Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Yeah, but the way I see it the government should have regulations that are governmental not religious. Saying you can't wear headgear for a drivers license photo is not discriminatory as you are not letting anyone wear it, no matter what religion they are or are not. Thems just the rules. If you object then that is your decision, but it is yours not the governments. The government will still allow you to get a license and is offering you the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else, you may not accept them, but they are there.

If your religious beliefs are in conflict with a non secular government then I'm sorry but you lose!

I think you're describing more of the French view of strict secularism. I am down with that.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Yeah, but the way I see it the government should have regulations that are governmental not religious. Saying you can't wear headgear for a drivers license photo is not discriminatory as you are not letting anyone wear it, no matter what religion they are or are not. Thems just the rules. If you object then that is your decision, but it is yours not the governments. The government will still allow you to get a license and is offering you the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else, you may not accept them, but they are there.

If your religious beliefs are in conflict with a non secular government then I'm sorry but you lose!

I think you're describing more of the French view of strict secularism. I am down with that.

Me too. Viva La France.

Theres something wrong with the British when the French are displaying more of a backbone.

Oh Id also ban healthcare for obese people, sterilise people that have been unemployed for more than 6 months and make people in wheelchairs lick stamps/envelopes in the post office for 8 hours a day to earn their wellfare, but YMMV.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Yeah, but the way I see it the government should have regulations that are governmental not religious. Saying you can't wear headgear for a drivers license photo is not discriminatory as you are not letting anyone wear it, no matter what religion they are or are not. Thems just the rules. If you object then that is your decision, but it is yours not the governments. The government will still allow you to get a license and is offering you the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else, you may not accept them, but they are there.

If your religious beliefs are in conflict with a non secular government then I'm sorry but you lose!

I think you're describing more of the French view of strict secularism. I am down with that.

Me too. Viva La France.

Theres something wrong with the British when the French are displaying more of a backbone.

Oh Id also ban healthcare for obese people, sterilise people that have been unemployed for more than 6 months and make people in wheelchairs lick stamps/envelopes in the post office for 8 hours a day to earn their wellfare, but YMMV.

besides the wheelchair thing i think its a great idea!

I was unemployed for just over six months despite applying for about three to ten jobs a day, every day, during that period. One can be unemployed for long periods without being a lazy parasite.

Make it a year.

htj wrote:I was unemployed for just over six months despite applying for about three to ten jobs a day, every day, during that period. One can be unemployed for long periods without being a lazy parasite.

Make it a year.

12 months is acceptable.. in fact, I was joking obviously so I didnt think about the timescale

Seruiously though, it should go by how much you pay in. Thats how it works in the US. If you worked for 5 years then get made redundant, you should be able to get like.. 2 years wellfare or something. But we have career fething doleys man. I met a bird (well argued with her) this weekend and she has been on benefits for 12 years (she was 33) and she was complaining that the Tories are making her get a medical!

Hence me agreeing with a time based cap. It wasnt meant as a slight to people that you know, are actually willing to work.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I like the system we have here in the States. You can believe whatever crazy gak you want. But if you want us to recognize your belief we will consider whether it's a sincerely held belief. I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't meet that requirement.

At which point the belief becomes, wait for it, officially recognized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:The root of the argument, as I see it, is that thousands of years ago, some people wanted to introduce law and order into society, but their efforts to appeal to peoples' innate logic and morality failed, so they started going around telling people "It's not me telling you how to act, it's an all-powerful super-being that created you and did lots of other extremely impressive, if implausible stuff". People fell for it back then because they were ignorant. What's the excuse now? There will always be people who take their religion not as a right, but as an obligation, and have absolutely no sense of humor. It's sad, but apparently nothing can be done about it.

I think that, if you were to take an honest look at why you believe in conspiracy theories, you would find you answer.

*applause*

mattyrm wrote:

htj wrote:I was unemployed for just over six months despite applying for about three to ten jobs a day, every day, during that period. One can be unemployed for long periods without being a lazy parasite.

Make it a year.

