ForumGarden

Christian street preacher fined over homophobic sermons · PinkNews

A Christian preacher has been convicted of delivering homophobic sermons in the middle of the high street, and ordered to pay a fine. And where are atheists on this issue?

The preacher has received unlikely support – from the National Secular Society.

NSS president Terry Sanderson said: “Whilst we all want to encourage public civility, there is a higher principle at stake. As long as there is no incitement to violence, then people should be allowed to speak freely without fearing legal repercussions.”

SNAP!!!

Ahso!;1476638 wrote: Christian street preacher fined over homophobic sermons · PinkNews

And where are atheists on this issue?

SNAP!!!


You do know that secularism and atheism are not synonymous don't you?

National Secular Society - What is Secularism?

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

You see a difference? Societal issues should be secular.

Well, I guess I have to ask, are there laws in place that make using such language illegal?

Where is the line to be drawn between Inciting Violence & Giving a Reason For Violence with prejudicial emphasis?

It is one thing for a preacher to keep saying, with particular emphasis, that the Bible says so & so, or such & such a person should be slain (and there's no shortage of that sort of thing in the Bible), and quite another for him to say thay because this is what it says in the Bible, then we must go out & do God's Holy work & slay them. However, the outcome will be the same, as the first is simply stating a fact, with the biased presentation leaving the latter interpretation & the subsequent action to be taken as moot.

Ahso!;1476684 wrote: You see a difference? Societal issues should be secular.


You don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist you seem to see them as the same thing. You can be an atheist and opposed to secular society.

gmc;1476701 wrote: You don't have to be an atheist to be a secularist you seem to see them as the same thing. You can be an atheist and opposed to secular society.


One can also be a theist, and believe that society should be secular.

And, just to stir the sediment a bit. One can be an atheist and believe in a religion-based society.

LarsMac;1476716 wrote: One can also be a theist, and believe that society should be secular.

And, just to stir the sediment a bit. One can be an atheist and believe in a religion-based society.
That's where you start to muddy the waters between Dogma & Doctrine. Religion is not the base. It is, itself, based on the Doctrines which preceded Religion. The base Doctrine of all Religions (including Atheism) are essentially the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" & "Thou Shalt Not Steal", as these are the most basic rules required to live within a society. They have nothing to do with Religion, yet the Bible claims it for its own.

FourPart;1476732 wrote: That's where you start to muddy the waters between Dogma & Doctrine. Religion is not the base. It is, itself, based on the Doctrines which preceded Religion. The base Doctrine of all Religions (including Atheism) are essentially the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" & "Thou Shalt Not Steal", as these are the most basic rules required to live within a society. They have nothing to do with Religion, yet the Bible claims it for its own.


The Bible is making claims, now, it it?

But actually the "thou Shalt Not Kill, or Steal" really is not so universal. It usually translate to "Thou shalt not kill your tribe-mates, or Clan mates, or neighbors - well, unless they do something really bad - but it's perfectly OK to kill those guys over there in the other tribe."

It was later folks, like Lord Sudartha, and Jeshua, better known as The Buddha, and Jesus, who said you should even love your enemies.

LarsMac;1476716 wrote: One can also be a theist, and believe that society should be secular.

And, just to stir the sediment a bit. One can be an atheist and believe in a religion-based society.


No you can't - unless you are going to argue that atheism is merely another religion with it's own set of beliefs you have to espouse and follow to be a true atheist which is a spurious argument I make a point of not engaging in except to say it is spurious, nonsensical etc etc.

gmc;1476781 wrote: No you can't - unless you are going to argue that atheism is merely another religion with it's own set of beliefs you have to espouse and follow to be a true atheist which is a spurious argument I make a point of not engaging in except to say it is spurious, nonsensical etc etc.


You've never met a Buddhist, then.

I agree with the OP. if someone disagrees with what the guy is saying, they should be free to stand on the opposite corner and spew their own opinion. We let crazy churches line funeral processions with their protest signs don't we?

flopstock;1476787 wrote: I agree with the OP. if someone disagrees with what the guy is saying, they should be free to stand on the opposite corner and spew their own opinion. We let crazy churches line funeral processions with their protest signs don't we?


Not if we can help it

LarsMac;1476786 wrote: You've never met a Buddhist, then.


I have as it happens

unless you are going to argue that atheism is merely another religion with it's own set of beliefs you have to espouse and follow to be a true atheist which is a spurious argument




You will note I said there is no set of beliefs that you have to follow to be an atheist however much people like to pretend that there is. Some cannot accept the notion of a religion that does not have a god to worship to them Buddhism is not a religion, I take it you do not hold to that view.

I occasionally like to annoy Christians by suggesting that jesus may have been influenced by Buddhist thought he was located in what was a cultural crossroads it's not inconceivable he came across their ideas. The contrast of his teaching with the savage god of the old testament is quite striking. At this point discussion usually falls apart.

