Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on October 24, 2011, 03:39:15 pm
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/protest-planned-after-lesbian-couple-booted-from-tim-hortons/article2211821/
News from Ontario today... (quotes taken out of order to improve hilarity).
Dozens of people are planning to protest outside a Tim Hortons in Blenheim on Thursday after a same-sex couple says they were told to leave the coffee shop because they were lesbians.
A spokeswoman for Tim Hortons says the couple was asked to leave after they “went beyond public displays of affection” while visiting the outlet three weeks ago.
Ms. Duckworth says her partner had her hand around her waist, and had kissed her on the cheek once or twice but she denies they were groping each other.
Sounds like much ado about nothing, a case of manager-said she-said, right? Sounds more like these ladies were asked to leave because their PDA was over-the-top, rather than because it was same sex. But then...
Alexandra Cygal, manager of public affairs at Tim Hortons' head office, said it was not the store's intention to “offend or target anyone based on their sexual orientation.”
“Tim Hortons and its restaurant owners have always welcomed all families and communities to their restaurants and will continue to do so,” she said.
“The guests' behaviour went beyond public displays of affection and was making other guests feel uncomfortable,” she said.
The management has apologized to the women and invited them back to their restaurant, added Ms. Cygal.
...wait, what? If their behaviour was offensive, why the heck are you apologizing?...
Ms. Duckworth says she and her partner were outside drinking coffee with a group of family and friends and saw a man watching them from inside the restaurant.
She says soon after, the man went up to the counter, and a few minutes later the assistant manager came out and asked the couple to stop doing what they were doing and leave.
...oh, so the management took this action on the word of one guy. OK, I can see where this may have been overreaction and maybe an apology is neces
As the couple left, the pastor at a local church allegedly held a prayer circle with more than a dozen people in the parking lot to “pray for the couple's souls,” Ms. Duckworth said.
s..a...r...........y... ........
...
...
...
WTF?! A prayer circle with over a dozen people in the few minutes it takes to get ejected from the restaurant?
Forget apologizing, Tim Hortons had better start pleading forgiveness on bended knee and seriously contemplate telling the complaining religious ****wit busybody customers to get a life and leave the girls in peace.
*snorts* prayer circle indeed...
-
I should organize a group of atheists to lurk at places and any time any remotely religious action is taken we should all complain to management that we are feeling uncomfortable by their public display of ignorance.
-
I have to wonder if the pastor carries an on-call phone for just these sorts of emergencies: "If you see a same-sex couple kissing, dial 666 for immediate prayer-circle response..."
-
Oh if only religion wasn't there to screw things that shouldn't be a problem up. Makes me see religion even more in a negative light
Did make me chuckle, so your goal has been achieved
-
LOL , that's was one hell of a story, it's just soo pathetic, LMAO
Oh if only religion wasn't there to screw things that shouldn't be a problem up. Makes me see religion even more in a negative light
Did make me chuckle, so your goal has been achieved
Man, I couldn't agree more,,, well said! :yes:
-
Oh look another bunch of crazies just like Westboro Baptist. Well at least they are actually targeting their intended victims this time rather than protesting soldiers funerals because the government allows some one to be gay. Never did understand how the heck they arrived at that logic.
-
There's very little that legitimately pisses me off or even strongly irritates me anymore.
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
tl;dr people are dicks, religion doesn't cause that.
-
Religion is not a direct cause but it can be a catalyst. Most Christians would view the out right bigotry displayed in this case and by the Westboro people as wrong in itself. But we can't escape the fact that as long as they are allowed to these morons will continue wrap up their hate for all things different from them in their faith and try to pass it off as socially acceptable.
-
Canadians tend to apologise even when it's not really necessary. Sometimes it's a bad habit that we get into. Corporations too... especially ones that are still trying to pretend they are Canadian even when bought out years ago by Americans :)
Yes we have religious crazies in Ontario too... fewer than some places I suspect.
-
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them,
Hundreds upon hundreds of years of conditioning and religion isn't the one to blame? Sure the people could use the better half of their brain, but the bias came from religious conditioning. Therefore, I blame the General rather than the Private.
-
With the stuff I've seen at Timmies around here, two lesbians potentially groping eachother wouldn't even make the free newspapers at bus stops.
The prayer circle part did make me smirk though.
-
Hundreds upon hundreds of years of conditioning and religion isn't the one to blame? Sure the people could use the better half of their brain, but the bias came from religious conditioning.
most biases derive from neurally hardwired processes
skip the general, blame the dictator-for-life
-
i'm with scotty. doesn't anyone think it's a bit hypocritical to hate religion because you think it causes hate? or not tolerate it because you think it's intolerant?
and when i say "a bit" i mean "a whole ****ing lot"
-
i'm with scotty. doesn't anyone think it's a bit hypocritical to hate religion because you think it causes hate? or not tolerate it because you think it's intolerant?
and when i say "a bit" i mean "a whole ****ing lot"
I don't hate religion let's get that clear. I do not however, appreciate the message people get from it. I tolerate it until something like this happens.
Albeit, it's somewhat funny the way you put it (not ragging on you or anything). Religion causing hate, so people hate it. Therefore, Religion makes hate on two fronts! I'm not trying to start a serious discussion by the way
-
i'm with scotty. doesn't anyone think it's a bit hypocritical to hate religion because you think it causes hate? or not tolerate it because you think it's intolerant?
and when i say "a bit" i mean "a whole ****ing lot"
Since religion in itself entails completely ignoring reality in order to believe something with immobile resolve, I kind of think that there's a correlation, but not necessarily a causation.
-
You guys know why there is religion in the world right? People make religions and all that they entail. It just so happens fanatical/intolerant/hateful/ignorant people create fanatical/intolerant/hateful/ignorant religions...
-
I can imagine God thinking, "You're standing in the middle of a Car Park staring at the floor, and you're worried about their safety?" ;)
-
i'm with scotty. doesn't anyone think it's a bit hypocritical to hate religion because you think it causes hate? or not tolerate it because you think it's intolerant?
The basis of tolerance is not to tolerate, but to hate intolerance. Tolerance does not exist in vacuum, it is born of the belief that inequality exists and it is wrong. There can be no great hate without great love. There can be no great love without great hate.
Try and rewrite the fundamental nature of the human condition again mother****er, I dare you.
