Celebrating religious diversity in Lewisham

[Pally]

Is it cringing or just choosing time and place, and choosing "not the time or place" .....walking away is not necessarily cringing or avoidance!! Argument (may not be right word) for arguments same is pointless as can sometimes be seen on this forum![/quote]
Sorry meant ....arguments sake

[Robin Orton]

As I said, there was a bloke on the march (he spoke briefly at the final mini-rally) who seemed to be some sort of local leader of a 'humanist' group - I'm not sure whether that's the same thing as 'secular'. I don't see how in any case the march could possibly be interpreted as in any way threatening people's 'freedom not to believe or follow any of them.'

Were this thread in the Town Pub, I would be tempted at this stage to point out that some who have posted here clearly subscribe to the standard secular view that 'people's religion is a private matter - they can believe whatever nonsense they like so long as they keep quiet about it and don't try to impose it on the rest of us.' I would want to point out that many religious people - not just bigots, fanatics, radicals, fundamentalists, extremists etc - would, I believe, feel very uncomfortable with that view

This is, firstly, I would suggest, because they believe that their religion offers us all the highest form of human happiness that is available to anyone in this world, and they therefore consider it a moral obligation to share it with us and convince us of its truth. Secondly, they also feel obliged to express the moral principles which their faith teaches them in public and political debate on such matters as social and economic justice, human rights, homelessness and poverty, peace and war, climate change and care for the environment, our responsibilities to the developing world, the nature of marriage, the rights of unborn children etc - and (in the same way as secular pressure groups do) to seek to persuade our legislators to reflect those principles in the law of the land. Do you, I might go on to ask, think they should be prevented from doing so?

However, this is the Town Café, not the Town Pub, so I shall hold my peace.

[Tim Lund]

I'm baffled by Robin debating here with an imaginary antagonist. Might it be better in the Town Asylum?

[_HB]

Yeah you've lost the room Robin

[Robin Orton]

Perhaps I could attempt to demonstrate my continuing cognitive fitness by quoting Alburt -' i jus wishing relijion kept for self and not for fight with difrent relijion peeple. evry relijions thinking that only one to be right. relijions not help world this way', and Mosy - 'As long as none start trying to impinge on either the way of life or beliefs of others.[...] . Most people just want to be left alone to get on with their life and beliefs.'

I suggest that, in the light of this, if this thread were in the Town Asylum, as Tim has uncharacteristically rudely suggested, there would now be a good case for discharging me into the care of the community provided, I promised to take my medication and turn up for regular outpatient appointments.

[somerandombloke]

I'm baffled by Robin debating here with an imaginary antagonist. Might it be better in the Town Asylum?

Imaginary people are pretty common when it comes to religion.

[leenewham]

Celebrating religious diversity is a good thing. People can believe in whatever they want, be it one or many of the gods, the Tooth Fairy, Santa or Yoda. It should be a personal affair however, not about 'the only way to be' or pretending to hold some kind of higher moral authority.

Any religious text that includes stories about a god that tried to get someone to kill their own son to prove that he loved god more than his own flesh and blood, or stories like Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 21:7-11, Isaiah 13:15-18 surely doesn't have many grounds to preach about morality.

Religion is very much a pick and mix affair, often with bits chosen to back up some inbuilt fear or bigotry. Human rights don't seem to extend to sexual equality and gay marriage in many religious circles (Jesus wasn't bothered about it though, he never mentioned it).

But if that makes you happy, it's fine I guess.

I object to people selling religion on my doorstep and on the high street, telling me I'm a sinner for not believing in god. But I object to anyone selling anything on my doorstep and in the high street, like Sky, Talk talk or Npower and chuggers. I can make up my own mind, the information is out there.

By all means CHOOSE to believe, but don't expect everyone to make the same choice…

…which brings us back to diversity.

[stuart]

Lee - I believe you are an adherent to the Cult of Steve Jobs whereas I belong to the Cult of Linus Tovalds. Yes it should be a right to choose pay a tithe to either or even Bill Gates (actually Linus comes free but let's not go there). It is a private choice to whose religion you adopt.

But are you actually Saying that Apple or Microsoft have no right to evangelise the benefits of their philosophy/religion? That they should not be allowed to pay for ads or sponsorship of major events, to lobby legislators and more? Well to do what commercial or political organisations do all the time.

