Potentially Offensive Religion Poll

[bryant69]

Poll question: Potentially Offensive Religion Poll

Which of these three statements do you feel to be the most offensive?

Statement I : I think that Christianity holds the answer to mankind, and I look forward to a day when all the world turns to Christ for the answer.

Statement II : I look forward to a world unified under Islamic Law, with all people accepting Allah as their God.

Statement III : I hope that someday Mankind will realize the futility of religion, and will abandon all such superstitious beliefs.

Please note, that this poll is strictly on goal and not on methods. Any of these statements could be uttered by a sincere believer in democracy who does not favor imposition of his or her particular belief system by force.

Also if my wording of these statements was not exactly right, I apologize in advance. But I thought this would make an interesting thought experiment

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Book Lover]

1. Shit! I voted wrong

See, this is why you should always read everything before you sign it... I should have voted that Statements I and II were offensive - instead, having read the first two, I assumed the third would offend me just as much....

[rexcat]

2. Statement I and II are both offensive

and I support statement III because being an atheist and secular humanist the truth is the light. Let the flames begin!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Inoffensive. Typical opinions.

[pagerbear]

4. Statements I and II are offensive

Statement III is naive.

[dedhed]

5. All three inoffensive

Things start to get offensive (and I start to get defensive) when someone tries to cram their particular statement down everyone else's throats.

:bounce:

[bryant69]

7. This is largely my opinion

It's the methods used to further these kinds of ideas that are offensive, not the ideas themselves.

Frankly once you accept any idea, you are immediately assuming that those who hold the opposite of your idea to be wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. All 3 are equally offensive.

I'm sort of a Buddhist-pagan-pantheist or something, but I kind of enjoy a polyverse of religions.

Editewd for typo

[Az]

8. People do not necissarily force what they believe

Each of these things is perfectly valid for a person to believe. Its when they try to force these positions on others that the trouble enters. As such none of these are particularly offensive.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. My thoughts? Whatever gets you through the night. If I'm offended

by any of them, then I'm basically a snit. What's it to me? :shrug:

[shimmergal]

10. All are sad, if not offensive.

Only those who're insecure about their own belief system tend to wish for a day when everyone else adopts it. Such a future culture would be awfully dull!

[Mattforclark]

11. Nope, not offended by any of them

as long as those statements are not backed up by force, fine with me.

If anyone attempted to enforce those on the world, they would become my enemy. As long as they are just "thinking," "looking forward," or "hoping" though, no problems at all.

[Selwynn]

12. All three statements are equally wrong - that's what I mean by "offensive"

I, II and III are all wrong sentiments I personally feel.

[outinforce]

13. Statemet III Is the Most Offensive

If statement III had not contained a demeaning value judgment about what others believe, it would not have been offensive at all.

Statement I contains no statements deriding the beliefs of others.

Statement II contains no statements deriding the beliefs of others.

Statment III says "I hope that someday Mankind will realize the futility of religion, and will abandon all such superstitious beliefs."

By referring to the deeply-held beliefs of other people as "superstious", statement III does something that neither statement I nor statement II does -- it makes a derogatory value judgment about what others believe.

THAT is what, to my mind, makes Statement II the most offensive.

[bryant69]

14. Fair point.

I tried to keep them more or less parallel; but I see that I didn't succeed.

[Mattforclark]

15. Why are

"all the world turns to Christ" and "all people accepting Allah" not similar value judgements?

There is the same implication, that all other religions/beliefs/whatever are wrong/whatever.

[outinforce]

17. Not At All

I interpreted statements I and II as being strongly held beliefs that adherents of either Christianity or Islam might have about their own religions --- and ONLY their own relgions -- becoming "victorious" in the long run.

Neither statement I nor II, in my view, made any comments about the "truth" of their win religions -- or the "non-truth" iof other religions.

They merely expressed a desire -- a hope -- that adherents of those two religions might reasonably expect to have.

It would have been different if statement I, for instance, had said, "Christianity is the ONLY way to know God. All other religions are mere superstitions and false." Such a statement would have been most offensive.