And, just to stir the sediment a bit. One can be an atheist and believe in a religion-based society.






One can be an atheist and tolerate religion but to accept a religion based society means you must be prepared to accept the laws of "god" are superior to those of man there is always going to be conflict just look at the fuss over homosexuality because religion and the religious claim the right to discriminate.

gmc;1476917 wrote: I have as it happens



You will note I said there is no set of beliefs that you have to follow to be an atheist however much people like to pretend that there is. Some cannot accept the notion of a religion that does not have a god to worship to them Buddhism is not a religion, I take it you do not hold to that view.

I occasionally like to annoy Christians by suggesting that jesus may have been influenced by Buddhist thought he was located in what was a cultural crossroads it's not inconceivable he came across their ideas. The contrast of his teaching with the savage god of the old testament is quite striking. At this point discussion usually falls apart.



One can be an atheist and tolerate religion but to accept a religion based society means you must be prepared to accept the laws of "god" are superior to those of man there is always going to be conflict just look at the fuss over homosexuality because religion and the religious claim the right to discriminate.


So, I am getting that in your view, only those religions based upon the Semite Monotheistic God are truly religions.

LarsMac;1476920 wrote: So, I am getting that in your view, only those religions based upon the Semite Monotheistic God are truly religions.


Where are you getting that from? Buddhism is a religion

religion

the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:


Or ijn a more broader sense

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence




The latter definition fits Buddhism. You can argue the toss whether there needs a belief in god to be a religion but imo it's a pointless debate most people would accept the latter definition as well. Politics as religion? - certainly generates as much hate and in tolerance.



Atheism is not a religion

1) there is no god figure

2) there is no organised collection of beliefs.

How clear can it be?

Maybe you should read again what I wrote

You will note I said there is no set of beliefs that you have to follow to be an atheist however much people like to pretend that there is. Some cannot accept the notion of a religion that does not have a god to worship to them Buddhism is not a religion, I take it you do not hold to that view.




I'm assuming you would class Buddhism as a religion there are many who would not, indeed there are many that would argue theirs is the only "true" religion and all else is false.

gmc;1476921 wrote: Where are you getting that from? Buddhism is a religion

religion



Or ijn a more broader sense



The latter definition fits Buddhism. You can argue the toss whether there needs a belief in god to be a religion but imo it's a pointless debate most people would accept the latter definition as well. Politics as religion? - certainly generates as much hate and in tolerance.



Atheism is not a religion

1) there is no god figure

2) there is no organised collection of beliefs.

How clear can it be?

Maybe you should read again what I wrote



I'm assuming you would class Buddhism as a religion there are many who would not, indeed there are many that would argue theirs is the only "true" religion and all else is false.


Well you keep putting rules around religion, such as:

One can be an atheist and tolerate religion but to accept a religion based society means you must be prepared to accept the laws of "god" are superior to those of man there is always going to be conflict just look at the fuss over homosexuality because religion and the religious claim the right to discriminate.


But in many Buddhist regions - Tibet, for example - You have to admit that they have a very religion-based society (or did, prior to the Chinese invasion of the 50s)

We seem to be talking in circles, you and I. But essentially, as we both stated, "Atheism" is a lack of belief in a god, or gods.

And for the most part, many atheists are simply people who don't believe that there are gods - supernatural beings. Buddhism qualifies as that. Therefore a Buddhist is also an atheist, which supports my statement:

One can be an atheist and believe in a religion-based society.


But it is man's nature to collectively pursue a society, and to do so, they must establish rules. For centuries, religions were the simplest way of defining these rules, and developing the required discipline and enthusiasm for maintaining that society.

As we have evolved to a point where so many people from different places, with different societal beliefs have become crammed together, there are bound to be disagreements.

It is easy to fall back on the religion of one's ancestors to support one's societal rules.

People who are in a world that frightens them cling to ideas and rules of their childhood.

posted by larsmac

But in many Buddhist regions - Tibet, for example - You have to admit that they have a very religion-based society (or did, prior to the Chinese invasion of the 50s)




OK you're right. You do have good point and I do tend to think primarily of judeo/Christian semite monotheistic religion when I use the term religion. I also tend to think of religion as requiring some kind of god figure but realise that's doesn't quite cover all the bases but it's an ingrained habit.

posted by larsmac

We seem to be talking in circles, you and I. But essentially, as we both stated, "Atheism" is a lack of belief in a god, or gods.

And for the most part, many atheists are simply people who don't believe that there are gods - supernatural beings. Buddhism qualifies as that. Therefore a Buddhist is also an atheist, which supports my statement:


More a case I'm going round in a circle I think. You get so used to arguing with fundamentalist Christians who believe theirs is the only true religion I completely missed what you were getting at.stopped