Religious 'Oppression'

[VonClausewitz]

Just a quick thought - Being as it is not the 19th (or earlier) century A.D. anymore, do you think that any argument where Western religious practices are condemned as 'oppressive' are valid ? People do tend to take part in these things rather willingly I seem to notice. A lot of the infrastructure is either maintained privately or at least in part by donation and public charity. The Inquisition Does Not Exist Any Longer.

Eastern practices tend to be rather more state-policy I've noticed, with the Arab theocracy, and what Tibet was like before the reds had a good go at killing everyone, so lets leave any clever references to Islam out of it, 'cause it's not related to my question.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Just a quick thought - Being as it is not the 19th (or earlier) century A.D. anymore, do you think that any argument where Western religious practices are condemned as 'oppressive' are valid?

Are people still being arrested and imprisoned for prostitution? Using illegal drugs? Are places that serve alcohol still forced to close down for certain hours? Is the Supreme Court about to re-criminalize abortion?

We still have our own "Shari'a" in the "west"...and it needs ripping out by the roots very badly!

It's oppressive as hell...both cruel and stupid!

Pretty much what you'd expect from anything that starts from a religious basis. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

PS: The term "AD" is obsolete. This is the year 2006CE -- for "Common Era". The famous Jewish rabbi was born c.4BCE -- for "Before Common Era". Just thought you'd want to know. :)

[VonClausewitz]

Hmm, true about that abortion issue, but well, America has seemed to gather these fanatics. In the wider picture though ? I think blaming drug addicts being locked up and pubs having to close for a while on religion is a little tenuous at best ? I would've thought that'd be more the result of conservativism in government ?


It's oppressive as hell...both cruel and stupid!

Laws revolving around things like alcohol and drugs always seemed the most sensible ones to me. Then again, I've never suffered from liberalism with regards to these particular subjects.


PS: The term "AD" is obsolete. This is the year 2006CE -- for "Common Era". The famous Jewish rabbi was born c.4BCE -- for "Before Common Era". Just thought you'd want to know.

I know I know, and we don't call blackboards blackboards either, but political correctness bores me.

[Delirium]

The only root of social conservatism i can think of is religion.

Do not forget that chuches have a tax exempt status in the united states which i would consider state sponsered religion.

I just view them as businesses selling salvation. 10% of your income i think is what is required.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I think blaming drug addicts being locked up and pubs having to close for a while on religion is a little tenuous at best?

The history of puritanical laws in the U.S. is a religious history. "Sins" must be punished "on Earth" as well as "in Hell". :angry:

I highly recommend: Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams for an in-depth and very entertaining study of this subject.


...political correctness bores me.

The terms "CE" and "BCE" were not motivated by "political correctness" but rather by scholars who wished to be understood universally. The number 2006 (much less accompanied by "AD") has no meaning in much of the world.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[VonClausewitz]

I'll have a look at the Consensual Crimes book, it sounds interesting. This is another point that I wanted to adress here though - Different nations take these laws differently, would you alter your perception if we were to suggested the British or French legal system perhaps ?


The terms "CE" and "BCE" were not motivated by "political correctness" but rather by scholars who wished to be understood universally. The number 2006 (much less accompanied by "AD") has no meaning in much of the world.

Ahhh, in Britain at least, it only seems to have been adopted by schools and other places that have to confom to whatever level of 'inclusiveness' the government come up with next. No-one else can be bothered. It's a different situation with American adoptation of it I expect.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:20 PM
I highly recommend: Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams for an in-depth and very entertaining study of this subject.
You can read this book online:
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Would you alter your perception if we were to suggested the British or French legal system perhaps?

From what I've read, there are laws against sin in every "western" country, and I see no reason why they should not have similar origins...religion!

In some countries, there may be some "sins" that are only mildly punishable by law -- more an annoyance (and revenue enhancer) than anything else.

But the unspoken premise is that the government of a Christian country has a duty to do all it can to oppose "sin"!

What strikes us as "appalling" about Islamic Law is simply what the Christians used to do in the "west" and still do when they can get away with it.

You know a teen-age girl who needs an abortion? She can't get one in her state. You give her the money to transport her to another state where she can get one.

YOU ARE NOW GUILTY OF A FEDERAL CRIME and face up to FIVE YEARS in a federal prison!

RELIGION IS ALWAYS REACTIONARY AND OPPRESSIVE! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[VonClausewitz]

From what I've read, there are laws against sin in every "western" country, and I see no reason why they should not have similar origins...religion!

Speaking for Britain, any directly religion-based laws are gone now, the blasphemy laws etc, those inspired by religion tend to be ones that are more common sense than dogmatic 'sin'. Frankly though, some of the proffered 'sins' have more basis in common sense than a lot of modern politics.


But the unspoken premise is that the government of a Christian country has a duty to do all it can to oppose "sin"!

Perhaps two hundred years ago, to presume the same now of modern, secular government (again, I speak for Britain), is a waste of good effort I think.


What strikes us as "appalling" about Islamic Law is simply what the Christians used to do in the "west" and still do when they can get away with it.

I must have missed the last time a public beheading was done in this country ? Perhaps you need to be more subjective ? Not all religious types are the same, some are actually just in it for a bit of spiritual comfort, not all that many care about burning the heretic anymore.


You know a teen-age girl who needs an abortion? She can't get one in her state. You give her the money to transport her to another state where she can get one.

YOU ARE NOW GUILTY OF A FEDERAL CRIME and face up to FIVE YEARS in a federal prison!

The USA has to learn, its a young nation, the old world got it a long time ago about putting something of a divider between matters of the soul and matters of state. Eventually the half-crazed evangelists will loose their appeal, or die, whichever comes first.

