Accidentally, I didn't mention what one more thing when describing the situation - I don't have such law. "Hurting of religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that) is an offense.
Which of course is a direct evidence meaning either that, or the part about "freedom from religion" in the constitution is a fiction...they are mutually exclusive. In practice this "don't hurt feelings" law applies mostly to the dominant religion of course, also somehow by proxy to the close ones, and not at all to mostly unrelated worldviews. This is the state about which religions dream about, yours too.
PS. Another "funny" ilustration of things is how the cross got its way into the main chamber of our parliament. Year 97, few days after the new constitution was in force... Two members of the close equivalent of, say, a typical European "Christian Democracy" party went into the chamber in the middle of the night, with a ladder, and simply put the cross there without any regard for procedures of country of law. That's what happened in the parliament. One formal objection resulted, mostly because too many people realised that some other are uncompromising bigots who would freeze the works of legislature.... Oh, one of those people fell from the ladder and broke his arm. If that's not an omen...;p
Oh, but you (group, again) can just walk up to someone and tell them your speech offends me, shut up? Don't pretend it's not the case...what, you don't have censorship? Really? What with constant bitching, about pretty much most media, about nudity, "violence", "promoting innapriopriate cults", etc. by some vocal groups? Yes, "I would never do that"; but you give them power to do that and be treated seriously
But wait, the scenario of parent poster gets interesting; especially since with supermassive black holes you wouldn't normally notice crossing the horizon.
Unless...the two horizons are just on the verge of merging, almost touching. And suddenly you find yourself in that space, with almost half of you inside one horizon, and the other almost half - inside the second one.
Well, probably not much different from, say, pulling apart somebody with horses. Extremelly instantenous even, as far as phycics allows...
Such view also somehow suggests that our type of Universe naturally drifts towards intelligence.
Which probably still means we're insignificant. Our intelligence and, most importantly, capabilities are quite limited; and they don't appear to be changing anytime soon. Unless of course you include one possible variant of our potential future descendant(s) - the kind of it(them) that shares mostly just a point of origin, and not much common even "in spirit". The kind we wouldn't even recognise as our progeny; a progeny which would barely notice us. So I'm not sure if that helps us much...
Not noticing far potential far more complex things might be as well simply a limitation of this "most complex structure in the universe (that we know of)"...
Hence again illustrating, "only my group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable". Not trying to come to some greater understanding, but just doing what "you feel is right"; working on the basis fait accompli, probing how far you can push it. You can say that in a different, "nicer" way...but this won't change the essence of it.
OK, this is Slashdot...but this place is irrelevant anyway, we're really discussing rules of the society here. You said that you will just do something because you think you should. That's not how modern society works...
...and if he gets such meaning out of what was said, that's his problem (for the record, people having more plentiful energy and generally decent standard of living is actually the only proven, civilised way of population control)
Hate (well, not really...) to break it to you, but we are all related. Most recent common ancestor of all present humans lived perhaps even in 1st or 2nd millenium BC. If you take a group such as "Western Europeans" (and closely related to them), it was probably as recently as 1000 years ago. Heck, go back ~250k greats-grandparents, and you're at the point of a creature from which all humans, chimpanzees and bonobos are directly descended...
Now realize that without some opposition (and safety checks in law, etc.; of which this/. story is about...even if the particular situation was handled poorly) - a large part of religions, when left to do what they want, reverts to such state (or worse). OK, you might be sincerely convinced that you would never support such things. But, by nonetheless identifying with them to some degree, you give them power. You agree almost fully with people who are just "a little" more towards the "extreme" side. And so on...
You miss that the point was...why did you even feel the need to share? What for? How does sharing what you specifically believe in contributes in any way towards harmonious resolution? Pointing out "conflicts" and "intolerances". Face it, you (now talking about groups) feed on this... Did you see me sharing?
Heck, you even show again the issue I touched on at the end of my previous post. There was no "belittling" in there - just a very legitimate but extremelly uncomfortable question to vast majority of faithfull (I know, it's not the first time I asked...people either start to be passive-agressive or, sometimes, agree; and if you wonder already - no, I never touch on the subject first. Ever). But hey, that's disrespectfull now...
