Kevin Carr's Gloves 3888 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Can I as a comedian nail my flag to the wall and say I believe it is not only ok to mock someone's beliefs I believe it is essential that all religious beliefs are mocked from time to time to try and help extricate peoples heads from their arses. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Happens to Christianity quite regularly and no one seems to batter an eye lid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3888 Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 Happens to Christianity quite regularly and no one seems to batter an eye lid. In Scotland they batter everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radgina 1 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Happens to Christianity quite regularly and no one seems to batter an eye lid. In Scotland they batter everything. even Mars Bars ffs !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 To be honest when I espouse mockery I would much rather have a good argument based on some kind of "facts"- I've enjoyed a couple on here with The Inspiration and Isegrim which I think (and hope) caused no deep offence. Unfortunately I do sometimes express my frustration with a "how can you be so stupid" which doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3888 Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. Yeah I can go for the whole "lets stone people for wearing mixed fibre clothes" angle as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Can I as a comedian nail my flag to the wall and say I believe it is not only ok to mock someone's beliefs I believe it is essential that all religious beliefs are mocked from time to time to try and help extricate peoples heads from their arses. Thank You Shite punchline tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Happens to Christianity quite regularly and no one seems to batter an eye lid. There was a great channel 5 doc (stick with me here) about the fundamentalist Christians arguing that they need to start being as vigilant as some of the other religions and as forthright in their response to ANY bad-mothing of their chosen faith. As if the Muslim extremists have it spot on and christians need to chase that mentalist corner of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21592 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Just back from the Edinburgh festival and I'm firmly of the belief that if you want to live in a free society you have to be prepared to accept offence and insults. And if you can't accept this you can piss off and live somewhere else tbqf. Frank Skinner got way close to the bone with his comments on paedophilia and I thought he was superb, he had the audience in stitches. I also met a feminist who was appalled I went to see Debbie does Dallas and enjoyed it. FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Agree with the last sentence, though to be honest the influence of politicians has been less pivotal since religion became a fundamental human right in Europe in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Agree with the last sentence, though to be honest the influence of politicians has been less pivotal since religion became a fundamental human right in Europe in any event. Aye but that's the right to practice and belief freely is it not? Which is both perfectly fine and a long, long, long way from the sort of protection often being given (protection that in fact go against other rights and indeed the spirit of the whole idea). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4378 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself. I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite. I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 By mockery I mean using humour to point out the contradictions in beliefs. That sort of thing is a corner stone of questioning, criticism and therefore a free society IMO (and has always been part of British culture really). We're rapidly reaching a point where not only may it be illegal to mock, but frankly to question or criticise as well, from there it's not so very far to it being wrong to dare to not believe. Agree with the first part but not the second. Indeed the reason the faiths can achieve protection (by way of infringements to free speech that isn't afforeded to other areas of society) is precisely because they are minority groups. So the rights of a minorities beliefs (to not be questioned) should >>>> the other rights of everyone? Again that sort of acceptance (that this is ok) tends to reinforce my thinking on where we are headed, especially as it's hard to remove shoddy sweeping legislation when a minority is not so minor anymore. No I didnt say that and I don't believe that either. I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. Aye maybe, but that depends on many things in the future, although I didn't say we were heading for a religious totalitarian state (although the totalitarian bit might not be so wide of the mark) just that it is not so very far from being unable to question to being unable to not believe. Certainly not much further than from being able to question to not being able to question. Oh and faiths are being "protected" to get votes as much as anything, which also may backfire in the long run. Agree with the last sentence, though to be honest the influence of politicians has been less pivotal since religion became a fundamental human right in Europe in any event. Aye but that's the right to practice and belief freely is it not? Which is both perfectly fine and a long, long, long way from the sort of protection often being given (protection that in fact go against other rights and indeed the spirit of the whole idea). Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights. So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law. I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21592 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't. True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict. The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself. I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite. I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want. We've never had an unwritten constitution for the record, it's always been 'written' in one way or another, it's just that it was never codeified or consolidated until the Human Rights Act. Not that we ever really had rights as such either. Liberties would be the correct term....ie whatever the law didnt say you couldnt do, you could do. We never actually had the right to do anything until 1998. OMG!!!11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't. True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future. Send the buggers back tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Renton is missing Leazes so much he's took up the batton himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Renton is missing Leazes so much he's took up the batton himself It's only really when Renton tips up that one begins to miss Leazes. Which puts things in to some sort of perspective I think you'll agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21592 Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't. True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future. Send the buggers back tbh. Well I was being a bit tongue in cheek but the rise of both christian and muslim fundamentalism and the level of 'unenlightenment' seen now in the states does concern me. If you dare talk about it however, particularly about immigration and islam, then you are branded a racist, which you have just done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now