Poster- Christianity inherently abusive

[OkToBeTakei]

Do you think there is such a thing as judging by declaring the level of tolerance of another as insufficient? Tolerance doesn't go full circle, it stops at the door of another person.

How have I dismissed people who believe?

You are applying wrong evidence for your examples. The evidence that your husband will not cheat is not in the statistics of cheaters, it's in things like: what is his expressed view on cheating, how often does he go against his expressed views, what has he done in his life to make him into a trustworthy person...etc etc. There are no guarantees of course, but the probability depends on all things he does and shows as a person. That's the evidence to look into.

What you express as "faith" that the guy speeding isn't a maniac I would express as probability. Most people speeding are not maniacs but are having a temporary "dumb" or "in-a-hurry" moment. It is not faith that makes me go in a car, it is the assessment of: practicality versus the risk. I'm aware of the risk but the benefit outweighs it.

1. Yes. I would rather be judged tolerant of other's beliefs as long as they are doing no harm. The examples used on this thread regarding religious abuse withstanding. As that does not apply to all.

2. Dismiss? No. But try impose your view via constant assertion and questioning in my perception shows a lack of tolerance. I think I mentioned before my overwhelming feeling was that you were evangelising atheism :lol:

3. That is beyond naive in my opinion. No guarantees huh?

4. I could look at statistics in the world to see how many people have deliberately driven head on to another vehicle in order to commit suicide or are drunk, do not have a license. I could then work out the probability of me driving that same road upward of eight times a day and meeting one of them. Also some people speed because they like to. Exhausting eh?

Unfortunately life is not a mathematical equation neither is it black and white. I would be very bored if it was.

[zcccrv]

1. Yes. I would rather be judged tolerant of other's beliefs as long as they are doing no harm. The examples used on this thread regarding religious abuse withstanding. As that does not apply to all.

2. Dismiss? No. But try impose your view via constant assertion and questioning in my perception shows a lack of tolerance. I think I mentioned before my overwhelming feeling was that you were evangelising atheism :lol:

3. That is beyond naive in my opinion. No guarantees huh?

4. I could look at statistics in the world to see how many people have deliberately driven head on to another vehicle in order to commit suicide or are drunk, do not have a license. I could then work out the probability of me driving that same road upward of eight times a day and meeting one of them. Also some people speed because they like to. Exhausting eh?

Unfortunately life is not a mathematical equation neither is it black and white. I would be very bored if it was.

1. My whole premise, which I put out for discussion, was that raising believers does do more harm than the alternative. There were some very constructive arguments on both sides but the consensus was not reached in my mind. I still lean toward my initial premise.

2. Asserting my views and questioning those who have polar opposite view = intolerance? What a boring and not to mention stagnant world that would be if everybody thought like that. I love to have my views challenged, it makes me think a bit harder about stuff.

3. I personally would feel like I would be disrespecting my partner if I judged his potential to cheat by the token of how many people cheat. What the heck does that have to do with him (or me)?

4. No, not at all. Just less probable.

I absolutely agree that life is not a mathematical equation. The world would be a wild place if it were so. Concepts like infinity would actually exist in a demonstrable way! As it is they are not applicable to our, a bit less exciting, but still hugely interesting real world.

[France Nolan]

Questioning us isn't intolerance. I don't mind answering questions or having discussions. What I do mind is the, "I know you guys disagree with me, but see I'm right? Am I right?". If you want to talk about something regarding belief, you believe that leaving a faith or changing a faith is traumatic. Any proof? No. Posters gave well thought out responses as to why this may or may not be the case, and yet you persist that it must be the case.

And yes, my government asking me to give my religious beliefs and my reasons for them IS a major deal. Write it off on cultural differences, but that's not information I want them to have. I have no reason to trust that they wouldn't use it against people. "Oh you identified yourself as a Muslim on the census, let's put you through a 3 hour security screening before you get on board a plane."

I get it. You're an atheist. You're reasonable except when you're not.

