Freedom of Speech/Religious Extremism
- Thread starter Buckley
- Start date
silvia said:
i appreciate the different levels of christian commitment and of course a conservative/devout christian is more likely to be absolute about their religion's truth. My punto de visto is purely theoretical based upon what christianity actually is categóricamente and how it defines itself.
the problem is also that many christians in the UK, do not understand what christianity is and how it relates to Islam/Judaism.
silvia said:Here is the same, I never know that by definition chrstianity contradicts to islam/judaism
Thanks for all the explanations
de nada
, pero pienso que tu pais es menos laico que en Inglaterra. España es catolico por supuesto pero en el Reino Unido la mayoria es protestante y no es catolico. también, hay más hindú, sij, musulmán y budista en Inglaterra porque tenemos Asistencia Social muy abierta y generosa así que les llama a personas travers del mundo con religiones differentes y también como consecuencia de los efectos del imperio britanico. además de esta mayoria de protestantes, creo que hay más gente en Inglaterra que en España que no se entiende su religion. La apatia religiosa en Inglaterra es abundante.
Buckley
Well-Known Member
Mark Sun said:
Just around where I'm at Marky. There may be something *points* up there but there's nothing to make me believe any of the explanations organised religion offer. And I if one of them is right, the rest aren't, but they all based on the same faith without proof.
Buckley said:
We live in a world where a person can be sent to jail......only if there is overwhelming, scientific evidence of a a crime * however millions of people carry out numerous daily, weekly rituals because it says so in this ere book??
* excudes any convictions brought about by west mids constabulary in the last 30 years
grego said:de nada
Conoces la expresión "Con la Iglesia hemos topado"? Creo que resume muy bien ese poco laicismo de España, de hecho aun actualmente la Iglesia tiene gran ascendencia sobre la vida política del país, a pesar de que la apatía religiosa aquí también es cada día más abundante. De hecho, en el extranjero se tiene una imagen de una España profundamente religiosa que no es cierta, almenos no del todo. En Inglaterra, con tantas doctrinas conviviendo es normal que se sea más tolerante o que la religión principal no sea tan relevante en todo.
jjinit said:We live in a world where a person can be sent to jail......only if there is overwhelming, scientific evidence of a a crime * however millions of people carry out numerous daily, weekly rituals because it says so in this ere book??
* excudes any convictions brought about by west mids constabulary in the last 30 years
its about "them" and "us" now.
govts, media. who's to blame i dont know.
for a fact the whole Extremist Islam thing has been thrust into everyones faces since 9/11, like we need to find some kind of global bad guy.
1st it was the Nazi's - dealt with. Communists - Dealt with. Now Islamic Militants.
who's next?
jehovahs?
Buckley]You're in for nothing as long as you except the post of 'Chief Disseminator of Facts'.
(I can't do the quote thingy...:-( )
I AM IN!
This is why in the study it is just an unspoken agreement that faith is never included in the historical study of the socio-political world of the New Testament, how it was written, and the History of Christianity. Faith is the default button people press when they don't know the answer or how to respond to factual evidence and textual exegesis. Now, to be fair, I don't want to say that it is altogether wrong to do so...HOWEVER, it is wrong to do so when they are forcing their theological paradigm of supposed truth down my throat and I can't even offer them facts that they will accept (and I have higher education degrees in the actual subject matter and interpret the texts from the original languages!!!!!!!!!! ). I accept that we can't prove that NOTHING exists out there so I am giving them that, but the lot of them won't even give me a little move like evolutionary theory or the fact that the methods of writing in both the Old Testament and in the New is to incorporate already authoritative stories, allegorize upon them to make them speak to current concerns of that particular author (and thus make them political and social, just like today). Therefore, nothing is universal and you are so very right in saying that if someone accepts one specific paradigm as the ultimate truth, then it is a linear move (and logical thought) to eradicate all other paradigms of "truth." Therefore, without even realizing it by subscribing to one thing, one must push others aside. If one wants to be all encompassing and unitarian, well, then don't subscribe to this particular and culturally specific way of life and thinking (read: brainwashing 
). And yes, by placing yourself in one religious circle, you should have to contend with other religious circles because it would logically force one to look at their circle more closely. But faith is the hurdle to that logical step, in my opinion. But, I would never tell anyone what to believe and I expect the same respect.
But I understand your pain and frustration, Buckley, I really do. I get in to the same heated debates and I feel like I want to rip my hair out (or theirs) and for some reason I can't ever shut up about it. So, let us start the group straightaway!8) Just for sanity purposes...oh and to plan as soon as possible how to take over the world!
(I can't do the quote thingy...:-( )
I AM IN!
This is why in the study it is just an unspoken agreement that faith is never included in the historical study of the socio-political world of the New Testament, how it was written, and the History of Christianity. Faith is the default button people press when they don't know the answer or how to respond to factual evidence and textual exegesis. Now, to be fair, I don't want to say that it is altogether wrong to do so...HOWEVER, it is wrong to do so when they are forcing their theological paradigm of supposed truth down my throat and I can't even offer them facts that they will accept (and I have higher education degrees in the actual subject matter and interpret the texts from the original languages!!!!!!!!!!
). I accept that we can't prove that NOTHING exists out there so I am giving them that, but the lot of them won't even give me a little move like evolutionary theory or the fact that the methods of writing in both the Old Testament and in the New is to incorporate already authoritative stories, allegorize upon them to make them speak to current concerns of that particular author (and thus make them political and social, just like today). Therefore, nothing is universal and you are so very right in saying that if someone accepts one specific paradigm as the ultimate truth, then it is a linear move (and logical thought) to eradicate all other paradigms of "truth." Therefore, without even realizing it by subscribing to one thing, one must push others aside. If one wants to be all encompassing and unitarian, well, then don't subscribe to this particular and culturally specific way of life and thinking (read: brainwashing ). And yes, by placing yourself in one religious circle, you should have to contend with other religious circles because it would logically force one to look at their circle more closely. But faith is the hurdle to that logical step, in my opinion. But, I would never tell anyone what to believe and I expect the same respect. But I understand your pain and frustration, Buckley, I really do. I get in to the same heated debates and I feel like I want to rip my hair out (or theirs) and for some reason I can't ever shut up about it. So, let us start the group straightaway!8) Just for sanity purposes...oh and to plan as soon as possible how to take over the world!
Last edited by a moderator:
If people believe that an apology is in order for the publishing of the cartoon, then only the publishers of the newspapers/journals should apologize - period. It's up to them!
I am completely against any head of state, whether it is Denmark, Norway, France, UK or wherever, apologizing for the cartoon. That, in my opinion, would be the equivalent of apologizing for having the freedom of expression.
And no one should ever apologize for that!
I am completely against any head of state, whether it is Denmark, Norway, France, UK or wherever, apologizing for the cartoon. That, in my opinion, would be the equivalent of apologizing for having the freedom of expression.
And no one should ever apologize for that!