But that is not what statement one said.

It is, however, and approximation of what statement III said.

on edit -- on re-reading statement I, I do see the value-laden nature of the first part of statement I. It is not, however, quite as offensive, in my view, as statement III, which actually calls the beliefs of other people "superstition" -- besides, "Statements I and III are equally offensive" was not an option.

[Az]

18. A person can believe something offensive to you

It doesn't mean they act on it though. If you believe one position to be true then you are likely to believe the other positions to be erronious in a number of ways. Just because you believe they are wrong does not mean you cannot work with them.

It is a natural position to want more people to come into line with your particular view of the universe. This is natural. It both confirms your opinion and (again in your opinion) frees people from what you see as a mistaken view.

Now there is a valid question of selfexamination. How certain are you that you are in the right position. This is the basis from which we find tolerance for others. Some people are a bit more certain than others and thus may not see a need for tolerance if they percieve their position as being sufficiently morally superior.

So while some may believe that religions are based on superstitions and lies, as long as they do not force their position on them they are free to believe what they may. And hoping that the world were free of what they may believe to be delusional beliefs is a perfectly natural desire.

[outinforce]

20. The Question Was About "Offense"

That was the question to which I was responding.

The question I thought I was responding to had to do with which of the three statements, in my own view, I thought was most offensive -- most likely to give offense.

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with what others may or may not believe. Nor did my comments have anything to do with what I may or may nor find offensive about Christianity, Islam, or the total lack of religious beliefs.

My comments had to do with three statements.

If I, sitting back, read those three statements, which am I most likely to find offensive? Or, which of those statements do I think might be most inclined to give someone else offense?

My only point in my the first post I made to this thread was that there was one word -- "superstitious or superstition" -- in statement III that made that statement the most offensive of the three statements presented.

Of course I understand that people can believe something offensive to me.

But I do not think I have stated here -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- that I find the belief that religions are mere superstition to be in any way offensive at all.

What I do find offensive is expressing that view in the was statement III does.

Had statement III simply omitted the word "superstition" or "superstitious", I would not have found it offensive.

[beyurslf]

16. All three are wrong. I think offensive is a little strong though.

I look forward to a day when each person respects every other person's freedom to believe what they want.

[Az]

19. Hope that all find the truth

is not contrary to cherishing the right of all to believe what ever they want. You can hope that someday we all find our way to the truth whatever it may be. We may all find our way there by our own path. But it is natural not to hope that people find their way to delusion.

Freedom to find the way. Hope that they do find the way.

[outinforce]

23. Which Of These Statements

Suppose I am someone who is convinced that I "know" the "truth" and that you are on the way to delusion.

Which of the following statements, if any, would you find to be offensive:

1. I have the truth. I am willing to show it to you.

2. I have the truth. You are on the path to delusion.

3. I see that you and I have differing views. I would like to know more about what you believe, and I would like to share with you, if I may, what I believe. Let's discuss our beliefs and agree that we will respect each other and each other's beliefs.

[Az]

24. Number 2

Clearly. Number 1 would perhaps strike the individual being addressed as a bit egomaniacal. Number three would be my choice.

[outinforce]

26. So Would I

that is precisely why I consider statements that demean the deeply-held beliefs of others (statements which suggest that religion is mere fantasy or mere superstition) to be offensive.

[DoktorGreg]

27. Its not that simple...

We have to consider the side effects of peoples actions. I could care less about their thoughts.

We all know for a fact that smoking causes harm. Additionally second hand smoking also causes harm, so much so that smoking is banned almost everywhere.

Now for the religious, they beleive that their prayer has some sort of psychic effect, I am inclined to agree with them. The psychic radiation is unstudied, and has not been determined to be harmless. We dont know how the psychic radiation spreads, how far, etc. If many of the claims of prayer are true, then there are very definate bad side effects of prayer. People are even seen convulsing and sputtering gibberish while under the effects of prayer, not unlike the effects of the recreational drug nitrous oxide.

