New Aestheism movements

[MMI]

@Thorne

People's belief that they should be allowed to bear arms is merely a belief, nothing more.

Except that this one has been established in the US Constitution.

The Constitution is just another law of a particular status. It enshrines the right to bear arms in law whereas some Americans regard the notion of civilians carrying guns in public as repugnant. Sure, they are free not to carry a gun, but what are they to do if a bunch of gun-toting rednecks try to make them carry a gun? Or if a twitchy NRA lunatic takes fright and shoots someone he considers a threat "in self defence"? The victim can't avoid the effect of the law then, just as atheists cannot avoid the effect of laws that have the effect of promoting a particular religion.

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

[Thorne]

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

Which is basically what atheists have been told since the beginnings of religion. When they weren't just executed instead. "Don't make waves." "It's not hurting anyone." "It's only a prayer."

But look at the horrifying trends now going on in the US. Religious fundamentalists are trying to take over state legislatures, making inroads into the Congress and Senate, and now trying for the Presidency. What happens when the theocracy is established and atheism becomes illegal? Then they make Islam illegal. Then Scientology. You basically wind up with another Saudi Arabia, but run by Christians instead. What happens when they start censoring the internet in the US, as it's done in other parts of the world? This site, for many here, will no longer be available. Anything that doesn't pass their narrow, religious filters would be allowed. And don't say it can't happen. It can. They are trying to do it right now.

And don't think you would be safe in the UK, either. The same kinds of fundamentalist idiots we have here are starting to make a fuss over there. If it happens here, how long will the UK remain free?

No, we don't need to "get over it", we need to keep fighting it, keep pointing out the idiocy, the immorality of the religious leaders, the stupidity and misogyny of the political leaders. We have to keep letting people know what is happening, and what it can mean for them!

[thir]

Which is basically what atheists have been told since the beginnings of religion. When they weren't just executed instead. "Don't make waves." "It's not hurting anyone." "It's only a prayer."

But look at the horrifying trends now going on in the US. Religious fundamentalists are trying to take over

Actually, you do not have to have what is going on right now to protest about 'it is only a prayer'. Not wanting to participate is both respect for one's own position, whether atheist or another religion, and respect for the religion doing the praying. It means you take that seriously too, that it is not unimportant flim-flam.

[Thorne]

Not wanting to participate is both respect for one's own position, whether atheist or another religion,

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.

and respect for the religion doing the praying. It means you take that seriously too, that it is not unimportant flim-flam.

I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam. As a means for getting what one wants it is tantamount to writing a letter to Santa Claus. True, prayer has been shown to have a calming effect on some people, similar to meditation, or taking a deep breath, or counting to ten. And such an effect can help people's bodies to, for example, fight off diseases more efficiently. Just like meditation. Or rest. Or soothing music.

But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.

As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

[thir]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.

I do know that - bad phrasing. Sorry.

I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam.

What I meant here was that I respect that the prayers take it seriously.

And that is one reason they should not try to force others into it as if it was just - nothing.
I think it was MMI who said what does it matter - it's just a prayer. I think it does, both ways.

But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.

As you know, I agree totally in this. Freedom in these matters as in others is the important thing.
The fight is where one person's freedom (as percieved) restrains that of another. And I think in this case the public space is the neutral space. You do not do BDSM for instance in a public place, for that reason.

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.

As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.

[Thorne]

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.

There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.

One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it. I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!

Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.

I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

[thir]

There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.

Me neither, because you can walk away from it, and presumably there is room for everybody in a park. People do all kinds of things there, thai chi and whatnot, and that is fine. What I was thinking about was meeting where you have to attend, and other situations where you cannot walk away. Like starting a political meeting, which you have to attend, with a prayer.

One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it.

I would say it sounds childish, but actually few children behave that way.

I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!

But at least there was peace and quiet! Not a bad result, really.

I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

That's it.

[MMI]

And don't think you would be safe in the UK, either. The same kinds of fundamentalist idiots we have here are starting to make a fuss over there. If it happens here, how long will the UK remain free?

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

[Thorne]

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

Bloody bastards! I'd suggest you send them to Australia instead, but THEY keep sending them here, too!

[thir]

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

[Thorne]

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church? I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system. He should be allowed the freedom to refuse. UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid! This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

[thir]

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church?

He refused to perform the rites. As for the second, I don't know if our church yards are consecrated ground, but you cannot refuse anyone a place there, as Christianity is a state religion and also the person was a Christian and wanted a Christian burial. As for the last, I am not sure that there are any any other burial places pt in DK at this time - maybe a few.

The latest discussions meant that gays could marry in church but the priest could refuse. Maybe fair enough, I do not know, but you can get married at the town council office - gays too - so you are not stuck. Burial is worse, Althugh you can get in the ground and people can organise their own rites or lack thereof if they want, which a fair number do. Here in UK you can organise pagan funerals with pagan rites if you wish.

Anyway it is a remarkedly hostile idea of that priest, but it has happened once before, many years ago, apparently.

I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system.

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour. Such an intolerant person - I hate people like that, why can't he be tolerant like me? ;-))

He should be allowed the freedom to refuse.

You know - I am not sure. Not within the state church, anyway. It is not a hate church.
The thought of new churches with hate messages in DK or really really scary!

UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

Well, he was told in no uncertain terms what his duties were, but even before that had apologised profusedly. But it took a bit for the chock to settle, before other Christians could start to forgive, which they admitted they had to, that is another cornerstone :-)

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid!

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

[Thorne]

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour.

That is the cornerstone of ALL Christianity, supposedly. Here in the US, far too many churches have forgotten the teachings of Jesus, as written in their Bibles, in favor of hatred towards those who are different (see especially the Westboro Baptists). One more reason to fight them whenever possible.

And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.

LOL! Don't try putting THAT one over on the theists here! To them, marriage was created by GOD, for one man and one woman. It says so in their BIBLE! (Don't read that part about Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!)

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

Part of the problem of religious thought is that it defies logic. Or twists it into unimaginable shapes to try to justify the beliefs. When questioned about God's command to Joshua to kill all of the Canaanites, men women and children, William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, makes this horrific comment:
"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
IMO, anyone who can so easily twist their minds to accept such a statement as "logical" is seriously demented. Using this logic I can say that:
If you believe, as Craig does, that "those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy", then you should stop seeing doctors and taking medications, and allow yourself to die quickly, so you can get to heaven faster. Don't bother looking before crossing the streets. Trust that God will protect you, or call you home. Amen.

Sounds logical to me!

[denuseri]

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

[thir]

D:
The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

t:
Allegedly. I am not sure I agree in that view.

D:
I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

t:
Indeed.

However, you can go the other way too: In UK they have these interfaith attempts here and there, seems to be going well, people of various faiths getting to know each other. But they do not want pagans - we do not have a holy book ;-)))

t:
Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

D:
Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

t: No, it wasn't, it was kind of - different though, to hear all the non-chuch goers ask him where his love for his neighbour was.

t:
But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

D:
The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

t:
No, because it was not a sect, but a main religion with fairly clear ideas. Accepting a job in it, he also accepts the main ideas. If he felt strongly about it, he should make his own church. Which I hope - and pray! - that noone does, not this hate church.