Westboro is an extremist group, enough said. They do not represent the majority of Christians.
With that said, this post proves to me the OP only wishes to incite more political debates.
Also, this has nothing to do with STO.
According to the logic of Fox News and other Conservatives, if radical Muslims are a representative of Islam as whole, then these guys are a representative of Christians as a whole.
According to the logic of Fox News and other Conservatives, if radical Muslims are a representative of Islam as whole, then these guys are a representative of Christians as a whole.
I think you have this backwards..I'm a conservative..and we consider Westboro and radical Muslims to be representative of the extremist portion..not of their whole religion...
I see much of the liberal media claim Westboro is representative of the Christian population....
I think you have this backwards..I'm a conservative..and we consider Westboro and radical Muslims to be representative of the extremist portion..not of their whole religion...
Same here.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I mean in the Federation, other cultures sure, but by the 24th century I hope that like wars and disease they are a thing of the past.
Let me preface that my comments are not here to spark a political or religious debate, but to make a point and hopefully create some understanding and respect for anothers beielfs and way of life.
In a nutshell, without even knowing the people in question, you more or less have said to everyone here that practices a religous faith that their beliefs are wrong and out of place in the future. That's getting close to a paralell to the thought process Westboro Baptist Church thinks regarding a certain line of thought.
I (and am sure others) respect, from what you said, that religion has no place in your life, thats fine, everyone has the right to thier own beliefs. Please be respectful of others beliefs, is that not what tolerance and resprect of diversity is about?
I think you have this backwards..I'm a conservative..and we consider Westboro and radical Muslims to be representative of the extremist portion..not of their whole religion...
I see much of the liberal media claim Westboro is representative of the Christian population....
^ This, so much. I really dislike it when someone tries to create a strawman debate of a group out of a minority, no matter who it is. There is always going to be bad apples in any group, thats why the Pareto princie exists. And yet the drumbeat goes on.
In a nutshell, without even knowing the people in question, you more or less have said to everyone here that practices a religous faith that their beliefs are wrong and out of place in the future.
Over time and throughout history, the planet has gradually become less and less religious. It's just a natural thing that mass belief will most likely eventually die off. I'm not religious myself at all and think it's a load of bunk, but have no issues whatsoever with people who are.
If you've come to the forums to complain about the AFK system, it's known to be bugged at the moment.
People will start solving the worlds larger issues when they stop believing in myths and start believing in each other. Just as they will start living there lives when they stop preparing for the one after. Religion was born of fear, and it will die when we are able to overcome it.
Don't get me wrong I HATE Westboro Baptist church just as much as Muslims hate Terrorists, and for the same reason. They are extremists who give all Christians a bad name! That being said, they aren't doing anything illegal and do have a right to freedom of speech even if we don't like them. I dislike a lot of people, Extremist Liberals, Extremist Feminists, Marxists etc. but they have a right to freedom of expression as long as they stay within the bounds of the law.
In my opinion, trying to take away someone's freedom of expression is a far more evil crime than being a bigoted *******.
well, a drunk bagger is removed from the streets when he screams and shouts around and disturbs people with his intrusive presence (sometimes US police even shoots them on the spot)
yet, WBC is not held to the same standards because they use the protection of religious freedoms and freedom of speech.
Other peacefull protest get quickly desolved by police with pepper spray and rubber bullets because they are not regarded as freedom of expression suddenly...
If the same standards would apply for all demonstrations and protests I wouldn't have a problem with it, but those standards seam to not apply to WBC somehow.
I mean, there is even a case, where a court ruled that the minimum distance protesters had to keep from abortion clinics got reduced to a few meters, while other kinds protest were not affected by this "law".
Over time and throughout history, the planet has gradually become less and less religious. It's just a natural thing that mass belief will most likely eventually die off. I'm not religious myself at all and think it's a load of bunk, but have no issues whatsoever with people who are.
Just wait until the alien invasion, environmental collapse, or World War 3 with Canada. People become more religious when faced with the unknown. It is actually cyclical in nature.
1. People undergo some disaster and become religious.
2. People recover from the disaster and become prosperous.
3. People become less religious due to prosperity.
4. Go to 1.
Obviously it might take generations for this cycle to repeat itself and not everyone follows this cycle.
yeah, and those laws have been used as a bludgeon before.
the fundamental problem with such laws, is that the offense is "Thought crimes", it encourages the radicals to radicalize more than letting them make public fools of both themselves, and their ideology in public.
making something a "Thought crime" Legitimizes it, whereas exposing it to ridicule Disarms and de-legitimizes it.