12 months is acceptable.. in fact, I was joking obviously so I didnt think about the timescale

Seruiously though, it should go by how much you pay in. Thats how it works in the US. If you worked for 5 years then get made redundant, you should be able to get like.. 2 years wellfare or something. But we have career fething doleys man. I met a bird (well argued with her) this weekend and she has been on benefits for 12 years (she was 33) and she was complaining that the Tories are making her get a medical!

Hence me agreeing with a time based cap. It wasnt meant as a slight to people that you know, are actually willing to work.

Yeah, I took that too seriously, sorry. I absolutely loathe people who see it as OK to live on benefits. I've always felt that I should be contributing at least equal to what I'm taking. I guess it's a product of my upbringing.

I was going to post this in the restaurant topic, but I decided it belonged better in this thread...

Skinnereal wrote:This is nothing like a No-Blacks issue.
Race, sex, and religion are not a choice, but having kids is.
Last year (I think), a hotellier was convicted of kicking a gay couple out of the hotel for being gay.
Where-as there are adult-only or child-free policies in hotels sometimes, and hardly anyone mentions that.

Religion is very much a choice, I for one chose to abandon my own religion. I don't see why we should respect peoples religious ideologies any more than we should respect any other ideology.

I don't agree with or respect Nazi ideologies, in fact I am perfectly happy to openly discriminate against Nazis. Yet many religious ideologies bare a striking resemblance to Nazism. For example many religions claim that their followers are the chosen people of God (master race), they don't just claim to be better than everyone else like the Nazi's did... they claim to be divine! Many religions are also opposed to homosexuals, I believe a man was beheaded recently in Iran (under religious law) for being homosexual, even evangelicals are against homosexulas (the Nazi's also persecuted homosexuals). Many religions also believe that non believers (infidels) are unclean, inhuman, and apparently we deserve to burn in hell for eternity (Final solution much?). Religions are also happy to partake in evils that the Nazis didn't even think of, such as: Oppression of women, obstructing medical science, obstructing any education that disagreed with their beliefs (Oh wait the Nazis did do that last one, but so do creationists).

Getting back to the topic at hand... Religious ideas aren't just absurd (like the flying spaghetti monster) they can also be very dangerous (like Nazism). A religious person should have no more right to wear religious paraphernalia in their drivers licence photo, than a baseball fan has the right to wear a cap, an atheist has a right to wear a Strainer, or a Nazi has the right to wear a Swastika.

No one's ideas should be automatically respected just because they claim (self claim) that their ideas are divine, that it is epitome of arrogance and absurdity. If Nazis suddenly started claiming that Nazism was a religion, would they suddenly be entitled to our respect and understanding? No, and neither should anyone else who makes these absurd claims.

It is more than a little bit of a stretch to say that Organized Religion = National Socialism.

Please remember that the OT Forum is governed by the same rules as Dakka Dakka in general.

There's a link in my signature in case anyone needs to refresh their memory.

Particularly concerning Rule #1.

Smacks wrote:I was going to post this in the restaurant topic, but I decided it belonged better in this thread...

Skinnereal wrote:This is nothing like a No-Blacks issue.
Race, sex, and religion are not a choice, but having kids is.
Last year (I think), a hotellier was convicted of kicking a gay couple out of the hotel for being gay.
Where-as there are adult-only or child-free policies in hotels sometimes, and hardly anyone mentions that.

Religion is very much a choice, I for one chose to abandon my own religion. I don't see why we should respect peoples religious ideologies any more than we should respect any other ideology.

I don't agree with or respect Nazi ideologies, in fact I am perfectly happy to openly discriminate against Nazis. Yet many religious ideologies bare a striking resemblance to Nazism. For example many religions claim that their followers are the chosen people of God (master race), they don't just claim to be better than everyone else like the Nazi's did... they claim to be divine! Many religions are also opposed to homosexuals, I believe a man was beheaded recently in Iran (under religious law) for being homosexual, even evangelicals are against homosexulas (the Nazi's also persecuted homosexuals). Many religions also believe that non believers (infidels) are unclean, inhuman, and apparently we deserve to burn in hell for eternity (Final solution much?). Religions are also happy to partake in evils that the Nazis didn't even think of, such as: Oppression of women, obstructing medical science, obstructing any education that disagreed with their beliefs (Oh wait the Nazis did do that last one, but so do creationists).