-
I do wonder why I should worship a higher entity that allegedly approves of such behavior, though I also understand not all religious folk are such massive dicks.
So as a compromise between religion and common-sense, I vote we go back to worshiping the sun like the cultures of old.
Seriously, think about it. You can see it, it shows up every day, it is directly responsible for your existence and continued well-being, it feelsgoodman on your skin (within limits), and in ~4.5 billion years it will utterly scorch the surface of the earth.
So yes. The Sun is better than God.
(http://i.imgur.com/NLWWa.gif)
-
Or you could always just put it the way they did...
-
There's very little that legitimately pisses me off or even strongly irritates me anymore.
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
tl;dr people are dicks, religion doesn't cause that.
Thank you Scotty.
Exact same boat as you, and I couldn't agree more.
-
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
While you are for the most part correct you've forgotten something. Religion is an active force against self correction that doesn't exist for any other case of dickwaddery. Unlike almost every other type of idiocy there is no amount of evidence you can rub in the face of a religious zealot that will ever convince them that they might be wrong. Their ****ed up belief that a supernatural deity is telling them to do something that wrong-headed is always going to trump anything you can try to rationally convince them of.
Religion might not make these people into dicks but it does play a very big role in preventing them from ever stopping being dicks.
-
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
While you are for the most part correct you've forgotten something. Religion is an active force against self correction that doesn't exist for any other case of dickwaddery.
Going to disagree with you, this exists in everything. You can have people who will not listen to facts that contradict any viewpoint they take. They're surprisingly common. Oft times it has nothing to do with Religion.
That's just fanaticism, it's incredibly common and not unique to religion.
-
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
While you are for the most part correct you've forgotten something. Religion is an active force against self correction that doesn't exist for any other case of dickwaddery.
Going to disagree with you, this exists in everything. You can have people who will not listen to facts that contradict any viewpoint they take. They're surprisingly common. Oft times it has nothing to do with Religion.
That's just fanaticism, it's incredibly common and not unique to religion.
It's not even fanaticism, it's pretty much a core component of human cognition.
-
Blaming religion for the stupid things people do is one of them, and I hardly consider myself religious anymore. All it does is hand wave the root cause of the problem, e.g. people being dickwads with "oh, it's because they're religious." No, that's not why they're dickwads. People are dickwads irresepctive of faith or religion or anything else, otherwise there would never be any dickwad non-religious people.
While you are for the most part correct you've forgotten something. Religion is an active force against self correction that doesn't exist for any other case of dickwaddery.
Going to disagree with you, this exists in everything. You can have people who will not listen to facts that contradict any viewpoint they take. They're surprisingly common. Oft times it has nothing to do with Religion.
That's just fanaticism, it's incredibly common and not unique to religion.
It's not even fanaticism, it's pretty much a core component of human cognition.
Yeah, that's more accurate.
-
and in ~4.5 billion years it will utterly scorch the surface of the earth.
In 1 - 2 billion years it will ensure that the stratosphere warms up so much that all the water we have escapes into space.
-
That's just fanaticism, it's incredibly common and not unique to religion.
I'm not implying it's unique. I'm implying it's worse.
Unlike the other forms there is no reason to ever check if you're wrong.
-
That's just fanaticism, it's incredibly common and not unique to religion.
I'm not implying it's unique. I'm implying it's worse.
Unlike the other forms there is no reason to ever check if you're wrong.
That's a very fine distinction though between having reason (Which will be ignored) and not having reason to check.
So, no, I'd argue that it's not actually any worse.
-
Here's a fun idea, let us compile a list of things religious people are supposed to hate (or have a distaste for), versus what atheists and agnostics are supposed to hate. I wonder; who would have the longer list?
Let's stick with Abrahamic beliefs, since they are the most prominent in the western world.
I'll start with a few things commonly despise among Abrahamic faiths, and others can contribute as we continue. :)
Homosexuals
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
Women (considered of lower value)
Children (considered of lower value)
Pre-marital sex
Contraceptives
Please contribute.
-
Here's a fun idea, let us compile a list of things religious people are supposed to hate (or have a distaste for), versus what atheists and agnostics are supposed to hate. I wonder; who would have the longer list?
Let's stick with Abrahamic beliefs, since they are the most prominent in the western world.
I'll start with a few things commonly despise among Abrahamic faiths, and others can contribute as we continue. :)
Homosexuals
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
Women (considered of lower value)
Children (considered of lower value)
Pre-marital sex
Contraceptives
Please contribute.
Just going to amend your list to restrict it to the items that all religious people agree they should hate
okay done, it's right there
-
Here's a fun idea, let us compile a list of things religious people are supposed to hate (or have a distaste for), versus what atheists and agnostics are supposed to hate. I wonder; who would have the longer list?
Let's stick with Abrahamic beliefs, since they are the most prominent in the western world.
I'll start with a few things commonly despise among Abrahamic faiths, and others can contribute as we continue. :)
Homosexuals
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
Women (considered of lower value)
Children (considered of lower value)
Pre-marital sex
Contraceptives
Please contribute.
Just going to amend your list to restrict it to the items that all religious people agree they should hate
okay done, it's right there
So according to their doctrines, they are supposed to have no opinion on any of that?
-
you seem to be deluded into thinking there is only one religion
edit:
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
...? Here you are promoting intolerance of religion because they are intolerant of other religions?
-
Here's a fun idea, let us compile a list of things religious people are supposed to hate (or have a distaste for), versus what atheists and agnostics are supposed to hate. I wonder; who would have the longer list?
Let's stick with Abrahamic beliefs, since they are the most prominent in the western world.
I'll start with a few things commonly despise among Abrahamic faiths, and others can contribute as we continue. :)
Homosexuals
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
Women (considered of lower value)
Children (considered of lower value)
Pre-marital sex
Contraceptives
Please contribute.
Just going to amend your list to restrict it to the items that all religious people agree they should hate
okay done, it's right there
So according to their doctrines, they are supposed to have no opinion on any of that?
According to 'their' doctrines 'they' are like a couple billion people who can't agree on any ****ing thing because they are a couple billion people
I am extraordinarily suspicious of anyone who enters a debate about something as complex and personal as religion by referencing a shadowy 'they' that uniformly believes one thing. And you're doing it to prove that your ingroup is better than that outgroup, too!
