Comments on Acceptable behaviour from religious folks?

Go to Religion in the Modern WorldAdd a commentGo to Acceptable behaviour from religious folks?

Kripayne - making one's self a daily target is one way to blog, there are

many other ways to gain readership but this way works for me.

Others have utilized pandering to popular opinion which can be equally effective, others have utilized the comments as a chat room, which can also be an effective method of gaining readership. I choose to utilize a bit of controversy backed (at least I believe so) by sound reasoning as a means of keeping this blog perpetually near the top of the rankings.

As for reading and commenting on your blogs, I do read them and will comment when I feel I have something to add to the subject matter at hand. In the meantime, I will add your name to my link rotator in the left hand column.

posted by gomedome on March 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM | link to this | reply

LoL--
you daily make yourself a target for that ill behavior from a specific group, so that may skew your polling data. Just the title of your blog is inflammatory. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but most of the people who reply here are probably going to be very opinionated one way or another. People who agree with you are naturally more polite. I find it possible to trip across asses in all walks of life myself...as Jean-Paul Sartre said, "Hell is other people." The things people do just drive me nuts sometimes. I'm sure they say the same of me. Measuring tolerance is like measuring somebody's threshold for pain--it varies from person to person, even from day to day. So that's a very subjective topic. One thing you did write reminded me of something I wrote in my own blog: the more emotionally committed a person is to an idea, the more difficult it is to get them to change their mind/alter their thinking.    

posted by Kripayne on March 9, 2007 at 10:22 PM | link to this | reply

Tonyzonit - one of the problems as I see it is in the fact that the

prevailing attitudes concerning prosletizing have not kept up with the changes within society.

Religious beliefs worldwide are a dynamic that is shifting to a larger number of different religious beliefs and non beliefs found within all first world societies. These changes have come about primarily through immigration and the individual freedoms as found within these societies. To refuse to acknowledge these changes and continue selling the religious message without consideration of the ever increasing divergency of religious belief and non belief, is rude.

posted by gomedome on March 9, 2007 at 8:50 AM | link to this | reply

You've touched on a good point there, Gomedome.
Essentially, any religious proselytizer (have I spelled that right?) is quite simply rude, and needs to learn some social etiquette - more specifically, the kind of consideration for others that is taught in kindergarten.

posted by Antonionioni on March 9, 2007 at 7:11 AM | link to this | reply

Jaahda - that's a good way of putting it
Religious belief for many people provides a sense of justification and empowerment. Unfortunately empowering some people is akin to giving hand grenades to monkeys.

posted by gomedome on March 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM | link to this | reply

i think some people use their religion as their very own toxic waste dump
into which they deposit all their own failings, insecurities and other negative traits. They then by way of transference think it belongs elsewhere (not on themselves).

 

posted by Jaahda on March 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - no truer words were ever spoken

"when one thinks one's cause is of god, then one thinks one can do anything to promote their cause."

Yep, we saw a good case of this recently right here on Blogit. One quarterwitted insufferable religious numbnut really believed that he was justified in doing anything he possibly could to harrass kooka and myself because his twisted little mind actually believed he was doing God's will. He described it as his "moral duty" to harrass all non believers in the name of God. This makes for some fairly potent stupidity.

posted by gomedome on March 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM | link to this | reply

cpklapper - impossibly vague would be a good way to describe your comment
You assume that all education systems have the same tolerance for teachers imparting their personal religious philosophies in the classroom. It is not considered part and parcel with teaching in my country. If anyone is happy to let teachers impart their personal religious philosophy to their children, you can bet on two things; the teacher is of the same faith as the parent who is happy with it and that person has never considered that the teacher could just as easily be of another religion than there own. That's the point of this post; freedoms and rights can only be considered as such if they are a two way street. Or is that too vague for you?

posted by gomedome on March 8, 2007 at 6:34 PM | link to this | reply

As to teachers influencing children's beliefs
It goes with the territory.  This is why "public education", however meritorious in achieving literacy and competence among large segments of the population (pace statisticians), is not consistent with the prohibition of acts affecting the "establishment of religion" in the U. S. Constitution, especially when the scope was extended to the States after the Civil War.  A system of education dollars following each student to a wide selection of private and religious schools would be less objectionable on that score.  A child's attendance at a school would be based, at least in part, on the consistency of the parent's and the school's philosophies.

As to the rest of this, I found it impossibly vague.  The best response I can give you is Pat Paulsen's : "The Bill of Rights says nothing about Freedom of Hearing".

Carl Peter

posted by cpklapper on March 8, 2007 at 4:04 PM | link to this | reply

one thing is

belief is like a seed sown.  it takes root and becomes as much of a person's psyche as the arm is of the body.

withouit it, they would not be whole

they are afraid of perceived "threats" to that belief.

and, as I have just posted, those Christians, thinking they are righteous and their "cause it is just", become overbearing and inconsiderate -- if they had been among the crusaders, they would have been just as destructive to all in their path.

when one thinks one's cause is of god, then one thinks one can do anything to promote their cause.

posted by Xeno-x on March 8, 2007 at 3:37 PM | link to this | reply