[zcccrv]

...you believe that leaving a faith or changing a faith is traumatic. Any proof? No. Posters gave well thought out responses as to why this may or may not be the case, and yet you persist that it must be the case.

Actually, yes. I've seen hundreds of episodes of a show called The Atheist Experience where people (believers and non-believers) call in to talk to atheists. By what I heard, directly from the mouths of the de-converted, a huge number of them stated that leaving religion was traumatizing, personally and/or socially. On a personal level, the fear of hell built in from the childhood is often talked about. Adjusting to the concept of exclusive personal responsibility takes some time. On a social level, loosing your community. I even provided a link to The Clergy Project here.

And yes, my government asking me to give my religious beliefs and my reasons for them IS a major deal. Write it off on cultural differences, but that's not information I want them to have. I have no reason to trust that they wouldn't use it against people. "Oh you identified yourself as a Muslim on the census, let's put you through a 3 hour security screening before you get on board a plane."

If you're a Muslim and are as such a target for screening in your country, the only way to change the situation is to contribute to the positive Muslim perception. By being who you are and trying to raise awareness for the unfair treatment. Not by hiding your religious beliefs. I don't understand how could the government use this information in any other negative way? I'm not writing it off, it is a distinct difference between the US and most of Europe (I believe also Canada). A useful link: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/elusive ... igion-978/

I get it. You're an atheist. You're reasonable except when you're not.

On this we agree.

[France Nolan]

If you're a Muslim and are as such a target for screening in your country, the only way to change the situation is to contribute to the positive Muslim perception. By being who you are and trying to raise awareness for the unfair treatment. Not by hiding your religious beliefs. I don't understand how could the government use this information in any other negative way? I'm not writing it off, it is a distinct difference between the US and most of Europe (I believe also Canada). A useful link: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/elusive ... igion-978/

That's an incredibly privileged and ignorant way of looking at it. There are many wonderful people who are openly Muslim, who contribute to their communities, and they are STILL harassed. The same applies to Jewish people. There's a "list" of members of American Congress who are also "Israeli citizens". Guess what they all have in common? They're Jewish. And I've yet to see proof that any of them are Israeli citizens.

It is not their fault that they are harassed. It is not their job to make the harassment stop.

That response is just mind boggling to me. :angry-banghead:

[OkToBeTakei]

Man I wrote a really long rather boring post including all the previous page posts, then the server went POOF!

Questioning us isn't intolerance. I don't mind answering questions or having discussions. What I do mind is the, "I know you guys disagree with me, but see I'm right? Am I right?". If you want to talk about something regarding belief, you believe that leaving a faith or changing a faith is traumatic. Any proof? No. Posters gave well thought out responses as to why this may or may not be the case, and yet you persist that it must be the case.

But it was a bit like that :lol: To the bolded. On and on and on and on and on.

1. No your premise was to question everybody on their beliefs. Starting page 5 I think it was. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. There was a few snide remarks in my opinion you palmed off as humour. I do not think you lean anywhere but from where you started. Again no problem with that. I do not think you were looking for any new information. Your mind seems pretty certain.

2. Asserting your views and questioning those of others of course is in no way intolerant. Trying to assert you are right and others are wrong shows a certain intolerance, again in my opinion.

3. Flip flop.

4. There is no way of knowing.

You cannot remove faith from humanity just because it has religious connotations. You may wish to live your life in a 'Just so' manner, looking for evidence and cause and effect for every detail. The fact remains that a huge proportion of the world disagrees. Intolerance comes from one side trying to tell another side they are wrong.

Yes, it's a thin line between evangelizing and sharing your views with a, also very human, intent of maybe helping out. I have always considered it strange when religious people keep their views to themselves. In that sense, dare I say it, I understand fundies more; if you are convinced of something and consider it a good thing to be convinced of (it has helped you personally) then I think it is natural to want to share it with others. I may not agree with my religious friends but what I value most in our disagreements is the obvious intent to try and share what both parties have found to be beneficial to them.