Most troubling of all, we have zero understanding of how the prayer mechanism works. All our efforts to date, have failed to understand this seemingly primal force of the universe. Agreed, there is little understanding of how gravity works, but it can be predicted.

For that reason, all prayer activities should be moved to isolated locations. We move smokers, so non-smokers can continue to choose not to smoke. Non-prayers should have that choice too.

[bryant69]

28. What do you mean by isolated locations?

Out in the wilderness? Or just in private?

Bryant

[outinforce]

29. And Not Just Prayer

If you want to talk about the possible (and as yet unknown) effects of psychic radiation, then I would take your recommendation a couple of steps further.

Not only would I want to banish prayer to "isolated locations" (churches, for instance), but I would also want to ban any yoga practices or the eating habits of vegan to isolated locations.

YOu just can't be tooooo careful when it comes to people with potentially harmful beliefs --- especially when they put those beliefs into action and thereby cause the dreaded "psychic radiation".

I know that I get all tingly all over if I am eating in a restaurant or other public space and a vegan is served a meal. I say let people eat vegan -- I just want to be safe from any psychic radiation they may be emitting. And, until studies are done to determine whether vegans, while eating, give off any psychic radiation, it is much better, I think, to be safe than sorry.

Don't you agree, Doktor?

[DoktorGreg]

35. Its no so much the vegans as it is the fanatical bean eaters

But thats not psychic radiation...

[outinforce]

37. YES!

It's THOSE people.

The bean-eaters --- no, no,... the FANATICAL bean-eaters.

A subset, obviously, of the vegan population.

I knew that all the evil in the world (or at least a significant part of it) was "their" fault.

Now, if we could just ensure that all yoga-practicing, praying, fanatical bean-eaters were banned to their isolated locations -- perhaps we could call them "centers of concentration" or "concentration centers", or something like that -- the world would be a much better place -- free from at least some "psychic radiation" types.

[DoktorGreg]

48. I never said anything about providing housing for the religious

And no, Chili eaters in country western restaurants and bars emit a similar radiation. Again, Its not the psychic radiation variety of emission.

Those smoker people, already are excluded is ways that you suggest. And from appearances it does seem to concentrate the smoke quite effectively.

How would this play out in real life? Rather than having the religious pray in front of school, where the smokers used to smoke, and having to walk through them, give them a nice chappel inside the school, where they can meet for that type of activity.

[outinforce]

51. A Chapel -- INSIDE THE SCHOOL?!?!?!

Are you seriously suggesting, DoktorGreg, that schools -- PUBLIC schools -- be required to provide people who pray with venues insdie the schools where they can conduct their dangerous behavior?

There are two major -- huge, really -- issues that I see with such a proposal.

The first, and less major, is the issue of separation of church from state. Do you really want your tax dollars to go to support the construction of a prayer chapel inside public schools? I think such a suggestion would be quickly overturned by any court in the land.

The second, and much bigger problem, is the issue of the children. By bringing all of those praying people -- along with their psychic radiation -- inside a school building, we would be exposing, I think, countless young, helpless, vulnerable, defenseless, children to unknown levels of psychich radiation. Who knows the damage that could inflict?

We do what we can to eliminate lead, for instance, from the water supply of schools. At least with lead we know the levels that are safe and the levels that are unsafe. But with psychic radiation, we just do not know enough about the levels produced by a given number of people praying. (We do not even know if the denomination of the people praying makes a difference -- Is the psychic radiation the same from a Roman Catholic as from a Southern Baptist? Does a "pro-choice" Roman Catholic emit the same amount of psychic radiation as a strong "pro-life" Roman Catholic? Is the psychic radiation coming from a praying Episcopalean who supports gay clergy the same or less than the psychic radiation emitted by a praying Anglican who does not believe in gay clergy? We just do not know!)