It is only when enforcement of their ideas that a line is crossed. I'm arguing for the same freedom for real religionists. Say that gay marriage is immoral or whatever if that is what they beliieve. But be brought to book that if the rest of us don't accept their view and legislate so - then what they do in private is OK but in the public realm whether B&B host or Baker than they shall be subject to the law. But they should be allowed to campaign and make as much noise about it as long as no one goes deaf as a result.

Returning to the OP. Is Robin really asking for more than that?

Stuart

[leenewham]

I think it's fine to bring it up in relevant conversation Stuart.

I don't think it's right to evangelise about it to the detriment of other brands door to door, stopping people on the streets etc. Of course they can advertise, religious brands are free to advertise too within the boundaries set by the advertising commission.

Bigotry, sexism, homophobia etc are not allowed under advertising standards. An ad this week was pulled for showing a young woman who was extremely thin which was seen as being a bad role model.

You are free to do whatever, as long as it is within the law of the land. I don't believe religions should discriminate as it's against the law. It's 2015.

[Tim Lund]

Perhaps I could attempt to demonstrate my continuing cognitive fitness by quoting Alburt -' i jus wishing relijion kept for self and not for fight with difrent relijion peeple. evry relijions thinking that only one to be right. relijions not help world this way', and Mosy - 'As long as none start trying to impinge on either the way of life or beliefs of others.[...] . Most people just want to be left alone to get on with their life and beliefs.'

I suggest that, in the light of this, if this thread were in the Town Asylum, as Tim has uncharacteristically rudely suggested, there would now be a good case for discharging me into the care of the community provided, I promised to take my medication and turn up for regular outpatient appointments.

Let me apologise to Robin. Wrongly, I thought he was getting at my views on religion, and I can now see that he was betraying no signs of cognitive loss. In mitigation, all I can plea is that he could have made himself clearer by saying which interlocutor he had in mind.

On one of the substantial points - that you shouldn't have a blanket objection to people trying to persuade you of something they believe in - I'm with Robin. If someone really believes that people who do not accept Jesus into their lives will go to Hell, then in all good conscience they have to make an effort to warn others of the danger they are in. Similarly, if someone really believes that the world is a worse place than it could be thanks to increasing inequality, and has evidence for what is making this happen



then in all conscience he should accept the risk of being thought a bore on the subject with good humour, and should, when he realises the message is not getting through, think about how better to make the case, rather than give up, and cherish a private satisfaction in knowing something others don't.

We are God's chosen few ;
All others will be damned.
There is no place in heaven for you :
We can't have heaven crammed.

It is of course possible that these more public spirited bores, who care about others understanding the nature of things, are wrong about the particular bees in their bonnets, in which case they, and others, would benefit from their getting their heads round the diversity of opinion on the matter. That's why I think Robin was wholly admirable in asking his Muslim fellow-marcher about his attitudes to images of the Divine, and why I find it disappointing that the discussion didn't get any further.

That's why, other things being equal, I celebrate diversity - not only for its own sake - what might tbe called the aesthetic appeal - but also for the practical reason that systems with too little diversity are less able to adapt and learn. Both are parts of why I love this painting



but I'd feel odd about living in a political system in which sponsored walks in favour of bio-diversity, unless a lack of such diversity was a serious threat to society. I would feel, somehow, that I was being told that some of my fellow citizens - perhaps even myself - were not being sufficiently understanding of the benefits of some part of the diversity being celebrated - dandelions, perhaps? Wonderful diuretics, I know, but I confess - my attitude towards them might be interpreted as Taraxacumophobic.

As it happens, we probably should be walking to celebrate bio-diversity, given the need to accommodate approaching 10 billion humans on this planet. So why does Steve Bullock prefer to celebrate religious diversity, especially when, in the course of the event, it appears opportunities to benefit from the richness of this diversity are unwelcome?

[Robin Orton]

People can believe in whatever they want, be it one or many of the gods, the Tooth Fairy, Santa or Yoda. It should be a personal affair however, not about 'the only way to be' or pretending to hold some kind of higher moral authority.