I have personally felt a huge benefit to being an atheist and have read many accounts of people who feel the same way. I don't share my views because I want everyone to be an atheist, I share them because I think it may just help someone out. For those who don't need any help- they can think I'm evangelizing (I don't mind), they can take offense (a bit of a over-reaction IMO) or they can just ignore me. Just like I often ignore Christians trying to help me when it's clearly something I have heard many times before and leads to nowhere.

From a previous post of yours.

To the first bolded. You identified with fundies which is interesting.

To the second.

If it leads to nowhere and you have heard it many times before then why continue to push your agenda/views for a further 7 pages of this thread ...it seems you are quite happy with your beliefs, maybe you just need to accept so are others.

Fuck sake an Evangelical Fundamental Atheist. THAT has to be a first :lol:

[OkToBeTakei]

If you're a Muslim and are as such a target for screening in your country, the only way to change the situation is to contribute to the positive Muslim perception. By being who you are and trying to raise awareness for the unfair treatment. Not by hiding your religious beliefs. I don't understand how could the government use this information in any other negative way? I'm not writing it off, it is a distinct difference between the US and most of Europe (I believe also Canada). A useful link: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/elusive ... igion-978/

PLEASE tell me you did not just say that?

No it is not a difference AT all between US and Europe.

Blog shmog.

[holierthanyou]

Well after reading all 15 pages, I am going to risk people throwing rotten fruit aimed my way by summing it up like this:

[zcccrv]

I'll sum it up from my side. Contrary to what OktobeiTakei might say I have gathered some new and useful information in this thread and there was some good stuff happening for a while. I hope others took something useful out of it as well. I do think I am right in my assertion that belief in a God is not reasonable. Every time someone says that it is reasonable I will try to provide arguments as to why I don't think that is true. I personally know some religious people who also hold that view (they think their belief is good for them, comforting, familiar, something that gives them a sense of purpose... not reasonable). I highly respect them for it.

[OkToBeTakei]

I'll sum it up from my side. Contrary to what OktobeiTakei might say I have gathered some new and useful information in this thread and there was some good stuff happening for a while. I hope others took something useful out of it as well. I do think I am right in my assertion that belief in a God is not reasonable. Every time someone says that it is reasonable I will try to provide arguments as to why I don't think that is true. I personally know some religious people who also hold that view (they think their belief is good for them, comforting, familiar, something that gives them a sense of purpose... not reasonable). I highly respect them for it.

I am truly glad you have learnt some facts that are interesting. But the bolded is why certain atheists and to the reverse as holierthanyou comically pointed out believers get a bad rap. It is probably one of the only debates in which the sides are extremely unlikely to change their mind, and both would also NOT agree to disagree. I don't think you understand that I was not disagreeing with your beliefs, far from it strangely, but the fact is that above my own beliefs I hold more importantly the absolute certainty that it is not my place to impose those on others. No matter how deeply I believe it is the right thing. So most definitely in that I totally differ.

I also found/find the beliefs expressed here very interesting not in relation to my own beliefs but what my fellow humans are believing. How we get about this life and how to do so respectfully of each other.

You may want to rethink your intellectual atheist debating point, it may not be your intention, but even in the last comment it comes across as cliche atheist intellectual arrogance. You touched on it briefly a few pages ago when you discussed or opined that those with faith would or maybe could not have the ability to make other rational choices in life. It was veiled, but it was there. Not good. Don't be givin' atheists bad names now :)

[zcccrv]

I am truly glad you have learnt some facts that are interesting. But the bolded is why certain atheists and to the reverse as holierthanyou comically pointed out believers get a bad rap. It is probably one of the only debates in which the sides are extremely unlikely to change their mind, and both would also NOT agree to disagree. I don't think you understand that I was not disagreeing with your beliefs, far from it strangely, but the fact is that above my own beliefs I hold more importantly the absolute certainty that it is not my place to impose those on others. No matter how deeply I believe it is the right thing. So most definitely in that I totally differ.

