One Rule for Me, Another Rule for Believers
Would you accept it if I started encouraging men to beat their family if they disobeyed them?It didn't take many days (from me writing my last entry) before the first news of a religious group gone wild made the headlines.
Channel 4 in Britain went undercover into some of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions. What they uncovered was among other things that they encourage beating women (that don't wear a hijab) and even children. There is more, but please refer to the article for details.
The most scary part is that Channel 4 is being criticized for doing this story. Apparently they are being inconsiderate and causing problems. What is wrong here?
I have been unable to find if these institutions actually receive Government support, but I would at least expect that the British Government strongly criticizes them if there is no funding to be cut. Nobody should get away with encouraging violence against certain groups. Not me, not you, and not religious groups!
One Rule for Me, Another Rule for Believers again...
How about this one then? http://richarddawkins.net/article,508,n,n
"Christians, Muslims and Jews are all fighting against the sexual orientation regulations with a wrecking clause that would render them meaningless: "Nothing in these regulations shall force an individual to act against their conscience or strongly held religious beliefs." Anyone could use their "conscience" to discriminate against gays."
So can we discriminate religious people?
Fight against vicious believes
What do you mean? That we would be discriminating against the religous people if we go against their beliefs? I wasn't exactly sure what your point was.
You aren't discriminating if you refuse a group to discriminate against another group. Human rights should always come above any kind of beliefs of superiority of one group over another.
The Nazis believe the Jews were lesser people. Were we discriminating the Nazis by not letting them keep killing the Jews? Yes, I know that case is much more extreme but it started somewhere too with someone believing that they were less. It needs to be stopped right now with strickt laws!!
If I misunderstood your point I apologize! It was a very interesting article which was in my opinion just yet another case of the horrible acts people try to pull in the name of religion.
Fight against vicious believes
What I meant was that the religious people wanted to have a law where they could discriminate people based on there belief, in other words can we discriminate religious people based on our belief?
What is a human right?
Yes! I still don't believe though that it would be called discrimination. Human rights must always come first above any kind of belief. If not I can simply one day start my own religion which belives that all blonde haired people are lesser people and try to force the government to close them up in ghettos. Idiotic isn't it?
The question is who decides what a human rights is? Is it only a belief? How many people need to belief in a certain human right for it to be come universal? Is it all about democrazy? Not that straightforward when you dig deeper, unfortunately:-(.
In its simplest sense you could say that if you want to be treated one way you should treat others the same way yourself. I always thought that was a big thing in Christianity (seem to remember it from school) but they don't seem to follow that belief.
religion and critics...
Well that’s the problem with religious people, as soon as you criticize them, they just say ”Hey, you are arrogant”, they really want to be above criticism. I think that’s why they also become really angry if you joke about there religion, isn’t it strange that the only thing that you can’t make jokes about is religion, why is that?
It’s not arrogance, its intellectual honesty; the religious people are the one that is arrogant, for not seeing that they can be wrong!
No reflecting
Well said!
I think what religion lacks most of all is self critism. Religion doesn't teach you to seek the truth through learning and reflecting. It simply decides that one things is wrong and pretty much sticks to that through the centuries discounting all evidence of the contrary!
And it is easy to defend against the critiziser by pulling the arrogant card! Much easier than actually debating it with them.