**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'
-
Abortion
I noticed this wasn't on the list of things religious people agree they should hate
I'm sure they're out there, those who believe in God but agree to abortion, but I've only ever come across the ones who argue their side quoting religious reasons.
-
Surely not all religions are against it?
And I find people from all sorts of different groups or beliefs whom are against abortion. Those whom are not doing it for religious reasons use moral reasons - based on their morals, that is.
-
Abortion
I noticed this wasn't on the list of things religious people agree they should hate
ok
I'm sure they're out there, those who believe in God but agree to abortion
there you go that's why
-
What can I say Pol. I can't leave the 20% out of any discussion, I'm Canadian
-
You both missed the biggest issue with my first post, trying to compare what I seem to assume is a semi-organized belief system to atheism/agnosticism is foolish at best.
This is a mistake, but I'll bite.
you seem to be deluded into thinking there is only one religion
edit:
Non-believers (most prominently islam)
...? Here you are promoting intolerance of religion because they are intolerant of other religions?
What do you meet such intolerance with? Organized religion has quite the history of forced conversion, under penalty of death. I feel very little tolerance for that. Turning the other cheek only works under certain odd conditions.
According to 'their' doctrines 'they' are like a couple billion people who can't agree on any ****ing thing because they are a couple billion people
I am extraordinarily suspicious of anyone who enters a debate about something as complex and personal as religion by referencing a shadowy 'they' that uniformly believes one thing. And you're doing it to prove that your ingroup is better than that outgroup, too!
**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'
I can argue your side much more easily, but I felt like I'd play around with this a little.
I was whipping those lines out on my phone during my lunch break, I apologize for the use of that unspecific language, the iPhone keyboard sucks. Let's limit our frame to organized, fundamentalist viewpoints of the big three Abrahamic belief systems (Judaism, Islam, Christianity). The people in the article acted much as I expect a more (not necessarily hard-line) modern fundamentalist Christian group would. How would you describe the viewpoints of these three large fundamentalist groups?
Now, to clarify my viewpoint on this matter further; I am arguing that these belief systems act as force multipliers for extreme intolerant tendencies. They provide a catalyst by creating bogeymen, scapegoats, and belittled groups. History is littered with examples of other groups doing this very thing, but the only beliefs that ride alongside religion, that I can think of, are racial identity and national identity. I don't think those two are good bros to be hanging with. The scary part of all three are the blind unquestioning faith that they seed in individuals.
For the sake of this argument, lets not look at resource limitations as a source of intolerant and violent behavior. There's a difference between mass killings and forced conversions because someone thinks differently, and between two groups starving to death.
-
These belief systems act as force multipliers for extreme intolerant tendencies.
you got it backwards
edit:
What do you meet such intolerance with? Organized religion has quite the history of forced conversion, under penalty of death. I feel very little tolerance for that. Turning the other cheek only works under certain odd conditions.
you'd have a hard time convincing me that holy wars are more than politics disguised with god, and individuals that actually kill people for the sole reason of them refusing to convert to a different religion are such a small minority of religious people that I'd think you can safely ignore them when making statements about the group.
edit2: though as you mention the differences between state and religion when dealing with intolerance isn't actually important. what is important is that stereotypes, prejudices, and intolerance arise naturally because of the way people work. a better discussion to have would be on to what extent those prejudices affect people's behaviour towards other groups when the groups are arbitrarily separated. this is important because the practical differences in the way people act towards other groups don't have much to do with either centralized religion or politics. I would argue that the way people respond to other groups is a little dependent on genetics and mostly dependent on the environment in which you were raised. religion and politics can play a role in the environment you are raised in but you are not going to have a uniform environment across populations, even if religious beliefs and public policy are uniform (which they are not).
-
These belief systems act as force multipliers for extreme intolerant tendencies.
you got it backwards
edit:
What do you meet such intolerance with? Organized religion has quite the history of forced conversion, under penalty of death. I feel very little tolerance for that. Turning the other cheek only works under certain odd conditions.
you'd have a hard time convincing me that holy wars are more than politics disguised with god, and individuals that actually kill people for the sole reason of them refusing to convert to a different religion are such a small minority of religious people that I'd think you can safely ignore them when making statements about the group.
1. Then it could still just be a system created by crazies that helps other crazies act crazier. That doesn't make it alright.
2. Regardless of its "higher purpose", it can still be hijacked to use its followers' blind faith to achieve murderous and horrible goals.
-
1. Then it could still just be a system created by crazies that helps other crazies act crazier. That doesn't make it alright.
2. Regardless of its "higher purpose", it can still be hijacked to use its followers' blind faith to achieve murderous and horrible goals.
point is you're not `crazy' if you have prejudices , it's part of the human condition. if religion isn't the outlet then it will be something else. Also note that prejudice doesn't only mean intolerance. More generally, stereotyping is a fundamental (and useful) part of human psychology and both good and bad prejudices can come from them. There are bad outlets (killing people) and good outlets (arguing on the internet), and no outlet is really solely used by religions or any other kind of group. ergo, saying that religions should be banned because they make people intolerant and that makes them kill people is a bad argument because intolerance can't be cured by removing religion. (ignoring all other side effects of that argument...)
and this higher purpose hijacking thing, again, isn't just for religion. The state (or any group, really) can insert itself between you and just about anything (eg taxes, war, advertisements...). If this were a good argument you would need to get rid of a lot of things that you probably shouldn't get rid of.
-
pointing out that judaism, christianity, and islam are not uniform in their beliefs. there are many denominations in each branch too. (christanity I can attest to, islam a little, juadism I dont know that much about). anyway the people you call fundamentalists as such are actually not that large a number as you imply. it has been made to sound that everyone who follows those religions is a fundamentalist. to many sweeping generalizations.
-
*points to sig*
-
pointing out that judaism, christianity, and islam are not uniform in their beliefs. there are many denominations in each branch too. (christanity I can attest to, islam a little, juadism I dont know that much about). anyway the people you call fundamentalists as such are actually not that large a number as you imply. it has been made to sound that everyone who follows those religions is a fundamentalist. to many sweeping generalizations.
You can't deny there are a large number of folks that do, and that there were even larger numbers in the past. It definitely doesn't help that they are the ones who scream the loudest.
*points to sig*
I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.
In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.