I also found/find the beliefs expressed here very interesting not in relation to my own beliefs but what my fellow humans are believing. How we get about this life and how to do so respectfully of each other.

You may want to rethink your intellectual atheist debating point, it may not be your intention, but even in the last comment it comes across as cliche atheist intellectual arrogance. You touched on it briefly a few pages ago when you discussed or opined that those with faith would or maybe could not have the ability to make other rational choices in life. It was veiled, but it was there. Not good. Don't be givin' atheists bad names now :)

1. I stand on my own, as does any atheist. We are not a group. No representing involved. I didn't like what some atheists wrote in this very thread but it has zero bearing on me.

2. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that I think belief in a God automatically means you are bound to be less rational in other choices. I have said many atheists think like this and I, myself, since you brought it up, honestly don't know what I think on this issue.

3. You are engaging in, what I would call, an Evangelical Middle Ground Ministry. I stand by my view of what is rational. If that makes me an intellectually arrogant atheist I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people saying they don't impose (whatever the hell that means) their deeply felt belief on others yet seem very militant about how, conditioned by their own lack of "imposing", everyone else should also adhere to the restrained rule for expressing one's views. It's like with fundies in a sense- they limit their freedoms and expect others to do it as well in return. I think it just doesn't work like that. I like to try and express/explain why I think the way I do. Hearing others do so has helped me personally and I am very grateful for their candidness. Cheers!

[France Nolan]

People have, very kindly, explained their beliefs to you. No one expects you to adopt their beliefs. No one is out to convert you, and I don't care if you're an atheist. I also don't care if you don't understand my faith. Not my problem.

What troubles me most is your flippant, privileged response to having to identify your religion to the government. It smacked of victim blaming and I don't think it's a cultural thing. I think it's being a jerk thing.

[OkToBeTakei]

1. I stand on my own, as does any atheist. We are not a group. No representing involved. I didn't like what some atheists wrote in this very thread but it has zero bearing on me.

2. You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that I think belief in a God automatically means you are bound to be less rational in other choices. I have said many atheists think like this and I, myself, since you brought it up, honestly don't know what I think on this issue.

3. You are engaging in, what I would call, an Evangelical Middle Ground Ministry. I stand by my view of what is rational. If that makes me an intellectually arrogant atheist I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people saying they don't impose (whatever the hell that means) their deeply felt belief on others yet seem very militant about how, conditioned by their own lack of "imposing", everyone else should also adhere to the restrained rule for expressing one's views. It's like with fundies in a sense- they limit their freedoms and expect others to do it as well in return. I think it just doesn't work like that. I like to try and express/explain why I think the way I do. Hearing others do so has helped me personally and I am very grateful for their candidness. Cheers!

Your welcome :D

You use atheists plural. Note to self do not lump atheists together in a group. Ok, atheism.

To point 2 even in my half hearted churchy days I was not a protestant :lol: I'm also not American so have no idea what a ministry is. Except it really looks like there should be another vowel in it. Middle ground I'm ok with. If you do not know what impose means it is pointless to explain why it is wrong to impose just about anything on anybody. It's at the very least rude, an imposition, or plain old ignorant.

I honestly think you are just trying to explain/express your views. Genuinely I do. I mean this with no malice, and obviously debate is about disagreeing, but it can be done with respect (or with sarcasm and bluntness, my failings.) But eventually it is just good form to agree to differ. Not try to prove you are right at the expense of another. You can call it expressing your views or trying to open debate and minds to different beliefs or non-beliefs. But to do that you actually have to have an open mind. Whilst not agreeing at least respecting differences gracefully.

I also understand as you see this is an 'internet' discussion. I certainly hope so, because holy shit you would make a poopy dinner guest. (That WAS a joke.)

Slainte.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Who are you to decide that? In the United States we are not obligated to disclose our religious beliefs on census forms.