I am an atheist and could care less... however having read the article in question Macleans was in the wrong on that one. The article was badly written and drew conclusions that where very much against Canadian law, as I understand it. I believe this one was dropped eventually. Regardless Canadian law has drawn a line, Free speech right up until you start preaching hate. At that point your not free to say it any longer.
You won't find a Fox news equivalent in Canada for a reason. We like our propaganda legally watered down. lol
Yes it means that things like the comics Charlie Herbdo wrote would be illegal in Canada. To be honest I don't have any issues with that. You can say thought crimes... yet I don't see people standing up and defending the right of Neo TRIBBLE anywhere, nor do I see anyone standing up and demanding the KKK be given there right to free speech.
Like it or not Free speech has limits... and I am glad I live in a country, that mostly shows some guts now and then. Its why our gov stopped the WBC people when they tried to cross our boarders.
Perhaps 5 years in a Canadian prison would do them well... there country clubs anyway. Of course then American politicians would likely get forced to choose a side. Which is also likely why I would bet good money they likely asked our politicians to simply keep them out. lmao
PS... I know your point was let the stupid say stupid things and everyone will understand it. History has shown us though if idiots make enough noise sometimes things go horribly wrong. TRIBBLE Germany may not have happened minus the Propaganda.
well, a drunk bagger is removed from the streets when he screams and shouts around and disturbs people with his intrusive presence (sometimes US police even shoots them on the spot)
yet, WBC is not held to the same standards because they use the protection of religious freedoms and freedom of speech.
Other peacefull protest get quickly desolved by police with pepper spray and rubber bullets because they are not regarded as freedom of expression suddenly...
If the same standards would apply for all demonstrations and protests I wouldn't have a problem with it, but those standards seam to not apply to WBC somehow.
I mean, there is even a case, where a court ruled that the minimum distance protesters had to keep from abortion clinics got reduced to a few meters, while other kinds protest were not affected by this "law".
The problem with having hate speech laws is the slippery slope that is there for the people in power to abuse it. It isnt hard for a group in power to push to have a point of view of their opposition to be regarded as hate speech, there has been a lot of attempts and rhetoric toward it in the US over the last 20 years. Its very hard to maintain checks and balances to safeguard against abuse of such controls once in place. Then The witch hints and the McCarthy hearings happen.
Be careful when supporting such measures, for they may one day be used against you.
Just wait until the alien invasion, environmental collapse, or World War 3 with Canada. People become more religious when faced with the unknown. It is actually cyclical in nature.
1. People undergo some disaster and become religious.
2. People recover from the disaster and become prosperous.
3. People become less religious due to prosperity.
4. Go to 1.
Obviously it might take generations for this cycle to repeat itself and not everyone follows this cycle.
It is possible that a cycle may repeat, but the impact is less and less over the generations.
If you've come to the forums to complain about the AFK system, it's known to be bugged at the moment.
Over time and throughout history, the planet has gradually become less and less religious. It's just a natural thing that mass belief will most likely eventually die off. I'm not religious myself at all and think it's a load of bunk, but have no issues whatsoever with people who are.
It also comes down to how people see as "religous". Some of Judeo-Cristian background might consider "religous" as going to worship at temple/Sinagouge and participating in house. Now those who practice the tennets of the religion? Atheistic religions that have no gods or belief of an afterlife?Are they religious? Some say yes, others, no.
Sure, among White Western Europeans, some Americans and some Asiatic nations that have made being religous a death penalty, yes numbers have dwindled somewhat, but Islam and some non-Abrahamic religions have had an uptick.
Theres been up and downswings in religiousness over history, usually from one form to another. 6,000 plus years of civilization from Gilgamesh to Brahma to John Smith there has ben faith. Even Einstein said "Religion without science is deaf, science without religion is blind".
This line of reasoning, taken towards people's cultural and religious beliefs, can very quickly snowball into people using it as rationale for acts every bit the match of religion's worst cruelties.
Over time and throughout history, the planet has gradually become less and less religious. It's just a natural thing that mass belief will most likely eventually die off. I'm not religious myself at all and think it's a load of bunk, but have no issues whatsoever with people who are.
Well, again, this is something I think Roddenberry got wrong in the Trek mythos... it took Deep Space Nine to come along (after his death) to give an honest look at religion in the 24th century.
And, look at the Bajoran people... sure, they were supposed to be a rough allusion to the Jewish holocaust, but they were a beautiful example of faith in the face of opposition. Opposition from the Cardassians, sure, but opposition from Starfleet officers who told them their deities were simply "wormhole aliens." Were they? Maybe, but Kira said it wonderfully when she said that it didn't matter. The Prophets came through for Bajor, and she believed everything would be alright because of them.