To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day. :)
-
That's a very fine distinction though between having reason (Which will be ignored) and not having reason to check.
So, no, I'd argue that it's not actually any worse.
Again, I have to disagree with you. Not only is it worse as is, the fact that you have a holy source to tell you it is that way means that it is much easier to find other people who share your fanaticism.
I'm not here to claim religion should be banned or any such nonsense but if you're going to claim that in it's worst form it's exactly the same as any other form of fanaticism then I will argue that you are wrong.
-
*points to sig*
I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.
In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.
To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day. :)
With all due respect, I was more or less referring to the calling of all religious people delusional, not just the fundies (perhaps I should have been more clear there)--and as a religious person myself, I agree that if certain people are trying to justify their religion as a basis for violating human rights, they need to carefully question their belief set.*
Also, I live in South Carolina, so I am well aware of how bad it can get down here. :p
* in b4 "sigtau is a hypocrite"
-
I found that the general purpose of any religion is to manipulate people. Those who actually believe it are just caught in that manipulation. Most modern systems are based on ancient principles, rules integrated into culture and passed down through generations. While this manipulation was originally necessary (and still is for stupid people), now it's mostly abused for profit or for the sake of the manipulation itself (people who do the latter are usually caught into it themselves, which happens when a person unable to understand the system gets elevated to a religious leader).
I hope that the day will come that the humanity would transcend the need for such silly things as religion and follow common sense, reason and science instead.
I've personally managed to achieve that by asking "And what if it wasn't exactly true?" and similar questions about most things I was told (it doesn't stop at religion either, I'm going to study high energy physics to be able to understand and, perhaps, challenge the most complicated, advanced and fundamental theories in physics), using strictly logical reasoning and Occam's Razor. There's no way to empirically prove any religion, world could function just fine without supernatural beings existing and there's a psychological theory explaining why people create and worship such beings.
Also, I couldn't say that God doesn't exist, but it is a purely psychological phenomenon instead of anything that has any direct influence in physical world. Sort of a collective delusion, created for the purpose of collective manipulation. When you take a closer look at it (from the psychological standpoint), religion is a fascinating phenomenon.
I was also amazed that I was unable to disprove Christianity by "direct" logical reasoning (something I attempted on every single religion lesson :)), most things in it can be explained without introducing any contradictions, especially if you know something about the Bible in original. If it wasn't for Occam's Razor, there would be no reason Christianity couldn't be true.
Concluding, Christianity could be the most brilliant manipulation ever created by intelligent beings. I didn't analyze other religions in such detail, but I might do that someday.
I should also note that the above (any below) doesn't apply to far eastern religions, like Buddhism or Hinduism, but these are more about certain philosophies and ways of life than about worshiping deities. Perhaps even my "philosophy of doubt" is similar to one of the Buddhist philosophies.
Considering all this, I find fanaticism very stupid. It's religion for the sake of religion, not serving any actual purpose. Originally, it was meant to make people behave in certain way that was beneficial to the community as a whole. Rituals and mythology was just to make it believable. Now, people are obsessed with these rituals and mythology, ignoring the actual meaning. Fanaticism, of course, is beneficial to the church, since fanatics are easier to manipulate.
-
*points to sig*
I would argue that there's a clear difference between saying a big man in the sky hates homosexuals, and calling the people who do just that delusional. I am also trying to avoid being an ass, there's really no need for it.
In their most literal forms, all three of the big Abrahamic religions require blind, unquestioning faith. I think the fact that a paramount doctrine of a system you are supposed to live by is that you shouldn't question it to be quite disturbing. I find it more disturbing that some of the rules in these religions dictate what most of the world now considers human rights abuses.
To reiterate, I am talking about fundamentalist followers, which there are plenty of. Try driving through the bible belt some day. :)
With all due respect, I was more or less referring to the calling of all religious people delusional, not just the fundies (perhaps I should have been more clear there)--and as a religious person myself, I agree that if certain people are trying to justify their religion as a basis for violating human rights, they need to carefully question their belief set.*
Also, I live in South Carolina, so I am well aware of how bad it can get down here. :p
* in b4 "sigtau is a hypocrite"
Don't worry, I know you know about the bible belt, we both have to live through its more... colorful characters. :p
-
Here is my summation of this forum based on this thread
Topic: blahblahblah crazy current event blahblah
Response: "wow dude, that's crazy."
"Yeah we should do something about that."
Topic: blahblahblah crazyevent blahblahpray
RELIGION SUXXORZ!!!a! Christians should die!!!!! Rahhh nutbagz!!
Kill em with fire! Make em beg to apologize! System of freaks supporting crazies! Gahhhhhh!!!!! !$#@
Absolutely rediculous. You all should take a long, hard look at yourselves.
You know why you think we're all crazy? Because the Media says we are. The crazies are the ones that get you linking stories. The crazies are the ones that get on the news. The crazies are the ones that make movies that sell. The crazies are almost all you ever see.
Let me just take a moment to show you a bit of the other side of things.
The Confessing Church stood up to Hitler in the 1940's when few else dared to. Martin Luther King, one of the greatest Civil Rights activists of all time, was a Christian Reverend before he was an activist, and it was his view of God that stirred him to do what he did.
This video, skip to 1:27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmOUAdLgN1A
See, what the news doesn't tell you, is that the Church is an organization that has hospitals, dental clinics, food closets, on every inhabited continent, often offering free healthcare and food in places of intense poverty. The Church rallies support for the least, the lost, the lonely. The Church gives hope to the hopeless. Gives love to the unloved. Takes care of the needy. And unceasingly seeks drastic change in this very dark world.
Yet here you are, griping over a couple of people because they want to PRAY for a couple of people who are doing something against what they believe?
Really now.
-
Maybe you should take a long look at your inability to read this thread instead. :p
-
Not one person has said anything of the sort "Christians should die"
I believe the general argument is that religion requires one to think in a certain way that cuts out any chance of self correction.
-
Here is my summation of this forum based on this thread
Just now realizing this? :P
-
...
I don't know what thread you've been reading, but I'm sorry it upset you. :)
-
Just a liiiittle over the top there, G0atmaster. While I do agree with you on the notion that not all Christians are equally as crazy as the Bible-thumping fundamentalist crowd, it needs to be said that the opinion you seem to be trying to counter hasn't actually been expressed in this thread.