And yes, it is a big step. If you're one of the people who was traumatized by your faith, do you want to disclose that to the government? How are we developing the Likert scale for that one? If you're one of the people who isn't traumatized by your faith,

it's still none of the government's business.

As far as reason and religion being intertwined, there are lots of people who think that they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Deists for example contend that "God gave us reason, not religion".

I'm in Canada, where religion is included on long census forms (which are no longer really mandatory, but that's a whole other discussion).

For practical purposes, there is a world of difference between identifying yourself as a particular religion - which requires filling in a box, or marking "other" and writing in a simple answer, and giving a answer to the question "why?". Qualitative data collection is done in an entirely different way.

I've received the long census form before. It's detailed enough that it already felt mildly invasive, and I already spent too much time agonizing over the visible minority definitions (because there was no write in option, and nothing was really accurate for my Iraqi Jewish husband). There is no way that it is appropriate for essay questions on highly personal issues that are nobody's business.

[2xx1xy1JD]

If you're a Muslim and are as such a target for screening in your country, the only way to change the situation is to contribute to the positive Muslim perception. By being who you are and trying to raise awareness for the unfair treatment. Not by hiding your religious beliefs. I don't understand how could the government use this information in any other negative way? I'm not writing it off, it is a distinct difference between the US and most of Europe (I believe also Canada). A useful link: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/elusive ... igion-978/

Really? You don't see why a member of a religious minority, esp. one that has had a bit of a rocky relationship with government security agencies, might have some hesitations about saying, "hey, he's a bunch of data showing exactly who we are and where we live"? Or having religious data searchable by the general public?

While I think that standing up and being counted, as a positive voice and role model, can be a very valuable tactic, it is not up to me to make that call for someone who fears discrimination. As someone with an ethnically ambiguous name, I sometimes choose to out myself as a Jew - and sometimes choose not to do so. It's great that some gay people have chosen to come out of the closet - but it's also fine to respect privacy and not suddenly place a label on someone.

[zcccrv]

Really? You don't see why a member of a religious minority, esp. one that has had a bit of a rocky relationship with government security agencies, might have some hesitations about saying, "hey, he's a bunch of data showing exactly who we are and where we live"? Or having religious data searchable by the general public?

While I think that standing up and being counted, as a positive voice and role model, can be a very valuable tactic, it is not up to me to make that call for someone who fears discrimination. As someone with an ethnically ambiguous name, I sometimes choose to out myself as a Jew - and sometimes choose not to do so. It's great that some gay people have chosen to come out of the closet - but it's also fine to respect privacy and not suddenly place a label on someone.

How one views human morality, whether it's related to a specific God or not, often effects social and political positions of an individual. Sexuality has no immediate bearing on these topics, except when in response to the oppression by the majority. But then it stops being a question of sexuality and starts being a question of human rights and equality.

There is always the possibility of answering with "other", for "what" as well as for "why". For people that don't fall into a common category. Most people do and the answer can be easily summed up in a standardized sentance.

Just as an aside- if there is any truth to Edward Snowden's claims and the whole spying theory in general, the US government gets the information it wants even if it isn't officialy required to provide. And not just from the US citizens.

It seems to me like many Americans view their government as a strict and authoritative parent. Loyalty and fear aplenty. I don't know anyone here who views their government in such a way. I read the difference as cultural, others may view it as me being a jerk. There are plenty of people where I live who think the government is their enemy and I don't claim that position to be a much better one but at least it opens up free critique (yes, it can get excessive).

It makes sense to me that the information which shapes the social and political reality should be available to any interested member of said society. I don't see a benefit to hiding it. In having it out in the open I see a potential to learn more about each other, which is the only way for bettering the mutual understanding and social cohesion.

[France Nolan]

It makes sense to you that the information should be collected and available because you're not part of one of the groups that is routinely harassed.

Privilege: You have it.

[zcccrv]

It makes sense to you that the information should be collected and available because you're not part of one of the groups that is routinely harassed.