Getting back to the topic at hand... Religious ideas aren't just absurd (like the flying spaghetti monster) they can also be very dangerous (like Nazism). A religious person should have no more right to wear religious paraphernalia in their drivers licence photo, than a baseball fan has the right to wear a cap, an atheist has a right to wear a Strainer, or a Nazi has the right to wear a Swastika.

No one's ideas should be automatically respected just because they claim (self claim) that their ideas are divine, that it is epitome of arrogance and absurdity. If Nazis suddenly started claiming that Nazism was a religion, would they suddenly be entitled to our respect and understanding? No, and neither should anyone else who makes these absurd claims.

I think we can agree wholeheartedly for once!

I believe smacks main point was that sayign your views are religious shouldn't make them more important than other types of view. While not all religions have these features and most religious people don't those that do should be treated like non religious organisations with the same unaccepted ideas.

Smacks wrote:I was going to post this in the restaurant topic, but I decided it belonged better in this thread...

Skinnereal wrote:This is nothing like a No-Blacks issue.
Race, sex, and religion are not a choice, but having kids is.
Last year (I think), a hotellier was convicted of kicking a gay couple out of the hotel for being gay.
Where-as there are adult-only or child-free policies in hotels sometimes, and hardly anyone mentions that.

Religion is very much a choice, I for one chose to abandon my own religion. I don't see why we should respect peoples religious ideologies any more than we should respect any other ideology.

I don't agree with or respect Nazi ideologies, in fact I am perfectly happy to openly discriminate against Nazis. Yet many religious ideologies bare a striking resemblance to Nazism. For example many religions claim that their followers are the chosen people of God (master race), they don't just claim to be better than everyone else like the Nazi's did... they claim to be divine! Many religions are also opposed to homosexuals, I believe a man was beheaded recently in Iran (under religious law) for being homosexual, even evangelicals are against homosexulas (the Nazi's also persecuted homosexuals). Many religions also believe that non believers (infidels) are unclean, inhuman, and apparently we deserve to burn in hell for eternity (Final solution much?). Religions are also happy to partake in evils that the Nazis didn't even think of, such as: Oppression of women, obstructing medical science, obstructing any education that disagreed with their beliefs (Oh wait the Nazis did do that last one, but so do creationists).

Getting back to the topic at hand... Religious ideas aren't just absurd (like the flying spaghetti monster) they can also be very dangerous (like Nazism). A religious person should have no more right to wear religious paraphernalia in their drivers licence photo, than a baseball fan has the right to wear a cap, an atheist has a right to wear a Strainer, or a Nazi has the right to wear a Swastika.

No one's ideas should be automatically respected just because they claim (self claim) that their ideas are divine, that it is epitome of arrogance and absurdity. If Nazis suddenly started claiming that Nazism was a religion, would they suddenly be entitled to our respect and understanding? No, and neither should anyone else who makes these absurd claims.

15. Wait, no... 16. 16 years of age.


That's my guess.

Smacks wrote:
No one's ideas should be automatically respected just because they claim (self claim) that their ideas are divine, that it is epitome of arrogance and absurdity. If Nazis suddenly started claiming that Nazism was a religion, would they suddenly be entitled to our respect and understanding? No, and neither should anyone else who makes these absurd claims.

The distinction has to do with the depth at which the belief is held. There's a reason that money, politics, and religion are the three things considered taboo, by tradition, in polite conversation. You can certainly talk about them, but don't be surprised when the conversation isn't particularly cordial.

Frazzled wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Yeah, but the way I see it the government should have regulations that are governmental not religious. Saying you can't wear headgear for a drivers license photo is not discriminatory as you are not letting anyone wear it, no matter what religion they are or are not. Thems just the rules. If you object then that is your decision, but it is yours not the governments. The government will still allow you to get a license and is offering you the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else, you may not accept them, but they are there.