Now, as for the rest of GenDisc... :p
-
**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'
I do believe that as a human being you have every right to believe what you believe as long as a) you are allowed to make that choice for yourself and b) you do not infringe uppon the liberties of your fellow human beings.
The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary. And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.
I really do respect your thoughtful viewpoint on such a delicate issue as Religion Battuta. It's not just rare but also refreshing. At the same time I am also curious how you stand on the issue of early childhood indoctrination which promotes, to some extent or the other, to quench the capacity for rational discourse and the desire for acquiring knowledge through dogmatic belief of some kind or the other.
I.e. Just going by the viewpoints both of us express it's easy to guess that you and be both were lucky in that we did have parents who did not ram religion down our throaths. Other people are not so lucky.
I would never go as far as proclaim "Religion" to be the root of all evil... but, the way religion perpetuates and reinforces arbitrary belief throughout our society does certainly not earn it any more respect from my side than say... some form of the common cold or flu "of the mind".
-
**** I'm the biggest ****ing atheist but I understand human cognition enough to know that you should never trust anyone's opinion unless they can argue both sides of an issue. There are just too many heuristic traps to rely on an assessment as simplistic as 'let's make a list of all the ways WE are better than THEM (they are all the same by the way guys)'
The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary. And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.
I'd disagree, because there are plenty of people raised in a religion who then go on to lose it
-
I'd disagree, because there are plenty of people raised in a religion who then go on to lose it
The parent - child - religion correlation can hardly be dismissed by simply noting the possibility of breaking free.
It's an easy thing for an educated person to say that you can "just break free", but frankly quite ignorant to the realities of what indoctrination - of any kind, not just religious - does to a child.
(In that sense religion is no more or less institutionalized childhood indoctrination with some set of arbitrary parameters that vary by religious "flavor"... having parents who are only mildly - if at all - religious and being able to enjoy an education with an at least mostly open mind is certainly a priviledge... and hardly anyone who enjoys it realizes how precious it really is.)
Worst case scenario? Well seriously... why do you think young people put on a suicide vest and blow themselves up for their god? Is that just something that occurred to them suddenly and that overrides all hardwired self preservation reflexes or what? Along the same lines... where does that obsession with wanting to prescribe to everyone what they can and can not do in the privacy of their own bedrooms come from? ... to the point of ostracising, hurting or even killing anyone who dares violate "gods holy law". Different flavors, same problem.
And while you can argue that the more moderate forms of religion are "harmless" I would rather point out that our societies acceptance of arbitrary childhood indoctrination, which is what pretty much any "mainstream" religion promotes (or it dies out/becomes a niche ... religious evolution at work, how ironic is that eh? ;) ), is very much an enabler for the more fanatic excesses.
-
The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.
That is called growing up, the beliefs your parents tell you, and the apple does never fall far from the tree. There is no difference between being preconditioned with religious dogma or being preconditioned with ... anything else. Every parent in the world does that, except perhaps the neglicient ones. Off-course, they don't do it in a way you like, but if/when you have kids you are doing/will be doing something quite similar.
And while, granted, not all religions infringe uppon the beliefs of others... the most prominent ones certainly do, to the point where, in the case of the US, you can see the blatant attempt to corrupt education to further infect future generations with their dogmatic worldview.
The problem with this argument is that you see 'religion' as a massive sentient body with massive power, that infringes upon the rights of others. In the US this certainly is not the case (the only 'massive sentient body with massive power' I can think of is the Catholic Church, which is not very prominent in the US). It is more a lot of closed-minded individuals who happen to band together ocasionally, who just happen to be religious (atheïsts can be just as bad, and, arguably, distinctive atheïst groups have been worse).
-
The more prominent religions violate both of these beliefs: Does a child who gets his/her head preconditioned with religious dogma in early childhood really have a choice in what to believe? Overwhelming statistic evidence (correlation of religion of parent and child) would suggest the contrary.
That is called growing up, the beliefs your parents tell you, and the apple does never fall far from the tree. There is no difference between being preconditioned with religious dogma or being preconditioned with ... anything else. Every parent in the world does that, except perhaps the neglicient ones. Off-course, they don't do it in a way you like, but if/when you have kids you are doing/will be doing something quite similar.
Every parent teaches their childs to blindly believe even when they have evidence to the contrary? ;) Luckily not... although of course some do, as evidenced by the Darwinism vs. Creationism idiocy going on.
Every parent teaches their child... true enough, but certainly not every parent indoctrinates their child with dogmatic belief... and that makes quite a huge difference when you do grow up.
The problem with this argument is that you see 'religion' as a massive sentient body with massive power, that infringes upon the rights of others. In the US this certainly is not the case (the only 'massive sentient body with massive power' I can think of is the Catholic Church, which is not very prominent in the US). It is more a lot of closed-minded individuals who happen to band together ocasionally, who just happen to be religious (atheïsts can be just as bad, and, arguably, distinctive atheïst groups have been worse).
The problem with your argument is that you put words in my mouth. ;)
Religious belief, from my viewpoint, is no more sentient than a virus... but just as effective in perpetuating itself and, just like a virus, for no other purpose than perpetuating itself.
As for the prominence of religion in the US i would encourage you to do some research on what is actually going on. I would worry quite a bit less about the Catholic Church than about the widespread radical Christian groups that do run rampant. I would also encourage you do take a look at the number of Christian vs. Atheists politicians in office. (Hint, there aren't any atheists, as atheism is de facto political suicide...)
Let that sink in... despite merely numerically being a huge group, as large as the largest single religious group, admitting that you are an atheist would kill any political campaign. If that does not tell us something about the prominence of religion in the American electorate and "religious" tolerance in America, then what does? A former elected president that claimed to commune directly with god?
As for your claim that Atheism can be just as bad... isn't that kinda paradox? You can certainly make a case for intolerance, hate, ostracism etc. being universal problems but... as for Atheism being some kind of ideal that people would elevate over reason and scientific evidence and even die, kill or go to war for? Don't confuse Atheism as another religion, the whole notion is idiotic.