Privilege: You have it.

How the hell do you know? That's just presumptuous. I am in fact in a minority in a country where more then 90% of people identify as religious. Atheists often get looked upon on as less moral or less social. But I still openly say what I am.

[France Nolan]

Good for you. That's your decision to make. That doesn't mean that others should have to disclose their religious beliefs.

It's also presumptuous for you to know why people won't disclose their religions. It's not out of shame. It's not because they are bad people. It's because governments, not just the American government, have a nasty habit of targeting religious minorities.

[zcccrv]

Good for you. That's your decision to make. That doesn't mean that others should have to disclose their religious beliefs.

It's also presumptuous for you to know why people won't disclose their religions. It's not out of shame. It's not because they are bad people. It's because governments, not just the American government, have a nasty habit of targeting religious minorities.

I have never said nor thought that people wouldn't disclose because of shame or because they are bad people. That is so out there that it's actually making me giggle, however serious the subject. I just don't understand how hiding your religion is going to help matters at all. Disclosing just might move the tide a tiny bit. Bit by bit and the tide changes. Besides, it is quite possible as I said, that the government collects that kind of information, whether you like it or not. It is without a doubt useful social information.

The only two things I have claimed in this thread which stirred the water were: 1. belief in a God is not reasonable because reason requires evidence and 2. I see a benefit to having belief/non-belief publicly stated (as it is done in my country). If those two things are really considered intolerant, pushy and dumb in your world than it is in fact VERY different than mine for sure.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Do you not see a difference between voluntary and involuntary disclosure of religion?

Can you understand that forced identification by governments has a rather nasty history?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lZfJvHl015k/T ... -David.jpg

[SpeakNow]

As a Jew living in the Bible Belt, I try to avoid discussing religion whenever possible. If all if my neighbors knew my religion I'd probably start getting tons of people knocking on my door to evangelize. No thank you. I'd rather discuss religion on my terms.

[zcccrv]

Do you not see a difference between voluntary and involuntary disclosure of religion?

Can you understand that forced identification by governments has a rather nasty history?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lZfJvHl015k/T ... -David.jpg

It is quite sad if you think that something like this is possible in the modern world today.

I'd rather discuss religion on my terms.

IMO this is precisely why religion is so divisive. Everybody wants their own terms. But when terms inhibit communication, differences multiply.

[Arete]

Do you suppose just because we are modern bad things and prejudices cannot come to the surface? I can't even wrap my head around the argument you are making that the way to dispel religious prejudice is for religious minorities to be counted and visible in the greater community. All it takes is a few assholes, a handful, and any minority is tarred with the same brush. Do you think people are going to remember those who are just going about the business of living when there are screamers getting air time because they are decapitating people, trying to control women's bodies, or beating children in the name of their God?

As for Europe thinking it is so many light years ahead of the US in tackling religious prejudice, let me pass along an ancedote. My uncle has been to France 5 times in 15 years. Three of those times he has been stopped by the police in Paris and had identification demanded of him. What was his suspicious activity? Running around France as a man with a dark complexion, a mustache, and a beard. He doesn't travel alone. He has a wife with him, he has friends with him, but he has always been the one to be singled out for these little street chats. Are we going to try and chalk this up to anything else than the fact he looks like a their idea of a Muslim and is therefore worthy of more suspicion? France, a state where supposedly religion plays no role in public life, except when it comes to randomly screening tourists. The France of three years ago, not 100 years ago. This is not an example of why France is particularly bad because they most certainly are not. This is an example of why you cannot in good conscience tell a religious minority anywhere that prejudice is something in the big, bad past that has no bearing on modern life.

Religious prejudice. It's not limited to fundementalist Christians in the Bible Belt.