People like Roddenberry claim that religion is black and white, and therefore, doesn't have a place in a humanist future. Religion may be responsible for pain and war in human history... but it is also responsible for things like art, music, philosophy, and acts of compassion. These things aren't mutually exclusive to religion, but they are some of the best parts of the human condition... and the realm of religion.
It also comes down to how people see as "religous". Some of Judeo-Cristian background might consider "religous" as going to worship at temple/Sinagouge and participating in house. Now those who practice the tennets of the religion? Atheistic religions that have no gods or belief of an afterlife?Are they religious? Some say yes, others, no.
Sure, among White Western Europeans, some Americans and some Asiatic nations that have made being religous a death penalty, yes numbers have dwindled somewhat, but Islam and some non-Abrahamic religions have had an uptick.
Theres been up and downswings in religiousness over history, usually from one form to another. 6,000 plus years of civilization from Gilgamesh to Brahma to John Smith there has ben faith. Even Einstein said "Religion without science is deaf, religion without science is blind".
The overall trends are still downward, although I can appreciate what you are trying to say.
While I fully disagree with what I know of the WBC, I like the WBC in a perverse way. They don't start conversations about faith, they bring up epistemology. As in, how they arrive at their position on what they feel is the truth.
How it usually goes:
- Someone makes ridiculous faith-based claim.
- Moderate believers denounce the claim citing perverted interpretation.
- Which begs the question, "how do we properly interpret religious text?"
- Responses can be dismissed for the same reasons as the original claim.
- Cognitive dissonance prevails for the faithful, outsiders facepalm.
- Public opinion favors which ever side is more benign.
They unintentionally bring up an important point about faith-based claims; there's no way to verify whether they're wrong or right, it's inherently a matter of faith.
This is a gross oversight on Roddenberry's part, IMO. JMS (an atheist) handled the topic much better on B5.
One show showed Human beings as peaceful, you could argue loving, caring beings. Who removed currency war and hunger.
The other showed a more realistic vision of the future where Mankind was exactly as it is now... willing to pay lip service to those ideals, in reality just a bunch of scared apes willing to kill on a whim to protect what they believe from others who don't.
Roddenberry got it 100% right... we don't get there while holding onto myths built from fear.
JMS gets points for realism... cause sadly people still won't be ready to throw down there myths in just a few hundred years.
The USA has radical ideas about freedom of speech, as well as other freedoms.
There isnt such a thing as a 'hate speech law' in the US. People have freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. We consider the test of the strength of the laws that protect our freedom to be the extreme cases, the fringe.
These westboro baptists being able to say what they believe is the guarantee that you and I are able to say what we believe, without fear of any kind of reprisal or consequence.
That isn't quite true the Enforcement Act of 1871 was passed in order to combat white supremacy groups. Its safe to say they are NOT allowed legally to stand in public and scream there beliefs.
So its not really true that the US has 100% free speech and Zero hate speech laws. The EA1871 was just the starting of many others and amendments to that act that among other things hold school boards responsible for rights viloations ect.
My point is... the US does have Hate Speech laws, the country is simply full of politicians lacking the resolve to put themselves out there to defend the unpopular minorities in the US.
One show showed Human beings as peaceful, you could argue loving, caring beings. Who removed currency war and hunger.
The other showed a more realistic vision of the future where Mankind was exactly as it is now... willing to pay lip service to those ideals, in reality just a bunch of scared apes willing to kill on a whim to protect what they believe from others who don't.
Roddenberry got it 100% right... we don't get there while holding onto myths built from fear.
JMS gets points for realism... cause sadly people still won't be ready to throw down there myths in just a few hundred years.
Don't get me started on the whole "removing currency" thing, LOL...
We'll have to respectfully disagree about B5, I guess. It certainly didn't sugarcoat humanity's outlook in the 23rd century, but I also don't think it simply paid "lip service" to higher ideals. Yes, the Earth-Minbari War happened because of a misunderstanding (and a trigger-happy captain)... but out of that came the desire to build a community where people could come together in peace and understanding.
As for religion's place in that vision... two scenes come to mind: a scene from an episode (can't remember the name) where Sinclair is showing Earth's culture to the alien delegates of the station, and it's a line of religious representatives running the length of the Zocalo; the episode ("And The Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place") where Sheridan talks to a baptist pastor. Both are handled wonderfully.
Even people like David Gerrald believe Gene Roddenberry got it wrong with how he handled religion... he didn't have to become a devout anything to handle it better, either. The dude wasn't perfect (and that's okay). To say that religion is something to "move past," like violence and greed, is wildly insulting and very close-minded.
