions. If all marriages are secular and can be validated by whatever religion the participants wish using whatever ceremony they deem fit, then I have no objection to particular religions using whatever parameters they wish. Or at least less objection.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:34 PM   #117
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,548
I think one of the difficulties with what you want is simple democracy. Another is the situation in the wider world. Are we to go to India, and Pakistan, and Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and insist that all religions should be on an absolutely even footing in these countries?

It's not going to happen, is it? You want to squash the historical religion in your own country, to allow this wonderful equality, but still there will be Hindu countries, and Moslem countries, and Jewish countries (OK, country). Just Christian countries that have to become "equal".

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:41 PM   #118
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I think one of the difficulties with what you want is simple democracy. Another is the situation in the wider world. Are we to go to India, and Pakistan, and Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and insist that all religions should be on an absolutely even footing in these countries?

It's not going to happen, is it? You want to squash the historical religion in your own country, to allow this wonderful equality, but still there will be Hindu countries, and Moslem countries, and Jewish countries (OK, country). Just Christian countries that have to become "equal".

Rolfe.
Oh woe is the poor Christians who are being oppressed.

Name ONE categorically Islamic country that is a functioning democracy. Remember, Turkey is secular.

Name ONE categorically Hindu country that is a functioning democracy. Remember, India is secular.

Israel, I will grant you. I actually wish Israel would become secular.

ETA: I state functioning democracy because I don't think that the Islamic Republic of Iran is particularly big on personal freedoms of any kind. The UK on the other hand is meant to be an enlightened parliamentary democracy. Why is secularism such a bad idea for us?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 16th November 2012 at 07:42 PM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:45 PM   #119
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 8,968
To be fair, I don't want the UK to be competing with India, Pakistan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights, religious equality, or really any other factor. I also have no say (as opposed to effectively no say) in any of those countries. And while I don't think that my wishes for this country will happen in my lifetime, even if they did, Christian countries are not going to disappear while the northern Mediterranean and South America still exist.

Instinctively I hate the disappearance of the gentle CofE (or CofS or whatever) that existed in this country, and I visit churches and cathedrals (and contribute to their maintenance funds) all over the country all of the time. But I do not enjoy the influence it has over everyday life, and I cannot support its continuance, even under the threat of invasion of Moslems and Hindus and Jews.

I do not wish to squash the historical religion, as such; I just want to remove its position as the religion of the UK.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 07:46 PM   #120
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,233
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I find the idea that millions of people will be horrified and distressed to be a poor argument against it. The idea isn't to crush religion under my jackboot, it's to make sure that no religion is given priority or power over any other. Why SHOULD Catholic churches be allowed to perform legally binding marriages while Hindu temples are not? Why is that form of discrimination still allowed, exactly?
The answer is in the history books although you might wish to consider who wrote them. Surfice to say the last time we tried to register hindu marriages it didn't end well.

Quote:
I think that the absolute arrogance of Christianity in this country is rather well represented in what you said to both myself and Rat in your most recent comments. You think that stopping Christianity from lording it over everyone else is curtailing rights.
Err the catholic church doesn't have any lords. Something to do with some 16th century unpleasantness.

Quote:
As for the church forcing itself into marriage...yeah, it did. Marriage started out as a government contract,
Err not remotely. A social contract yes but goverment involvement came far later. In fact the idea of recording the thing (rather than just relying on everyone in the local area just knowing) is in europe at least a church concept although that may simply have been a pratical responce to being involved with death (and therefore inheritance). State involvement is protestant concept.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.