[OkToBeTakei]

Do you suppose just because we are modern bad things and prejudices cannot come to the surface? I can't even wrap my head around the argument you are making that the way to dispel religious prejudice is for religious minorities to be counted and visible in the greater community. All it takes is a few assholes, a handful, and any minority is tarred with the same brush. Do you think people are going to remember those who are just going about the business of living when there are screamers getting air time because they are decapitating people, trying to control women's bodies, or beating children in the name of their God?

As for Europe thinking it is so many light years ahead of the US in tackling religious prejudice, let me pass along an ancedote. My uncle has been to France 5 times in 15 years. Three of those times he has been stopped by the police in Paris and had identification demanded of him. What was his suspicious activity? Running around France as a man with a dark complexion, a mustache, and a beard. He doesn't travel alone. He has a wife with him, he has friends with him, but he has always been the one to be singled out for these little street chats. Are we going to try and chalk this up to anything else than the fact he looks like a their idea of a Muslim and is therefore worthy of more suspicion? France, a state where supposedly religion plays no role in public life, except when it comes to randomly screening tourists. The France of three years ago, not 100 years ago. This is not an example of why France is particularly bad because they most certainly are not. This is an example of why you cannot in good conscience tell a religious minority anywhere that prejudice is something in the big, bad past that has no bearing on modern life.

Religious prejudice. It's not limited to fundementalist Christians in the Bible Belt.

Not sure where the OP lives. I'm beginning to think a bubble. Europe and the UK specifically may not have a huge problem with fundamental right christianity and it's heady mix that the US does. But trust me that's because we have whacking load of other shit going on. Where to start :think:

Let's just take a walk through. To make it not a huge list I'll just take some discussions recently on FJ.

We've had heated discussions and the intrinsic problems of the Roma. This was in Germany, Holland, France, UK and Ireland. Bigotry. Prejudice. Social problems. Crime. Distrust.

London bombings. Huge social and mainstream media kick off against..yes you guessed it..all Muslims. The few can be VERY loud.

Sectarian violence. Granted maybe only JFC and I discuss that and you all just ignore us :lol:

Burris participated and set on fire a thread regarding racism. Government power, free speech, human rights, ethnic cleansing and the Bosnian war.

ANYWAY.....on and on and on. So yeah, keep your fundies :lol:

I think the premise that being a positive force or ambassador of your religion is all just a pile of shit. Why should Mr Sikh next door have to educate me about his religion, be a positive role model. He will either be a decent or a not decent human. Education in general is important to end ingrained prejudice and bigotry, but the responsibility lies with all people. Some will never get there. Basically people will form their opinions on how people act. So if a burka makes a person uncomfortable. Seeing the lady in a burka in Tesco buying her tampax just like you know ORDINARY folk will help Jo public much more than some pretend intellectual education scheme that you have a cat's chance in hell they will be interested in or attend. Forcing that is a one way street to adding prejudice. Younger generation are used to our ethnically diverse landscape. The future I think and hope will end some issues, only to bring new ones. It was only some 40 -50 years ago it was common to see in London on room lets. No blacks. No dogs. No Irish.

Religion is only as divisive as people. It is people who are divisive. It's convenient to forget that.

How declaring religion can in any way change a tide of prejudice is plain stupid. Knowing the numbers of Muslims, Sikh's, Christians, Buddhists, Jews and other in the UK has made not a blind bit of difference to the intrinsic problem.

Incidentally the fourth largest religion in the UK from the 2011 census was......... Jedi.

If you want to study religion and it's impacts then do some anonymous Ethnic census. The moment you tell people they HAVE to disclose their religion then of course it becomes a real trigger. It really has no bearing on the real issues that need to be addressed. Of course governments have a fair idea of religious demographic, there is no need to formalise it.

I would be interested to know if in your country there are any Jedi? Because unless somebody is pointing a gun at your head or threatening fines then disclosure tends to be voluntary. You might want to check that. Unless of course you and your country agree to that type of coercion?

I got the whole poke fun at the government protest wrong and wrote Wookie on mine :embarrassed: So as far as I am aware there are approx half a million Jedi in the UK and one thick as shit Wookie.