Comments
According to the logic of Fox News and other Conservatives, if radical Muslims are a representative of Islam as whole, then these guys are a representative of Christians as a whole.
I think you have this backwards..I'm a conservative..and we consider Westboro and radical Muslims to be representative of the extremist portion..not of their whole religion...
I see much of the liberal media claim Westboro is representative of the Christian population....
Same here.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Let me preface that my comments are not here to spark a political or religious debate, but to make a point and hopefully create some understanding and respect for anothers beielfs and way of life.
In a nutshell, without even knowing the people in question, you more or less have said to everyone here that practices a religous faith that their beliefs are wrong and out of place in the future. That's getting close to a paralell to the thought process Westboro Baptist Church thinks regarding a certain line of thought.
I (and am sure others) respect, from what you said, that religion has no place in your life, thats fine, everyone has the right to thier own beliefs. Please be respectful of others beliefs, is that not what tolerance and resprect of diversity is about?
What I find interesting is how people seem to ignore that radicals like ISIS are killing people from their own religion.
^ This, so much. I really dislike it when someone tries to create a strawman debate of a group out of a minority, no matter who it is. There is always going to be bad apples in any group, thats why the Pareto princie exists. And yet the drumbeat goes on.
Over time and throughout history, the planet has gradually become less and less religious. It's just a natural thing that mass belief will most likely eventually die off. I'm not religious myself at all and think it's a load of bunk, but have no issues whatsoever with people who are.
People will start solving the worlds larger issues when they stop believing in myths and start believing in each other. Just as they will start living there lives when they stop preparing for the one after. Religion was born of fear, and it will die when we are able to overcome it.
Now we back away before people get upset. LLAP
Didn't mean to steal your thunder.
well, a drunk bagger is removed from the streets when he screams and shouts around and disturbs people with his intrusive presence (sometimes US police even shoots them on the spot)
yet, WBC is not held to the same standards because they use the protection of religious freedoms and freedom of speech.
Other peacefull protest get quickly desolved by police with pepper spray and rubber bullets because they are not regarded as freedom of expression suddenly...
If the same standards would apply for all demonstrations and protests I wouldn't have a problem with it, but those standards seam to not apply to WBC somehow.
I mean, there is even a case, where a court ruled that the minimum distance protesters had to keep from abortion clinics got reduced to a few meters, while other kinds protest were not affected by this "law".
Just wait until the alien invasion, environmental collapse, or World War 3 with Canada. People become more religious when faced with the unknown. It is actually cyclical in nature.
1. People undergo some disaster and become religious.
2. People recover from the disaster and become prosperous.
3. People become less religious due to prosperity.
4. Go to 1.
Obviously it might take generations for this cycle to repeat itself and not everyone follows this cycle.
I am an atheist and could care less... however having read the article in question Macleans was in the wrong on that one. The article was badly written and drew conclusions that where very much against Canadian law, as I understand it. I believe this one was dropped eventually. Regardless Canadian law has drawn a line, Free speech right up until you start preaching hate. At that point your not free to say it any longer.
You won't find a Fox news equivalent in Canada for a reason. We like our propaganda legally watered down. lol
Yes it means that things like the comics Charlie Herbdo wrote would be illegal in Canada. To be honest I don't have any issues with that. You can say thought crimes... yet I don't see people standing up and defending the right of Neo TRIBBLE anywhere, nor do I see anyone standing up and demanding the KKK be given there right to free speech.
Like it or not Free speech has limits... and I am glad I live in a country, that mostly shows some guts now and then. Its why our gov stopped the WBC people when they tried to cross our boarders.
I wish we would just allow them in at some point... and wait for them to circulate some of there material...then we could arrest them and prosecute them under our laws;
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-159.html
Perhaps 5 years in a Canadian prison would do them well... there country clubs anyway. Of course then American politicians would likely get forced to choose a side. Which is also likely why I would bet good money they likely asked our politicians to simply keep them out. lmao
PS... I know your point was let the stupid say stupid things and everyone will understand it. History has shown us though if idiots make enough noise sometimes things go horribly wrong. TRIBBLE Germany may not have happened minus the Propaganda.
The problem with having hate speech laws is the slippery slope that is there for the people in power to abuse it. It isnt hard for a group in power to push to have a point of view of their opposition to be regarded as hate speech, there has been a lot of attempts and rhetoric toward it in the US over the last 20 years. Its very hard to maintain checks and balances to safeguard against abuse of such controls once in place. Then The witch hints and the McCarthy hearings happen.
Be careful when supporting such measures, for they may one day be used against you.