I mean seriously, Atheism, by definition, doesn't even have some universal group dogma. The whole ingroup/outgroup thinking is the providence of Religion... and maybe blind patriotism, which is the one thing that *I* can think of that really does have the potential for being "just as bad" as religious dogma... i.e. the potential to delude yourself into believing a fiction even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Finally, I also gotta admit that if it was just moderate Catholicism and similar religions most people would propably care less. Live and let live, right? But the fact that we have a growing number of groups in the US that do take the bible as literal truth again worries pretty much anyone who has actually read the bible, including most catholic priests and scholars.
-
Oh look another religion thread.
I love the cluster**** that religion threads bring about :D.
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.
In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.
We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.
Kumbayah?
-
In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.
We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.
read this like six times and it still doesn't make any sense, which is troubling because you seem to be under the impression that it is obvious that "religion" is to blame
-
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.
I think you forgot to add that it's never complete until Luis Dias arrives to take a **** all over the thread.
-
Oh look another religion thread.
I love the cluster**** that religion threads bring about :D.
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card while all the others exchange mortars and missiles of Godwinnian arguments all over the place.
In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.
We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.
Kumbayah?
You will never solve any issues - be it discrimination or whatever else - that are dogmatized and perpetuated by organized religion (or similar institutions) simply by proclaiming it's futile to even discuss - using the mother of all strawman arguments for support - while you ride off on your high horse proclaiming you have more important things to do.
The specific worldview isn't really the problem, whatever it currently is, which makes your argument pretty much miss the point. You are on the wrong (meta) level.
The problem is how religion perpetuates dogma through the ages and the untold harm it causes.
I.e. our problem is more or less a meme, a quite virulent one: Set belief that defies evidence to the contrary. Spread from parent to child.
The different religions we have are merely a manifestation of this belief, this meme.
Organized religion isn't the only institution to spread dogma either, just the most prominent one.
Social sciences can explain why we have religion. Biology, specifically Evolution offers a whole slew of explanations. Aboves meme/viral theory being just one of them.
None of these explanations requires a higher being. Religion however does... or the belief in a higher being anyways... which is one of the things leads us headlong into this obnoxious confrontation of religion/belief vs. rationality/the scientific method.
The question that remains is why Religion as such (not just Christian religion) is still granted that special status in society and especially American society, to be above scrutiny, to be a justification for pretty much anything, including the denial of education to children, drug abuse, displays of racism or other discrimination, et cetera.
-
In this particular case, "religion" is obviously to be blamed. Religious people will disagree, and we could settle then for a rephrase. Let's adopt the christian talking points, for instance, and declare that what this awkward group has done is a sort of a "pagan" exercise. By declaring it "pagan" we can excuse religion of this ****hole demonstration of ignorance and descrimination, and perhaps unite a whole bigger bunch of reasonable people against this "pagan" sort of thinking.
We could use this "rephrasing" technique to whatever the most civilized bunch of religious people feel where their own religion could be "upgraded", and let the cluster****ing mess that is debating religion to its own messy corner and actually solve a real problem of discrimination and hurt.
read this like six times and it still doesn't make any sense, which is troubling because you seem to be under the impression that it is obvious that "religion" is to blame
Well, I can say the same about your own comment. I don't understand why my senselessness is troubling *because* of a particular impression that I might or might not have. But I agree that I usually have problems in stating things unequivocally and clearly.
In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).
Although one thing in defense of christianity has to be said: it's quite better than bullying the couple into submission by stoning them to death.
You will never solve any issues - be it discrimination or whatever else - that are dogmatized and perpetuated by organized religion (or similar institutions) simply by proclaiming it's futile to even discuss - using the mother of all strawman arguments for support - while you ride off on your high horse proclaiming you have more important things to do.
Not my intent at all. I was merely trying the pragmatic approach. If religious people will never accept that this is a problem that stems from religion, then we should approach it slightly different, since many religious people will also cringe at this type of news, showing that they can also do something about this idiocies, if we can agree to that.
The specific worldview isn't really the problem, whatever it currently is, which makes your argument pretty much miss the point. You are on the wrong (meta) level.
NO U
-
In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).
go back and read some of my responses to swantz (tl;dr intolerance in religion is a symptom not a cause)
-
In summary, yeah, I also believe that a *particular* kind of religious thinking is to be blamed here, namely the absolutist belief that homossexuality is an unholy sin against the sacredness of everything regarding sex and marriage, etc., the righteous nature that is justified for having none other than the most absolute power in the universe on their side of the equation, and the pretensiousness that all the "praying for their souls" activity demonstrates (yeah let's all close our eyes and ask the universe to bend itself and change other people's minds just because we do so politely and "humbly"!).
Absolutist belief is the problem. Period. I would agree with that. Doesn't really matter what the actual issue is however.
The problem with Religion that remains however is that it nurtures, dogmatizes and perpetuates such belief more effectively than any other institution.
-
I know what you believe, but you should pay attention to this detail: the fact that I understand your point is still not sufficient for me to accept it.
Intolerance exists, as you rightfully put it, everywhere where mankind exists. What some specific religions do, however, is to write down certain types of intolerance into holy rules, into dogma. And by doing so, they are telling everyone that these particular intolerances should be taught and should be beyond discussion. This is, itself, intolerable.
Now, from this point, we can say a lot of other things. We can say that many religious people don't give too much importance to the "dogmatic facts" of their own faith and they, as fellow human beings with decency in their hearts, will understand that intolerating gays and what nots is something that should be scrapped to the garbage bin of history. Then, they can tell to themselves that these intolerances are not "important" for their faith, so they can ignore them. They are obviously lying to themselves, but it's not an evil lie IMO.
We can also say that if we want to solve these problems, shouting out that religion "must go" won't get us anywhere interesting. I'd rather work with religious people to solve these matters than with atheists who think that destroying the religion is the solution, merely for pragmatic reasons alone.
What you won't have me agree with is the notion that religion is without any "responsibilities" over these matters. That is surely a lie.
-
As for your claim that Atheism can be just as bad... isn't that kinda paradox? You can certainly make a case for intolerance, hate, ostracism etc. being universal problems but... as for Atheism being some kind of ideal that people would elevate over reason and scientific evidence and even die, kill or go to war for? Don't confuse Atheism as another religion, the whole notion is idiotic.
No - I said that Atheïsts can be just as bad, as there have been several god-less ideologies (Some based on scientific evidence) that people elevated over reason and died, killed, or went to war for.
-
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card
Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities
-
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card
Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities
How could you possibly know? But yeah, I agree with your assessment and compliment. Thanks ;).