To compare believing in God with believing in the Tooth Fairy is comparing chalk and cheese. God (if there is a God) is a necessary being on which the existence of the whole universe depends, the 'ground of all being' as s/he has been described. The Tooth Fairy (if there is a Tooth Fairy) is, I would imagine, a small friendly spiritual creature to whom God appears to have assigned a very small role in fulfilling his/her benevolent purposes for the universe. S/he claims no 'kind of higher moral authority', as God indeed does.

I object to people selling religion on my doorstep and on the high street, telling me I'm a sinner for not believing in god. .

When were you last told you were a sinner for not believing in God, and who by?

[leenewham]

I was told this when someone asked me if I believed in god in Dulwich park while I was having a picnic by two gentlemen (I don't remember their names, if infact I ever did) carrying what looked like photo albums. I thought I was about to be on 'This is your life', but Eamon Andrews was nowhere to be seen.

It took a while to get rid of them. My water remained water. Seriously, not impressed.

I'm pretty sure there is no tooth Fairy. But it's comforting when your teeth do fall out as a child to know there is some purpose or reason to what is happening.

In that way, I'd say the tooth fairy is a little more feta to gods brie.

If you believe in one and not the other that they become chalk and cheese. If you don't believe, and many don't and are perfectly happy, they are just make believe, neither chalk, not cheese.

But I'd question gods moral authority if he/she/it is real and I got to meet he/she/it and ask why they could be so nasty and vengeful at times. My guess is that he/she/it would just say 'Oh, that bible stuff got messed up, then they stuck this new bit on but kept the old bit, edited bits and misquoted sources. It was like reading a story in the Daily Mail vrs the Independent. Just come in, this is how it's supposed to be, like earth 2.0' No Daily Mails here...

Sounds like heaven to me.

[Robin Orton]

If you believe in one and not the other that they become chalk and cheese. If you don't believe, and many don't and are perfectly happy, they are just make believe, neither chalk, not cheese.

I'm not in a position to argue with that. I suppose I'd have hoped that even people who believed in neither God nor the Tooth Fairy could have recognised that belief in God (which radically changes one's attitude to oneself, other people and the world) is in a different category from believing in the Tooth Fairy (which, I would guess, doesn't). But perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part.

But I'd question gods moral authority if he/she/it is real and I got to meet he/she/it and ask why they could be so nasty and vengeful at times. My guess is that he/she/it would just say 'Oh, that bible stuff got messed up, then they stuck this new bit on but kept the old bit, edited bits and misquoted sources. It was like reading a story in the Daily Mail vrs the Independent. Just come in, this is how it's supposed to be, like earth 2.0' No Daily Mails here...Sounds like heaven to me.

I wouldn't really disagree with that, although I might put it differently. You referred earlier to the so-called 'Texts of Terror' (or 'dark passages') from the Bible, which do present real challenges for modern Christians (and no doubt modern Jews and Muslims). Various ways of reading them in a more positive light have of course been suggested.

[Tim Lund]

You referred earlier to the so-called 'Texts of Terror' (or 'dark passages') from the Bible, which do present real challenges for modern Christians (and no doubt modern Jews and Muslims). Various ways of reading them in a more positive light have of course been suggested.

No doubt about 'Texts of Terror' presenting real challenges to modern Muslims?

Well, here is what I find when I google the phrase

Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Overtures to Biblical Theology)

Professor Trible focuses on four variations upon the theme of terror in the Bible. By combining the discipline of literary criticism with the hermeneutics of feminism, she reinterprets the tragic stories of four women in ancient Israel: Hagar, Tamar, an unnamed concubine, and the daughter of Jephthah. In highlighting the silence, absence, and oppostition of God, as well as human cruelty, Trible shows how these neglected stories-interpreted in memoriam-challenge both the misogyny of Scripture and its use in church, synagogue, and academy.

So there you have it - church, synagogue and ... academy? Surely something is missing here?

I hope you will allow me to retain my doubts about modern Muslims accepting these real challenges until you can come back from a future encounter with evidence of acceptance of even the slightest challenge, rather than lecturing dismissal.

[mosy]

Religion is too complicated for me. For example, one of the most scary yet fundamental things about some religions is the insistence that there is only one true god, all others being false, which makes a harmony march slightly odd implying that true believers (of whichever faith) are walking arm in arm with traitors, heretics or infidels. I imagine in some countries that some of the marchers would have become disappeared shortly afterwards. How did those marching accommodate this deviation or variation from what is an absolute, given that gods aren't big on appeasement?