Oh, there are a lot of churches allright... (though admittedly some of them converted to buildings of public utility; at least there's some use)
It's just that hardly anybody verbally (or worse...) attacks my way of life. Nobody is of the arrogant position that I'm "poor" (that's a recent citation). Nobody forces on me performing their rituals (I'm not kidding, literally forcing oneself into my private space to perform a ritual on me). If this is about people who you come in contact with regularly...yeah, much nicer. But on the more general level it means that laws are followed. See, I have hypothetically, in PL, freedom from religion. But why do I have to (limiting myself to obvious violations of the idea of modern society) follow one set of laws and certain people - another one? Heck, if I would do such ruckus during the night or early morning hours, blocking major streets or outright crimes...it wouldn't end up well for me. Somehow also this one group is immune from investigation of their collaboration with SB (security service of communist regime). Why the public money for churches? Why forcefull and delibarate invasion of the present "sacred" places of current version of pagan faith? (those ones are sensibly nice BTW, at least for now) Why they don't have to care about taxes? (no, I don't mean "tax breaks"...they don't have to document their income. Don't you wonder how large part of it comes from questionable sources?)
But I gues this discussion is pointless with you if you felt the need to throw evolution into it... (protip: endorsed by Catholic Church, for example; there's no conflict)
Generally, the whole thing is illustrated best by how you demanded from me the explanation of such concept as "nice"...and yet you didn't see a problem with bringing, in the same post, your beliefs without any kind of backing them... (BTW can you even find a factor more deciding than "I was born into this"?...) Didn't occur to you that it's better to be left alone, in context. But double standars is fine as long as it serves you...
You really think there's no difference or only pretend?... O_o
Religions are of the position that they represent the absolute truth (each of them separately, which btw tells something about it...). You can of course easily find atheists who are like that (though to many it's really more about post-theism). But not only that doesn't follow to "absolute moral guidance" in this case, those people...generally...just want to be left alone. Really, everything else (secularisation, etc.) will just follow from that, no need to do anything...
Religions OTOH generally exhibit the trait of securing their realm however it's feasible (those which don't do that - vanish). That includes permeating every aspect of life, if that's possible. Getting in your way, if that's possible.
BTW, preaching means there many such tirades exactly. No, it isn't limited to private spaces or to a way not relying on public funds; if it did...heck, I don't care much what you do in private. Prayer before a meal stops being polite if it is intruding into the public space.
You know, a large part od being a modern democracy is also having a respect (heh, there it returns again;p ) for minorities, especially since it appear to be along the lines of the law...
You most likely don't realise how pervasive (not quite "all-encompassing", but...) those "petty" things are in daily life. Not only because you (possibly?) consider yourself part of that social construct (so large portion of its influence is just "life as usual"), but also...don't really know any better.
Me...well, let me put it this way. I'm originally mostly from Poland (officially arounf 95% Christians...); but this also means that right across the border (on which I basically live for now; border cities are tolerable...) I have Czech Republic (70% non-religious) and Germany...but most notably Berlin area, which is comparable to Czech Republic.
And oh boy...it's so much nicer there.
Now, the bets part - when your average "devout Polish Christian" goes, say, to Czech Republic (a lot of beatiful monasteries for example)...well, that person typically doesn't realize it was a trip to a very strongly atheist country. They just don't know. That doesn't work so well in the other direction. We know how to "not get in your way"...but here is the place for mutualism...
Really, come on, you're talking here about a group of people who is convinced that they know the ultimate (of those which are really relevant to us) truth about the Universe, who think that have the absolute moral guidance. Wouldn't you be at all surpised if such people noticed readily any systematic errors in their ways?...
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, we're "creating" (changing is a better word, also for Mars - it has climate) a climate here. ;p
That's of course interesting; and yeah, still insignificant. "Galaxy engineering" would be, slightly...
So, was it that hard to notice...
a) "you (group, again)"
b) "but you give them power to do that and be treated seriously"//notice no "group"
?
It's perfectly valid to judge also you by the dynamics of a group you identify with. A group which feeds its power from followers like you.
Accidentally, I didn't mention what one more thing when describing the situation - I don't have such law. "Hurting of religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that) is an offense.
Which of course is a direct evidence meaning either that, or the part about "freedom from religion" in the constitution is a fiction...they are mutually exclusive.