-
And happy to see that little changes in HLP... with Battuta always playing the comical "I'm the most atheistic person you'll ever meet BUT I hate when atheists speak" ridiculous card
Being a better atheist and scientist than most atheists is a tough job, and it carries certain responsibilities
How could you possibly know? But yeah, I agree with your assessment and compliment. Thanks ;).
Hmm decent try but fumbled on the conversion and didn't carry the necessary chutzpah, I'll say 4/10
-
I will never make anything contestworthy to your touchéan powers, I'll give you that.
-
I will never make anything contestworthy to your touchéan powers, I'll give you that.
No don't give up I was getting pangs of nostalgia :(
-
Nah... you're just bored. Like I am. Damned renderings....
-
Nah... you're just bored. Like I am. Damned renderings....
Godspeed good sir I am going to run some ****ing ksmirnov tests :(
-
As I said above... if Religious institutions made an honest effort at fighting discrimnation and overcoming dogma and we all got along well together, it would hardly be worth discussing.
Over here in Germany Religion is hardly anything that would need to be addressed as an actual "problem" for instance.
The US however appears to go full steam in the other direction and the difference appears to be the prevalence of absolutist belief/dogma/literal scripture interpretation. Now why should we worry about it and not just leave it alone?
I'm sure you've read that the number of fundamentalist Christians in the Air Force has risen from an estimated 20% to 30% in the last years.
Fundamentalism has generally been acknowledged to be a problem in the air force. (just google a bit)
I'm sure you've also heard about the "Jesus loves Nukes" ICBM training video scandal.
We already talked about the prevalence of faith in politics.
The situation is not static but follows an obvious trend.
The Christian Fundamentalism in question features all the usual baggage like end of the world, final war, rapture, 2nd coming of jesus, Apocalypse et cetera: And not to be mistaken, this is generally something that the faithful look forward to.
You believe the major world religions will solve issues of discrimination, hate and violence? Question would be... are they even remotely capable of doing anything of the sort or is the predisposition to believe instead of wanting to know a compounding factor that rather benefits the more extreme sects and religions, especially of the fundamentalist Christian flavor (by now already dubbed the "Christian Taliban" for the similarities in fanatism and willingness to commit violence) springing up in the US?
-
These institutions are made of people. I'm sure that decency also creeps in them, albeit apparently slowly. This is something that we shouldn't expect them to perform for themselves. We should demand it from them. Freedom requires eternal vigilance.
-
Back on topic, it gets better still:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Group+protest+lesbians+banishment+from+Hortons/5609452/story.html
Eric Revie, an assistant pastor at the Glad Tidings Community Church in Blenheim, 90 kilometres east of Windsor, was the one who expressed discomfort to the assistant manager at the Tim Hortons that day.
In a statement emailed to The Star, Revie said he did not ask the manager to tell the couple to leave, but rather did not want his two sons, aged nine and three, to witness what he called a "visibly lewd" public display of affection.
Revie added that his request had nothing to do with the fact that the couple was gay.
"At the time I thought it was a guy-girl couple. I was unaware it was two girls," Revie said.
Revie said the Facebook page was circulating "lies" and that he does not "preach hatred" nor does he "hate those with alternative lifestyles."
No word on the alleged prayer circle.
EDIT: Oddly enough, it appears the National Post (Canada's equivalent of Fox News or the Daily Mail) seems to have more details, though considering the source I'm tempted to take it with a large chunk of rock salt...
Rev. Revie said he was out with a youth group and his four children, the youngest three years old, at a Tim Hortons last month when he spotted the couple on a bench outside with their tongues locked together and their hands down each other’s pants.
“They were straddling each other … and really making out,” he said. He asked a store manager to tell the couple to “tone it down” in front of his children.
“I don’t have anything against the gay community as a pastor. I don’t hate them,” he said. “My concern was I was in a public place, Tim Hortons, with my family and my children and if they had turned around they would have seen this nearly pornographic image.”
The dispute boiled over after the couple contacted Michelle Boyce, head of Alphabet Community Centre, a London, Ont., gay and transgendered group, to help them file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Ms. Boyce’s account of the couple’s story on Facebook — including a description of how the church group held a 15-person prayer vigil for the women in the Tim Hortons parking lot that Rev. Revie said was actually just parents standing around chatting — elicited a huge outcry of support from as far away as California and prompted local organizers to plan a protest at the coffee shop on Thursday that had garnered more than 500 online supporters by Monday afternoon.
The plot thickens. But again, I ask myself, if the display was really that egregious, why is Tim Horton's apologizing and not simply making the facts known?
-
I don't get why the damned preacher feels the need to lie so blatantly. Oh wait, I do get it quite well.
-
I don't get why the damned preacher feels the need to lie so blatantly. Oh wait, I do get it quite well.
This is where you get yourself in hot water. None of us have any means of knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying - all any of us have is suspicion based on the information reported in the media.
I posted the topic because I found it somewhat ludicrously amusing, not to start an intense discussion on religion which invariably leads to nutbar assertions on all sides with a few reasonable people desperately trying to keep a somewhat nuanced position in the middle of the debate.
For clarity, saying that the "damned preacher" is blatantly lying falls into the nutbar assertions category.
-
Why do I feel partially responsible for the discussion at hand? Then again, I probably just served more as a catalyst since this was more than likely inevitable it seems
-
Why do I feel partially responsible for the discussion at hand? Then again, I probably just served more as a catalyst since this was more than likely inevitable it seems
You had nothing to do with it, this is every single gendisc thread
-
Knowledge is always relative, and inferences are always warranted. He's saying what he says to avoid discrimination accusations, nothing more.
-
The plot thickens. But again, I ask myself, if the display was really that egregious, why is Tim Horton's apologizing and not simply making the facts known?
Maybe they don't know the facts themselves. It's quite possible that the pastor sees what he thinks is a heterosexual couple going a little bit too far in a family establishment and complains. By the time the manager or whoever has come out (a couple of minutes later IIRC), the couple have realised that perhaps they're going a little too far in public and have stopped or at least toned it down. Manager sees nothing more than a couple kissing but points out that there have been complaints about them. Couple go off assuming that it was because they are lesbians and make a complaint.
So now Horton's are stuck in the middle of a he says, she says argument. Can't blame their PR department for acting exactly the same way they did.