@ Robin Orton. I fully understand that it is a mission of religious people to convert everyone to "their" one true faith - another scary aspect depending on the lengths to which that is taken. I'm sorry if, in our moderate society, the concept of wanting to be left alone to believe what I/we want makes them feel "uncomfortable" (your word), but that's their problem, not mine.

Incidentally, I don't particularly mind people knocking on my door fairly often to discuss God with me (inconvenient as it can be sometimes) because as you say it's an aim to promote their religion so it's kinda "what they do". And, fine by me for religions to have a voice along with any others on broader issues - not sure why you raised that since any man and his dog has a voice, again unless the "fear of god" (or horrendous afterlife or human retribution) is used to coerce listeners to make it the sole voice heard. Guilting people is unfriendly, or at least illogical, since we're supposedly created with free will.

If anyone can explain to me how religion at large isn't about human power and control, I'm all ears.

[Robin Orton]

Professor Trible [...] shows how these neglected stories-interpreted in memoriam-challenge both the misogyny of Scripture and its use in church, synagogue, and academy.

So there you have it - church, synagogue and ... academy? Surely something is missing here?I hope you will allow me to retain my doubts about modern Muslims accepting these real challenges until you can come back from a future encounter with evidence of acceptance of even the slightest challenge, rather than lecturing dismissal.

There are 'modern' Muslims who are able to talk about their faith in a post-Enlightenment way (one hears them occasionally on 'Thought for the Day'), but I agree they are thin on the ground in this country at the moment. (That will change, I hope.) I sensed that my interlocutor on Sunday was not one of them, and that was one reason why I didn't think here was much point in prolonging our discussion.

For example, one of the most scary yet fundamental things about some religions is the insistence that there is only one true god, all others being false, which makes a harmony march slightly odd implying that true believers (of whichever faith) are walking arm in arm with traitors, heretics or infidels. I imagine in some countries that some of the marchers would have become disappeared shortly afterwards. How did those marching accommodate this deviation or variation from what is an absolute, given that gods aren't big on appeasement?

Because we wanted to celebrate and build on what we had in common rather than what divided us. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can't make friends with them and talk to them as a fellow-human being. In doing so, it may be helpful to avoid unhelpful, aggressive and unnecessary words like traitor, heretic and infidel.

[...] any man and his dog has a voice, again unless the "fear of god" (or horrendous afterlife or human retribution) is used to coerce listeners to make it the sole voice heard. Guilting people is unfriendly, or at least illogical, since we're supposedly created with free will.

This sounds like what Lee was saying - 'I object to people selling religion on my doorstep and on the high street, telling me I'm a sinner for not believing in god.' A hundred years ago, using 'guilting' or the fear of hellfire as a technique for persuading people of the merits of a particular religion may have been widespread - I don't believe it is today.

If anyone can explain to me how religion at large isn't about human power and control, I'm all ears.

What religion is 'about' is God. Which is not to say that it cannot be corrupted and misused in the interests of human power and control. So can many good things (sex, football, socialism etc,) .

[Tim Lund]

There are 'modern' Muslims who are able to talk about their faith in a post-Enlightenment way (one hears them occasionally on 'Thought for the Day'), but I agree they are thin on the ground in this country at the moment.

I prefer the idea of post-theist religion to post-Enlightenment.

[mosy]

Professor Trible [...] shows how these neglected stories-interpreted in memoriam-challenge both the misogyny of Scripture and its use in church, synagogue, and academy.

So there you have it - church, synagogue and ... academy? Surely something is missing here?I hope you will allow me to retain my doubts about modern Muslims accepting these real challenges until you can come back from a future encounter with evidence of acceptance of even the slightest challenge, rather than lecturing dismissal.

There are 'modern' Muslims who are able to talk about their faith in a post-Enlightenment way (one hears them occasionally on 'Thought for the Day'), but I agree they are thin on the ground in this country at the moment. (That will change, I hope.) I sensed that my interlocutor on Sunday was not one of them, and that was one reason why I didn't think here was much point in prolonging our discussion.

