h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"First, none of the religions will accept that theirs is wrong; that's why they call it a "Belief". Second, many Christian sects believe they have been told by God to evangelise and spread their own particular set of beliefs to as wide an audience as possible, suppressing all other belief systems."

Which is *precisely* why the law should give them no special support whatsoever. If they are illogical, intolerant and overbearing as a matter of principle, they should get f*^%-all help from the state.

The real danger comes when they *are* the state.

<>

On the contrary, that's always seemed to me to be a most illogical statement. For one thing, the people using it seem often to have declared themselves the arbiters of intolerance. Lovely groups such as NAMBLA for instance call opposition to what they do "intolerance" and many of the segments who yell that they are victims of 'intolerance' are perfect purveyors of it (the aforementioned animals rights nuts for one.)

Not a problem, Apple Adelaide.

As I say, in the rest of my posting I was more trying to illustrate the kind of thing that can cause offence rather than actually cause any.

You could call me an Agnostic; a lapsed Druid with leanings towards the Judeo-Christian God. I haven't quite shaken the feeling that it's just the remnants of juvenile brainwashing, though... (We were forced to pray in school every morning!)

<<(We were forced to pray in school every morning!)>>

Oh, that's not good... Forced prayer! That's a contradiction if ever there was one.

Indeed.

Anyhow, this has been a most enjoyable conversation, but it's 4am here and I suspect if I don't fall over in bed soon I'll slide out of my computer chair.

Hope to catch up with you another time.

>>"On the contrary, that's always seemed to me to be a most illogical statement. For one thing, the people using it seem often to have declared themselves the arbiters of intolerance. Lovely groups such as NAMBLA for instance call opposition to what they do "intolerance" and many of the segments who yell that they are victims of 'intolerance' are perfect purveyors of it (the aforementioned animals rights nuts for one.)"

Obviously, if people go out *looking* for intolerance where it doesn't exist in Witchfinder-General mode, some people with pre-set views will still find it. I'm not responsible for the countless stupid people in the world. I don't find them terribly hard to separate from reasonable people.

When it comes to some local Christian going on in writing about the sins of homosexuality, *some* Christians picketing the BBC and threatening children of BBC directors over the phone, *some* Sikhs attacking a theatre, or *some* Muslims who've never actually read a book burning it in publis and threatening the author's life, it really doesn't take a genius to see where the intolerance is.

I'm not sure animal-rights-acitvists generally complain they are victims of *intolerance*. A cruel, uncaring, heartless public, possibly. Being often tarred with the same brush as the most extreme in their movement, *quite* possibly, but I'd have thought that was about as far as it went. It's simply that most people just don't agree with them that is their main problem.

g'night Peet

<>
And that harms you how? If he/she is merely writing about it, why should that bother you?
<<*some* Christians picketing the BBC and threatening children of BBC directors over the phone,>>
I thought it had been established that the threatening of children hadn't actually happened?

So, you're saying that none of what might be called 'The Opposition' are ver intolerant?
<>

I thought their main problem was that they're barking mad.

>>"And that harms you how? If he/she is merely writing about it, why should that bother you?"

If a local vicar is saying that 'Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong' in a newsletter that gets stuffed through people's letterboxes (even if he later admitted his biggest problem with it was a personal squeamishness of imagination), I don't see any problem with a proportionate response (ie asking him what he thought he was talking about).
His writing clearly was personal intolerance hiding behind religion, though he *did* have the grace to admit that when questioned.


>>"I thought it had been established that the threatening of children hadn't actually happened?"

Established by whom?

>>"So, you're saying that none of what might be called 'The Opposition' are ver intolerant?"

'The Opposition' to what?

Generally, I think that people who rely on tradition or dogma (rather than actual thought) to support a point of view are *potentially* intolerant. People who rely on thought when they're not realy built for such activity, or when they are misinformed might also be in a high-risk group.

<>
*Your* reaction seems to be disproportionate here! Truly, he was not incorrect, and no one who thinks homosexuality is perfectly normal would be upset by someone saying he thought it wasn't surely? It's not as if the vicar you mention would be considered to be authoritative by any random person who got the newsletter through their letterbox.


<>

I recall seeing somewhere here, or linked to from here, that the media admitted they'd jumped to a conclusion..