-
Knowledge is always relative, and inferences are always warranted. He's saying what he says to avoid discrimination accusations, nothing more.
A somewhat judgmental and biased stance to take for someone who continually goes on about how judgmental and biased religious people are.
An objective, rational position would be to reserve judgment in favour of factual evidence - but you don't seem capable of doing that when a topic concerning religion comes up.
The plot thickens. But again, I ask myself, if the display was really that egregious, why is Tim Horton's apologizing and not simply making the facts known?
Maybe they don't know the facts themselves. It's quite possible that the pastor sees what he thinks is a heterosexual couple going a little bit too far in a family establishment and complains. By the time the manager or whoever has come out (a couple of minutes later IIRC), the couple have realised that perhaps they're going a little too far in public and have stopped or at least toned it down. Manager sees nothing more than a couple kissing but points out that there have been complaints about them. Couple go off assuming that it was because they are lesbians and make a complaint.
So now Horton's are stuck in the middle of a he says, she says argument. Can't blame their PR department for acting exactly the same way they did.
Legitimate points, all - but most people would have more respect for a company that say "here are the facts as we know them," followed by "here's our response." Now it just sounds like they don't want to admit fault, but they're going to make a not-quite-genuine apology to cover their bases. Which is funny, because Tim Horton's doesn't serve waffles :P
-
Knowledge is always relative, and inferences are always warranted. He's saying what he says to avoid discrimination accusations, nothing more.
A somewhat judgmental and biased stance to take for someone who continually goes on about how judgmental and biased religious people are.
Yeah, just don't notice the small difference of my "judgement" being a snark anonymous comment in an unknown internet forum VS an actual testimony of the aledged discriminator that is in the middle of an ignorant riddled ****storm, and place me in equivalent terms. Why not? Everything makes sense in the netz.
An objective, rational position would be to reserve judgment in favour of factual evidence - but you don't seem capable of doing that when a topic concerning religion comes up.
Why care? I won't ever know the guy. It won't make any difference whatsoever. I'm full of prejudices but at least I'm conscious about them. And most of the times those inferences I make are just bloody right. Take what you will: his reply smells like backdropping into safe PC places before any sueing could occur. And if may make the perfect sense, the law in the states is sometimes frightening.
-
It's a media quote, not testimony, and the incident occurred in Ontario (a Canadian province), not the United States.
We'd like to offer you a complementary upgrade to a spade shovel from the square so it doesn't require quite so much effort to deepen that hole you're digging.
-
What's your stance on Tim Horton's donuts MP-Ryan? I'm curious
-
It's a media quote, not testimony, and the incident occurred in Ontario (a Canadian province), not the United States.
No **** sherlock. Im really amazed with your impressive ability to read. Not so much at conversation skills...
-
Debate the subject, not the person, or this thread gets locked.
-
Back on topic, it gets better still:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Group+protest+lesbians+banishment+from+Hortons/5609452/story.html
Eric Revie, an assistant pastor at the Glad Tidings Community Church in Blenheim, 90 kilometres east of Windsor, was the one who expressed discomfort to the assistant manager at the Tim Hortons that day.
In a statement emailed to The Star, Revie said he did not ask the manager to tell the couple to leave, but rather did not want his two sons, aged nine and three, to witness what he called a "visibly lewd" public display of affection.
Revie added that his request had nothing to do with the fact that the couple was gay.
"At the time I thought it was a guy-girl couple. I was unaware it was two girls," Revie said.
Revie said the Facebook page was circulating "lies" and that he does not "preach hatred" nor does he "hate those with alternative lifestyles."
No word on the alleged prayer circle.
EDIT: Oddly enough, it appears the National Post (Canada's equivalent of Fox News or the Daily Mail) seems to have more details, though considering the source I'm tempted to take it with a large chunk of rock salt...
Rev. Revie said he was out with a youth group and his four children, the youngest three years old, at a Tim Hortons last month when he spotted the couple on a bench outside with their tongues locked together and their hands down each other’s pants.
“They were straddling each other … and really making out,” he said. He asked a store manager to tell the couple to “tone it down” in front of his children.
“I don’t have anything against the gay community as a pastor. I don’t hate them,” he said. “My concern was I was in a public place, Tim Hortons, with my family and my children and if they had turned around they would have seen this nearly pornographic image.”
The dispute boiled over after the couple contacted Michelle Boyce, head of Alphabet Community Centre, a London, Ont., gay and transgendered group, to help them file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Ms. Boyce’s account of the couple’s story on Facebook — including a description of how the church group held a 15-person prayer vigil for the women in the Tim Hortons parking lot that Rev. Revie said was actually just parents standing around chatting — elicited a huge outcry of support from as far away as California and prompted local organizers to plan a protest at the coffee shop on Thursday that had garnered more than 500 online supporters by Monday afternoon.
The plot thickens. But again, I ask myself, if the display was really that egregious, why is Tim Horton's apologizing and not simply making the facts known?
Probably because the gay couple has been becoming the victim of a lot more (media) attention then they should have - something which the preacher probably did not intend. There have been quite a lot of misunderstandings already, apperently.
EDITed for better wording.
-
Legitimate points, all - but most people would have more respect for a company that say "here are the facts as we know them," followed by "here's our response."
Yes, but that also theoretically makes them liable for libel/slander if they're wrong, or simply a PR disaster if somebody blows it. Saying nothing regarding the facts is an infinitely safer course of action and there's really nothing at stake here worth taking risks over as far as the company's concerned.
-
It's a media quote, not testimony, and the incident occurred in Ontario (a Canadian province), not the United States.
No **** sherlock. Im really amazed with your impressive ability to read. Not so much at conversation skills...
You're the one that called it testimony and brought up lawsuits in the context of the US, not me. If you knew both were incorrect, why did you even bring them up? So far I've at least managed to be relevant to the discussion at hand.
-
Ok, I misused a word. Didn't think it would be misread like that. I brought up the lawsuit issue because it usually hangs in the balance on these events. Better safe than sorry, so I think the man thought, "and let's just have a PC speech here where I can go no wrong". I wouldn't even count out the possibility of him having a conversation with his own lawyer on exactly which words he should use.
-
Ok, I misused a word. Didn't think it would be misread like that.
I am sorry but this really made me laugh.