For example, one of the most scary yet fundamental things about some religions is the insistence that there is only one true god, all others being false, which makes a harmony march slightly odd implying that true believers (of whichever faith) are walking arm in arm with traitors, heretics or infidels. I imagine in some countries that some of the marchers would have become disappeared shortly afterwards. How did those marching accommodate this deviation or variation from what is an absolute, given that gods aren't big on appeasement?

Because we wanted to celebrate and build on what we had in common rather than what divided us. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can't make friends with them and talk to them as a fellow-human being. In doing so, it may be helpful to avoid unhelpful, aggressive and unnecessary words like traitor, heretic and infidel.

[...] any man and his dog has a voice, again unless the "fear of god" (or horrendous afterlife or human retribution) is used to coerce listeners to make it the sole voice heard. Guilting people is unfriendly, or at least illogical, since we're supposedly created with free will.

This sounds like what Lee was saying - 'I object to people selling religion on my doorstep and on the high street, telling me I'm a sinner for not believing in god.' A hundred years ago, using 'guilting' or the fear of hellfire as a technique for persuading people of the merits of a particular religion may have been widespread - I don't believe it is today.

If anyone can explain to me how religion at large isn't about human power and control, I'm all ears.

What religion is 'about' is God. Which is not to say that it cannot be corrupted and misused in the interests of human power and control. So can many good things (sex, football, socialism etc,) .

Robin, you seem to have contrasting views on some issues. For example, you say that you didn't want to engage in a contentious matter with a harmony walker instead celebrating commonality. Isn't that what I said re harmony being superficially covering deeper differences that can't simply be swept under the carpet?

As to my using words like traitor, heretic and infidel (the latter meaning only non-believer AFAIK), they're not my words but those used by religious aggressors either now or in the past (including the Bible). Yet in this thread you refer to religious people thus "I would want to point out that many religious people - not just bigots, fanatics, radicals, fundamentalists, extremists etc - would, I believe, feel very uncomfortable with that view." which I wouldn't have said was particularly helpful either in a thread promoting harmony.

As I said, I don't mind "god botherers" - it's kinda what they do. To pretend that guilting no longer exists though is surely you pulling the wool over your eyes. Suicide bombers hardly agree for the good of their health, in this life at least. I'm unclear about family honour matters which I assume are based on either reward or punishment at a higher level.

You say that "What religion is 'about' is God." Therein lies the problem, his being multi-faceted. Maybe God (whichever one) is no different from humans, i.e. be good or not (for every good etc) according to selfwill.

[Robin Orton]

I think there is a balance to be struck. Many religious people think they have special access to a wonderful truth that they desperately want to share with other people. (Some atheists think the same way, I guess.) But the best way of doing this may not be to bully, browbeat, shout at, threaten or 'guilt' (a new verb to me!) those who do not (yet?) share one's views. Polite and rational discussion (with people who are open to it, and on suitable occasions), and setting a good example in terms of behaviour, may be more effective. But even if they're not I'd have thought we all ought anyway to treat people who disagree with us with courtesy and respect, and to take their beliefs seriously - though I agree that many religious people (and many non-religious people) have not always been very good at this.

[mosy]

Speaking for myself, I do indeed respect that people have beliefs (or disbeliefs) which might or might not coincide with my own. I'm not sure that is the same as my respecting their beliefs though. I don't think that's nitpicking (at least it's not intended to be), just a truthful acknowledgement of what I respect.

I agree about treating others well irrespective. "Do as you would be done by" (paraphrased, Matthew 7:12) is a pretty good standard to set oneself (leaving parties to war aside who seem to make up their own rules as they go along).

Not sure if this would be considered rational discussion - I hope it does:
Re "yet": How can one suddenly believe something in which they never have believed?
I wholly accept they might come to acknowledge the wisdom of teachings on how best to live one's life, but that's not the same thing. I would see it as totally hypocritical to "be converted" if just trying to keep one's options open "just in case". Certainly wouldn't be pure of heart by any stretch of the imagination.

By the way, "to guilt" as a verb has been in common usage for at least five years. I used to hate verbalised nouns, e.g. prioritise - probably the first one I heard, but I've become used to them these days - they're just speed-talk (or type). What would a better word be? I can't think of one that relates directly to conscience; "shame" for example relates to that wrought on others or oneself in the eyes of others, "frighten" tends to refer to one's physical safety or well being. Could just say "to be made to feel guilty" but that's five words when one will do.