If your religious beliefs are in conflict with a non secular government then I'm sorry but you lose!

I think you're describing more of the French view of strict secularism. I am down with that.

Dammit Frazz, you had to point out that it was French. Now even I hate my own theory
(By the way when are we gonna get the Orkmoticon that is waiving a white flag!)

BBC wrote:
Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity

HAH!

Ahhhhh, that was fantastic.

Alpharius wrote:It is more than a little bit of a stretch to say that Organized Religion = National Socialism.

I did not say that "organised religion = national socialism". Talking about 'a stretch' that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

What I said was that I do not agree with any ideologies which claim that one group of people is superior to any other, or that is it okay to persecute or execute people for being homosexual, or for disagreeing with you. Be they religious ideologies or otherwise. National Socialism is just one example of such an ideology that most people disagree with for obvious reasons. There are other 'different' examples (different as in not "x = National Scocialism") , which I won't name, some of those also claim divinity.

I don't believe I am breaking any forum rules by saying that it is wrong to oppress women and murder homosexuals. Or by saying that those ideas are absurd.

dogma wrote:The distinction has to do with the depth at which the belief is held. There's a reason that money, politics, and religion are the three things considered taboo, by tradition, in polite conversation. You can certainly talk about them, but don't be surprised when the conversation isn't particularly cordial.

That is the who point of the Strainer hat. The distinction is entirely imagined by the believer. Just because a person believes something very deeply does not make it true, ethical, or even legal. Are you saying that murdering people is wrong, unless I really believe it very deeply... then it's okay? It's still not okay.

I agree about taboo's but I feel I'm okay talking about religion in a topic which is actually about something an atheist did to highlight the double standards that society awards to certain ideas because they claim to be "held very deeply".

4M2A wrote:I believe smacks main point was that sayign your views are religious shouldn't make them more important than other types of view. While not all religions have these features and most religious people don't those that do should be treated like non religious organisations with the same unaccepted ideas.

Thank you 4M2A, that is exactly what I was talking about.

Albatross wrote:15. Wait, no... 16. 16 years of age.


That's my guess.

You guessed wrong. I'm sorry is that a poorly disguised personal attack? Are you insinuating that what I said is naive?

If you would like to add something to the discussion other than off-hand insults, and explain your position, or what it is that you find disagreeable about my position, then I would love to hear it.

Or shall we all stoop to your level and start trying to joke guess each other's IQ and penis size?

"Yours in tiny teehehehe!"

When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.

TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.

when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing

Smacks wrote:You guessed wrong. I'm sorry is that a poorly disguised personal attack? Are you insinuating that what I said is naive?

Yes. Yes I am.

Your post came off sounding like a teenager who has half-read a few books by Dawkins and Hitchens, and suddenly thinks he/she is adding something new and valuable to the wider debate on secularism by drawing ham-fisted parallels between Nazism and religious observance.

Better?

If you would like to add something to the discussion other than off-hand insults, and explain your position, or what it is that you find disagreeable about my position, then I would love to hear it.

What do I have to add to this discussion...? What do I have... Oh, how about one of the only sensible posts in this thread, a post which clearly outlines my position on the matter? Or the fact that I started this discussion? That do you?

Or shall we all stoop to your level and start trying to joke guess each other's IQ and penis size?
"Yours in tiny teehehehe!"

I prefer the term 'bijou'.

dajobe wrote:when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing

I'm sorry that has been your experience, I will agree that some atheists can be quite vocal and overzealous. But if you think we are annoying, try to imagine how annoying and frustrating it is for us, constantly having to make allowances for what we perceive as 'your imaginary friend'. Imagen how sickening it is for us that a sizeable portion of US voters care about whether a president is 'a good Christian' than if he has good ideas about the economy or foreign policy. Imagine how disgusted we feel when we see the pope speaking out against the use of contraceptives in Africa during an AIDS epidemic. Or just how just how generally annoying it is to listen to people dribble on about 'miracles' for things that can not only be explained by random chance, but which are also expected to occur.