[Dreckt]

The USA has to learn, its a young nation, the old world got it a long time ago about putting something of a divider between matters of the soul and matters of state. Eventually the half-crazed evangelists will loose their appeal, or die, whichever comes first.

I really hope you are right. I think the concern for the US is that it is the single superpower left in the world - which means it's influence reaches far out. But on the ideal plan for the future these reactionaries will sooner or later wither away.

And when it comes to business - it will always be money before religion. Always.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+--> (VonClausewitz)Speaking for Britain, any directly religion-based laws are gone now, the blasphemy laws etc....[/b]

I though Britain still had "blasphemy laws"....though they are rarely used.

Anyway, I think it's pretty likely that most of the laws on the statute books in Britain against certain drugs for instance, were passed by a heavily Christian influenced Government.

And of course, State Schools still have assemblies which have a Christian odour....surely that's mandated by the Government because the Education Department(s) do set curriculum's.


Originally posted by [email protected]
....those inspired by religion tend to be ones that are more common sense than dogmatic 'sin'.

What are these Religious inspired "common sense" laws? ....VAT on cigarettes? :angry:


VonClausewitz
Perhaps two hundred years ago, to presume the same now of modern, secular government (again, I speak for Britain), is a waste of good effort I think.

How exactly would you explain the pious Mr. Blair's Respect Agenda when it is coupled with policies that allow Religious nutballs to start deciding the policies in State Schools?

Blair's Respect Agenda is, in my opinion, an attempt to bring back "Christian morals" for the young....after all, Blair himself has stated that he has a less than favourable opinion of the 60's.

The pious are making a comeback in Britain....and the Government "our" secular state has a few seriously Religious nutballs in it. :angry:

[VonClausewitz]

(You don't need to put every other word in bold, I'm sure the majority can understand perfectly what you're trying to say without needing the important words, or ones you want to emphasise, made to stand out.)



I though Britain still had "blasphemy laws"....though they are rarely used.

Anyway, I think it's pretty likely that most of the laws on the statute books in Britain against certain drugs for instance, were passed by a heavily Christian influenced Government.

And of course, State Schools still have assemblies which have a Christian odour....surely that's mandated by the Government because the Education Department(s) do set curriculum's.

I've never heard of the blasphemy laws being used in my lifetime. I think, if they're not already off the books, they're one of those quaint anachronisms, like the law about being able to shoot Scottish people inside the walls of york with a bow after a certain time, no-one takes them seriously, and it'd probably waste a lot of trees to get rid of them.

Many, and by many I mean all of the ones that I've seen, state schools have dropped any kind of religious aspect to their assemblies, unless it's to offer a prayer for a dead school-mate or something. Headmasters are far too scared about offending some minority nowadays to really carry that kind of thing on, Church schools do of course, but well, they're church schools. No-one who isn't already religious really takes these things seriously anyway.



What are these Religious inspired "common sense" laws? ....VAT on cigarettes?

Whats wrong with taxing cigarette companies to death ? Or at least taxing people off the habit ? Pick a better example ;)

I seem to remember that murder laws were inspired by certain passages in a certain book, as were laws about theft, adultery, the little things y'know ?


How exactly would you explain the pious Mr. Blair's Respect Agenda when it is coupled with policies that allow Religious nutballs to start deciding the policies in State Schools?

Blair's Respect Agenda is, in my opinion, an attempt to bring back "Christian morals" for the young....after all, Blair himself has stated that he has a less than favourable opinion of the 60's.

The pious are making a comeback in Britain....and the Government "our" secular state has a few seriously Religious nutballs in it.

What religious nutballs deciding policy in schools ? Example please.

I think that any morals are better than no morals, don't you ? Surely a good old fashioned fear of death by a thousand years of flame and brimstone could do far more good for badly behaved youth than 'talking' and 'understanding' and all that other liberal nonesense. (devils advocate btw, I don't support that). Piety is I seem to see, making a comeback amongst the older generations, those that'll be dead soon enough. The young now are either too busy scraping through exams or having children to be religious, don't worry.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I seem to remember that murder laws were inspired by certain passages in a certain book, as were laws about theft, adultery, the little things y'know ?

Practically all societies that I know of prohibit murder, religious and otherwise, there are perfectly rational reasons to prohibit murder which hopefully I don't have to explain to you.


I think that any morals are better than no morals, don't you ? Surely a good old fashioned fear of death by a thousand years of flame and brimstone could do far more good for badly behaved youth than 'talking' and 'understanding' and all that other liberal nonesense.

"fire and brimstone" is a disproportionate threat compared to practically all "crimes" that youth commit.

I mean seriously, a thousand years of torment for smoking weed? That's insanity.


The young now are either too busy scraping through exams or having children to be religious, don't worry.

Unfortunately, the old farts that are being born again are also the same people who decide what is taught at school and what laws are enacted.

[VonClausewitz]

/threadhijack

I could've sworn I'd started this to discuss why some of you people think religion is still an oppressive force in society, not to debate who is more liberal than who with regards to school uniforms !.


As far as I'm concerned, all Schools should be completely secular....which means no Religious symbolism at all.

I completely and whole-heartedly agree, though with the small change that all State schools should be totally secular, if people want to go to a church school, and/or want to send their children to one, that is their decision. The state shouldn't decide whether or not one's children have a religious upbringing right ?


These "badly behaved youth" are simply trying to have some enjoyment under the despotism of adults....therefore I certainly don't want to reinforce that despotism by relying on fear.

I was talking of criminal acts and general anti-social behaviour, I wasn't meaning children playing football in the street or something. Isn't "despotism of adults" a little harsh ?


However, these people have children....which means they indoctrinate a whole new generation.

Hopefully the trend of children rebelling against their parents will continue well into the future, so that all can have free-thought, or at least think that it's 'uncool' because their dad does it, and less and less evangelical morons risk being created.