From Jan 10th, old I know, but without any extra comments or retractions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,4484-1433987,00.html
"...BBC denied reports that Mr Keating had “fled” his house in response to threatening phone calls. His wife and three young children left on Saturday morning, but the BBC said that Mr Keating had stayed, with a security company keeping the home under round-the-clock observation."

Also the Beeb page mentions that no one is in hiding.

>>"Your* reaction seems to be disproportionate here! Truly, he was not incorrect, and no one who thinks homosexuality is perfectly normal would be upset by someone saying he thought it wasn't surely? It's not as if the vicar you mention would be considered to be authoritative by any random person who got the newsletter through their letterbox."

I suppose it depends on your usage of the word 'normal'. If it's simply a matter of numbers or supposed perfection defining normality, presumably your disabled friends wouldn't object to being described as abnormals?

Someone who thinks homosexuality is perfectly *acceptable* might well be upset by someone saying that it is unacceptable, especially if they happen to be a member of the church responsible.

If a member of his congregation knows it's the way they were 'made', and is then told that their supposed spiritual leader thinks that their being different to him makes them a sinner, it's potentially very upsetting for them.

He was quite definitely incorrect with his implicit assertion that '[All] Christians believe homosexuality is wrong', since many do not.

Apple: neither homophobia nor racism are attacks on anyone's beliefs. You don't believe your skin is a certain colour, it just is, unless you're someone who burns rather quickly and refuses to accept reality, or Michael Jackson. Similarly, do homosexuals 'believe in shagging people of the same sex'? Nope, they just do it...

Meanwhile the homophobes and racists do believe something: they believe that the targets of their distaste are somehow inherently wrong/inferior. This is a belief I'm quite happy to see offended on TV. Meanwhile, I believe polytheists would be offended quite frequently by their portrayal in certain fantasy shows but they seem to keep relatively quiet (i.e. no pickets) about it. As for offending atheist sensibilities? You're welcome to try if you think you can...

The problem is when simply expressing an opinion is seen as 'offensive' by certain people or groups. When I express a personal opinion I am not about to think about every possible person I *might* upset - especially as I am just expressing an opinion, not stating something as fact.

People are quite welcome to either take or leave my opinions. Or debate them if they'd like. I'm not about to spend the rest of my life walking on eggshells just in case somebody somwhere takes umbrage to something I say. And I don't think anyone else should either.


az

It looks like Stephen Green the 'Lone Christian Voice' did not stop the 'opera' being shown in Leicester De Montford Hall and here is some of the feedback on their feedback page. Is Ms Veronica Manson real?

http://www.demontforthall.co.uk/feedback/forum.php3?cmd=view&id=248

And a little laterin another thread she pins her colours to the mast (and they aren't rainbow colours) The arts is full of left-wing liberals and homosexuals.

http://www.demontforthall.co.uk/feedback/forum.php3?cmd=view&id=256

It really annoys me that people complain without having seen the programme, poster, advert or event themselves. I watched some parts of the Jerry Springer Opera but, ultimately, I found it quite boring. I've never found gratutious use of expletives as either funny or clever. The bits that I have seen, in recent 'flashback' shows, have been quite challenging - particularly the portrayal of God as "a bit gay". While I can see how Christians would (quite rightly, given that religious satire is such a 'hot potato' these days) object to this portrayal. However, I don't agree with those having rejected any open criticism of the Opera and accepting or rejecting it on its own merit as opposed to automatic prejudice (PS - I'm a catholic)

The Brass Eye paedophilia programme was treated in much the same way. It was only on its repeat that I saw the programme and I thought the actual basis of it was quite funny. It wasn't based on kiddy-feeling being hilarious but the overblown, shock-tactic reportage of child molesters in the UK. In reverse to the way that this aspect of the Michael Jackson trial is being "overlooked", Brass Eye overemphasised it.

Yup. I mentioned at the time that in the same week as Brass Eye's "Paedogeddon!" episode, South Park had a show where the American Paedophile's union had a convention in Colorado and stated that no eight-year old boy should be denied a loving, physical relationship...

The only real difference between the two was that South Park took the p*ss of the paedophiles, while Brass Eye took the p*ss of the press. And which one did the press crucify...?

"Sex by eight/or it's too late", the slogan of the North American Man Boy Love Association.

That's true...