It is possible that a cycle may repeat, but the impact is less and less over the generations.
I'd debate this part.
This is a gross oversight on Roddenberry's part, IMO. JMS (an atheist) handled the topic much better on B5.
It also comes down to how people see as "religous". Some of Judeo-Cristian background might consider "religous" as going to worship at temple/Sinagouge and participating in house. Now those who practice the tennets of the religion? Atheistic religions that have no gods or belief of an afterlife?Are they religious? Some say yes, others, no.
Sure, among White Western Europeans, some Americans and some Asiatic nations that have made being religous a death penalty, yes numbers have dwindled somewhat, but Islam and some non-Abrahamic religions have had an uptick.
Theres been up and downswings in religiousness over history, usually from one form to another. 6,000 plus years of civilization from Gilgamesh to Brahma to John Smith there has ben faith. Even Einstein said "Religion without science is deaf, science without religion is blind".
Well said.
It depends on the impact of the disaster. An entire collapse of civilization and most people will become religious.
Well, again, this is something I think Roddenberry got wrong in the Trek mythos... it took Deep Space Nine to come along (after his death) to give an honest look at religion in the 24th century.
And, look at the Bajoran people... sure, they were supposed to be a rough allusion to the Jewish holocaust, but they were a beautiful example of faith in the face of opposition. Opposition from the Cardassians, sure, but opposition from Starfleet officers who told them their deities were simply "wormhole aliens." Were they? Maybe, but Kira said it wonderfully when she said that it didn't matter. The Prophets came through for Bajor, and she believed everything would be alright because of them.
People like Roddenberry claim that religion is black and white, and therefore, doesn't have a place in a humanist future. Religion may be responsible for pain and war in human history... but it is also responsible for things like art, music, philosophy, and acts of compassion. These things aren't mutually exclusive to religion, but they are some of the best parts of the human condition... and the realm of religion.
The overall trends are still downward, although I can appreciate what you are trying to say.
I don't think that'd be the case. There's no real basis for that unless you worship at the church of hollywood.
How it usually goes:
- Someone makes ridiculous faith-based claim.
- Moderate believers denounce the claim citing perverted interpretation.
- Which begs the question, "how do we properly interpret religious text?"
- Responses can be dismissed for the same reasons as the original claim.
- Cognitive dissonance prevails for the faithful, outsiders facepalm.
- Public opinion favors which ever side is more benign.
They unintentionally bring up an important point about faith-based claims; there's no way to verify whether they're wrong or right, it's inherently a matter of faith.
One show showed Human beings as peaceful, you could argue loving, caring beings. Who removed currency war and hunger.
The other showed a more realistic vision of the future where Mankind was exactly as it is now... willing to pay lip service to those ideals, in reality just a bunch of scared apes willing to kill on a whim to protect what they believe from others who don't.
Roddenberry got it 100% right... we don't get there while holding onto myths built from fear.
JMS gets points for realism... cause sadly people still won't be ready to throw down there myths in just a few hundred years.
As they have done to many others. Don't worry, they are small and they think in small terms.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
Say that to a Bajoran's face. I dare you.
Your father was captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your mother's, and yours.
I dare you to do better.
That isn't quite true the Enforcement Act of 1871 was passed in order to combat white supremacy groups. Its safe to say they are NOT allowed legally to stand in public and scream there beliefs.
So its not really true that the US has 100% free speech and Zero hate speech laws. The EA1871 was just the starting of many others and amendments to that act that among other things hold school boards responsible for rights viloations ect.
My point is... the US does have Hate Speech laws, the country is simply full of politicians lacking the resolve to put themselves out there to defend the unpopular minorities in the US.
Don't get me started on the whole "removing currency" thing, LOL...
We'll have to respectfully disagree about B5, I guess. It certainly didn't sugarcoat humanity's outlook in the 23rd century, but I also don't think it simply paid "lip service" to higher ideals. Yes, the Earth-Minbari War happened because of a misunderstanding (and a trigger-happy captain)... but out of that came the desire to build a community where people could come together in peace and understanding.
As for religion's place in that vision... two scenes come to mind: a scene from an episode (can't remember the name) where Sinclair is showing Earth's culture to the alien delegates of the station, and it's a line of religious representatives running the length of the Zocalo; the episode ("And The Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place") where Sheridan talks to a baptist pastor. Both are handled wonderfully.
Even people like David Gerrald believe Gene Roddenberry got it wrong with how he handled religion... he didn't have to become a devout anything to handle it better, either. The dude wasn't perfect (and that's okay). To say that religion is something to "move past," like violence and greed, is wildly insulting and very close-minded.