There are lots of religions, and creation myths. They can't all be right. Someone must be wrong... Could it be... Everyone?

dajobe wrote:

TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.

when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing

Really? I'm Catholic and I have to say the worst offenders were the Christians coming onto my university campus and telling us we were all going to hell! I actually found it very amusing myself. My favorite was when some guy said all the lesbians were going to hell, little did he see that coincidentally the woman's rugby team were walking by, that quickly turned into one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Albatross wrote:

Smacks wrote:You guessed wrong. I'm sorry is that a poorly disguised personal attack? Are you insinuating that what I said is naive?

Yes. Yes I am.

Your post came off sounding like a teenager who has half-read a few books by Dawkins and Hitchens, and suddenly thinks he/she is adding something new and valuable to the wider debate on secularism by drawing ham-fisted parallels between Nazism and religious observance.

Better?

Yes it's better, but you are still making lots of personal attacks and not many actual points.

Homosexuals really are executed in Iran under religious law. That is not a ham fisted parallel, they really are persecuted.

Pat Robertson, an American TV evangelist claims that 911 was punishment from god for allowing homosexuality. Do you not think that might incite hatred?

Creationists really do try to obstruct the teaching of evolution (a sound scientific fact). For no other reason than because it threatens their ideas.

Do you really believe that these ideologies are acceptable, just because the people who spout them 'really deeply believe' them?

EDIT: Also FYI I didn't half read Dawkins, I read it all. Including his other books such as The selfish gene, and I've watched many of his documentaries and Christmas lectures. He's a very clever man. Though I was an atheist long before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

dajobe wrote:

TrollPie wrote:When someone provides a good reason for taking Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc more seriously than Pastafarianism, I'll have a better view on organised religion.
Now they hatin'.

when i meet an atheist/agnostic at school i generally just nod politely when i get preached to. When they ask me what I am, and I reply christian, i get reamed and called stupid and ignorant. This has been my experience with at least 3/4 atheists/agnostics that I meet. Not all are bad, i have met some who agree to disagree, but are annyoing

As a preface, I am neither Christian nor atheist, I have my own beliefs.

My experience has been thus: When meeting an atheist/agnostic individual and asked what I am, I explain my beliefs and generally that is about the extent of it. Sometimes we discuss it a bit further, but not once have I been called stupid or ignorant by an atheist/agnostic.

For Christian individuals, however, it usually goes a bit differently. First off, I have never been asked by a Christian 'what I am'. 100% of the time it has been automatically assumed that I am Christian as well. That's not really something I've experienced with any other belief/faith.

The fact that I am actually not Christian is only uncovered once they make a comment along the lines of, "Where do you go to church?" or something like that. When I answer that I'm not Christian it always seems to come as a bit of a shock for some reason.

When I then explain my beliefs to them, the responses I have received have been varied. Some just say okay and move on. Often times though, their reactions are not so pleasant. I have been called stupid and ignorant, a pagan (which I'm not), or sometimes just 'weird'. I have also been told multiple times to my face that I am going to hell or that I deserve to go to hell because I'm not Christian.

I've never met individuals of any other faith who will tell me that I am going to suffer eternal misery and punishment because I don't believe the same things they do.

The worst is when they try to convert me, however. I really, really don't like that.


But yeah, that's my experience with Christians versus my experience with atheist/agnostics. Not meant to be insulting, just related events that have happened to me.

rubiksnoob wrote:My experience has been thus: When meeting an atheist/agnostic individual and asked what I am, I explain my beliefs and generally that is about the extent of it. Sometimes we discuss it a bit further, but not once have I been called stupid or ignorant by an atheist/agnostic.

That's probably because you're not Christian.

Most books dealing with Atheism attack the Christian angle because it's the most readily available source (there are libraries written on Christian theology, and they're mostly available in English), there are a lot of Christians in the US, and honestly, Christians tend to get upset when you attack their religion.

For some reason, this has translated into a lot of hate for Christianity among Atheists. I'm sure that some of it is due to Christian proselytizing and political acts, but a lot of it is due to the fact that the most vocal Atheists tend to also be anti-Christian. For your average 16-year-old Dawkins fan, refuting arguments for Taoism or various forms of ancestor worship is a heck of a lot harder than refuting Christian arguments. The latter simply requires parroting back over-simplified talking points.