In practice this "don't hurt feelings" law applies mostly to the dominant religion of course, also somehow by proxy to the close ones, and not at all to mostly unrelated worldviews.
This is the state about which religions dream about, yours too.
PS. Another "funny" ilustration of things is how the cross got its way into the main chamber of our parliament. Year 97, few days after the new constitution was in force... ;p
Two members of the close equivalent of, say, a typical European "Christian Democracy" party went into the chamber in the middle of the night, with a ladder, and simply put the cross there without any regard for procedures of country of law. That's what happened in the parliament. One formal objection resulted, mostly because too many people realised that some other are uncompromising bigots who would freeze the works of legislature....
Oh, one of those people fell from the ladder and broke his arm. If that's not an omen...
Oh, but you (group, again) can just walk up to someone and tell them your speech offends me, shut up? Don't pretend it's not the case...what, you don't have censorship? Really? What with constant bitching, about pretty much most media, about nudity, "violence", "promoting innapriopriate cults", etc. by some vocal groups?
Yes, "I would never do that"; but you give them power to do that and be treated seriously
Hey, if *just* before you die...you won't have to pay for reentry.
But wait, the scenario of parent poster gets interesting; especially since with supermassive black holes you wouldn't normally notice crossing the horizon.
Unless...the two horizons are just on the verge of merging, almost touching. And suddenly you find yourself in that space, with almost half of you inside one horizon, and the other almost half - inside the second one.
Well, probably not much different from, say, pulling apart somebody with horses. Extremelly instantenous even, as far as phycics allows...
Such view also somehow suggests that our type of Universe naturally drifts towards intelligence.
Which probably still means we're insignificant. Our intelligence and, most importantly, capabilities are quite limited; and they don't appear to be changing anytime soon. Unless of course you include one possible variant of our potential future descendant(s) - the kind of it(them) that shares mostly just a point of origin, and not much common even "in spirit". The kind we wouldn't even recognise as our progeny; a progeny which would barely notice us. So I'm not sure if that helps us much...
Not noticing far potential far more complex things might be as well simply a limitation of this "most complex structure in the universe (that we know of)"...
...while this ocean is a drop of water on a hair of some fly. Plus with...lots of sharks in it? ;)
Hence again illustrating, "only my group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable". Not trying to come to some greater understanding, but just doing what "you feel is right"; working on the basis fait accompli, probing how far you can push it.
You can say that in a different, "nicer" way...but this won't change the essence of it.
OK, this is Slashdot...but this place is irrelevant anyway, we're really discussing rules of the society here. You said that you will just do something because you think you should. That's not how modern society works...
If your freedom for religion means I can't be left alone by your friends (imaginary or not) in a public place, you are an intolerant bigot.
So there...
But I guess "only your group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable"
...and if he gets such meaning out of what was said, that's his problem (for the record, people having more plentiful energy and generally decent standard of living is actually the only proven, civilised way of population control)
Hate (well, not really...) to break it to you, but we are all related. Most recent common ancestor of all present humans lived perhaps even in 1st or 2nd millenium BC. If you take a group such as "Western Europeans" (and closely related to them), it was probably as recently as 1000 years ago. Heck, go back ~250k greats-grandparents, and you're at the point of a creature from which all humans, chimpanzees and bonobos are directly descended...
Certainly you can be. But I was looking more at how this ideal ends up (generally how it works) in practice...
Sure, who cares how people waste their time. But what when they start to waste your time?
I think he simply missed that for some people(sic), the term "people" when used such generally means simply "members of homo sapiens sapiens"...
Now realize that without some opposition (and safety checks in law, etc.; of which this /. story is about...even if the particular situation was handled poorly) - a large part of religions, when left to do what they want, reverts to such state (or worse). OK, you might be sincerely convinced that you would never support such things. But, by nonetheless identifying with them to some degree, you give them power. You agree almost fully with people who are just "a little" more towards the "extreme" side. And so on...
You miss that the point was...why did you even feel the need to share? What for? How does sharing what you specifically believe in contributes in any way towards harmonious resolution? Pointing out "conflicts" and "intolerances". Face it, you (now talking about groups) feed on this...
Did you see me sharing?
Heck, you even show again the issue I touched on at the end of my previous post. There was no "belittling" in there - just a very legitimate but extremelly uncomfortable question to vast majority of faithfull (I know, it's not the first time I asked...people either start to be passive-agressive or, sometimes, agree; and if you wonder already - no, I never touch on the subject first. Ever). But hey, that's disrespectfull now...
You just said "only my group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable". I agree, sums it up pretty good.
Humans are supressing "biological imperatives", with culture, for a long, long time...
Oh, there are a lot of churches allright... (though admittedly some of them converted to buildings of public utility; at least there's some use)
It's just that hardly anybody verbally (or worse...) attacks my way of life. Nobody is of the arrogant position that I'm "poor" (that's a recent citation). Nobody forces on me performing their rituals (I'm not kidding, literally forcing oneself into my private space to perform a ritual on me). If this is about people who you come in contact with regularly...yeah, much nicer.
But on the more general level it means that laws are followed. See, I have hypothetically, in PL, freedom from religion. But why do I have to (limiting myself to obvious violations of the idea of modern society) follow one set of laws and certain people - another one? Heck, if I would do such ruckus during the night or early morning hours, blocking major streets or outright crimes...it wouldn't end up well for me. Somehow also this one group is immune from investigation of their collaboration with SB (security service of communist regime). Why the public money for churches? Why forcefull and delibarate invasion of the present "sacred" places of current version of pagan faith? (those ones are sensibly nice BTW, at least for now) Why they don't have to care about taxes? (no, I don't mean "tax breaks"...they don't have to document their income. Don't you wonder how large part of it comes from questionable sources?)
But I gues this discussion is pointless with you if you felt the need to throw evolution into it... (protip: endorsed by Catholic Church, for example; there's no conflict)
Generally, the whole thing is illustrated best by how you demanded from me the explanation of such concept as "nice"...and yet you didn't see a problem with bringing, in the same post, your beliefs without any kind of backing them... (BTW can you even find a factor more deciding than "I was born into this"?...) Didn't occur to you that it's better to be left alone, in context.
But double standars is fine as long as it serves you...
Sooo...saying that people "breed" (as opposed to who? Neanderthals?) is racist suddenly? You have a weird idea of what "people" means...
You really think there's no difference or only pretend?... O_o
Religions are of the position that they represent the absolute truth (each of them separately, which btw tells something about it...). You can of course easily find atheists who are like that (though to many it's really more about post-theism). But not only that doesn't follow to "absolute moral guidance" in this case, those people...generally...just want to be left alone. Really, everything else (secularisation, etc.) will just follow from that, no need to do anything...
Religions OTOH generally exhibit the trait of securing their realm however it's feasible (those which don't do that - vanish). That includes permeating every aspect of life, if that's possible. Getting in your way, if that's possible.
BTW, preaching means there many such tirades exactly. No, it isn't limited to private spaces or to a way not relying on public funds; if it did...heck, I don't care much what you do in private.
Prayer before a meal stops being polite if it is intruding into the public space.
You know, a large part od being a modern democracy is also having a respect (heh, there it returns again ;p ) for minorities, especially since it appear to be along the lines of the law...
Otherwise, you just have a mob rule.
You most likely don't realise how pervasive (not quite "all-encompassing", but...) those "petty" things are in daily life. Not only because you (possibly?) consider yourself part of that social construct (so large portion of its influence is just "life as usual"), but also...don't really know any better.
Me...well, let me put it this way. I'm originally mostly from Poland (officially arounf 95% Christians...); but this also means that right across the border (on which I basically live for now; border cities are tolerable...) I have Czech Republic (70% non-religious) and Germany...but most notably Berlin area, which is comparable to Czech Republic.
And oh boy...it's so much nicer there.
Now, the bets part - when your average "devout Polish Christian" goes, say, to Czech Republic (a lot of beatiful monasteries for example)...well, that person typically doesn't realize it was a trip to a very strongly atheist country. They just don't know. That doesn't work so well in the other direction.
We know how to "not get in your way"...but here is the place for mutualism...
...or so they think.
Really, come on, you're talking here about a group of people who is convinced that they know the ultimate (of those which are really relevant to us) truth about the Universe, who think that have the absolute moral guidance. Wouldn't you be at all surpised if such people noticed readily any systematic errors in their ways?...
So are you at least equally supportive of the idea that any religious ones should do their business in private and then they can come to public space?