I think it comes down to the fact that in general in the US if someone is pushing religion on you, it tends to be a christian. I can't think of the last time a Buddhist came up to me and told me I was on the wrong path towards enlightenment. Daily I see some christians trying to make people feel guilty.

Smacks wrote:
That is the who point of the Strainer hat. The distinction is entirely imagined by the believer. Just because a person believes something very deeply does not make it true, ethical, or even legal. Are you saying that murdering people is wrong, unless I really believe it very deeply... then it's okay? It's still not okay.

Well, murder isn't the best example because its wrong by definition. But, if we're just referencing a particular type of homicide as being wrong, or not wrong then I would argue that it only occupies the positive state of wrong if you have a belief indicating it as such. I would also argue that, unless said belief is especially strong, you're unlikely to raise an objection to someone who believes that type of homicide is not wrong.

Universal problem: Pride.

biccat wrote:
That's probably because you're not Christian.

Most books dealing with Atheism attack the Christian angle because it's the most readily available source (there are libraries written on Christian theology, and they're mostly available in English), there are a lot of Christians in the US, and honestly, Christians tend to get upset when you attack their religion.

For some reason, this has translated into a lot of hate for Christianity among Atheists. I'm sure that some of it is due to Christian proselytizing and political acts, but a lot of it is due to the fact that the most vocal Atheists tend to also be anti-Christian. For your average 16-year-old Dawkins fan, refuting arguments for Taoism or various forms of ancestor worship is a heck of a lot harder than refuting Christian arguments. The latter simply requires parroting back over-simplified talking points.

Its also because religion, philosophy, and the concept of God don't interact the same way in Eastern religions as they do in Western ones. Note that you don't see very many atheist arguments against Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or many (good) arguments against Islam; and those two still have fairly strong similarities to the Protestantism and Catholicism.

There's also an argument to be made that Christian proselytism has so deeply suffused Western culture that even the people who reject Christianity have a tendency to practice that doctrine.

To speak to the original post I certainly believe this is more than a joke. I cant claim to be an expert on the subject but I do believe people should try to keep their governments honest and in the States at least Church and State are supposed to be separate, yet atheists are not provided a paper currency that does not include in god we trust, if tomorrow things were reversed and our currency stated "we dont believe in god" people would be more than frustrated.

While it is obviously silly for a grown man, who's hair is not made entirely of pasta, to wear a strainer on his head I can easily see where people would believe that wearing anything on your head for your religion is silly, or even the fact that an all powerful being cares what you wear on your head would be a bit strange.

All in all I think that if "jokes" like this didn't exist atheists/secularists/agnostics/whoever would be overshadowed by large powerful organizations who can influence government policy. I say good for him making the government stick to their policies.

As a side note I am an atheist and while I do find some of the more fervent religious people annoying sometimes I would never called them Ignorant or Stupid for their beliefs, it is more likely if an atheist calls you ignorant they are trying to secure themselves in their belief and lack enough intelligence to actually discuss the topic you with. My wife is quite spiritual but not part of an organized religion so I can state it is quite easy for the two opposite beliefs to get together and agree we just need to find more common ground.

dogma wrote:Well, murder isn't the best example because its wrong by definition. But, if we're just referencing a particular type of homicide as being wrong, or not wrong then I would argue that it only occupies the positive state of wrong if you have a belief indicating it as such. I would also argue that, unless said belief is especially strong, you're unlikely to raise an objection to someone who believes that type of homicide is not wrong.

Well you could argue that... and I could agree with you, making it a very sort argument. But I don't really think that addresses the issue of what happens when a religious ideology is at odds with modern ethics.

If murder is not a good example, and 'wrong' is too arbitrary then I can offer you a more tightly worded phrasing...

Can you condone an unethical ideology, because someone believes it deeply, without yourself being unethical?

Or does believing very deeply in an unethical ideology make it any more ethical?