No. To my way of thinking, we simply MUST think of the children! No praying people inside any school -- EVER!!!!!! It is just too, too dangerous. For goodness' sake, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

No, I think the only solution is to ban all praying people to their own communities. People who pray -- even if they do it in the privacy of their own homes, may be exposing countless numbers of children to the noxious effects of psychic radiation.

Far better to completely isolate those who would expose children, old people, and pets to psychic radiation to their own communities -- sort of "concentration centers", or "prayer camps". There, "those people" could carry on with whatever dangerous practices they want to -- away from the rest of us. (Of course, we would probably -- for the protection of the people residing in the concentration centers -- need to post guards.)

Did I misunderstand you, Doktor?

[DoktorGreg]

21. Worrying about how other people feel is why Democrats always lose

I could care less if people are offended by my statements. Someone on this very thread was offended that someone would refer to religion as fantasy, even as a concept, even though it quite clearly is. Maybe thats why they were offended that the question was even asked, they dont like to accept they base their life on fantasy.

I see it as, I judge what people do, and not what they say, or even write. When I see people smoking, doing drugs or practicing religion, I point out "Hey, thats unhealthy!" and doubly so when they ask me for my opinion.

On the other had, the world sure would be a dull place if no one smoked or did drugs or practiced religion. However, just like smokers now have to admit, I think the religious should have to admit that faith is unhealthy. Again, like smoke, there are second hand religious issues that need to be addressed.

[outinforce]

25. No. Part of the Reason

For the record, I do not think Democrats "always lose".

In fact, I think we Democrats have some pretty impressive victories of which we may be justifiably quite proud.

But I digress.....

I think that to the extent Democrats do lose, it is because we are perceived as having the insights into truth and being uncaring about what others think or feel.

To wit: "Someone on this very thread was offended that someone would refer to religion as fantasy, even as a concept, even though it quite clearly is."

Quite clearly? If you are one of the millions and millions of people in the USA for whom religion is a very deeply held part of what you belief, then such a statement -- a statement which does not even admit the possibility of being wrong -- is very offensive.

It is about as offensive as someone saying "My religion is, quite clearly, the only one that anyone who has half a brin could possibly believe."

Couple that attitude with a notion that says, "I could care less if people are offended by my statements.", and you have, in my view, a sure-fire formula for electoral defeat.

[DoktorGreg]

31. Its only offensive to the faithful because it is the truth.

And if it is the core of the policy making, like it is in the Bush Whitehouse, it will result in the same set of systemic errors in policy thinking.

The only way to make a permanent democratic majority, is through truthful effective government. That means a deep seated soul searching by every participating member, and abandoning ALL THE LIES. For now on we are going to have transparent government. For now on, we are only going to do things that are effective.

Trying to game the system for some personal agenda, by attracting votes from the irrational, seems to be a recipe for disaster. As it has been in the Bush administration.

Whats the point of taking a democratic process, and imposing an undemocratic process(the faithful beleif systems) on it?

[bryant69]

33. Maybe we should pass a law

Declaring that every body who chooses to attend a church more than once a month should not be allowed to vote, on the grounds that their votes are inherently undemocratic.

[outinforce]

34. From Now On

"For now on, we are only going to do things that are effective."

Effective?

What do you mean when you say "effective"?

DO you mean we are only go to do things that "work" -- that reach the ends they were designed to reach?

I'm confused -- and frankly, a little apprehensive when I read a statement that says "For now on, we are only going to do things that are effective."

Can you put my mind to ease?

Please?

[DoktorGreg]

45. Well, I dont mean kill people...

As it turns out killing people isnt that effective anyhow. It certainly didnt work out in Iraq. It seems like for what the arguments were before the war, what we were doing then was much more effective that what we do now. I still didnt like it, but it kept a bad guy in check.

Im still not sure what the first gulf war accomplished. I'm still a litte bitter from that.

Afghanistan... If our goal is freedom and democracy then why didnt we go a lot earlier? I understand why we went when we did. I teared up when I saw that buddah blown up, if only cause it was culture.

IMO An Apollo Mission for alternative energy should be started. Since it is technically feasable, and there is no right to polutte the earth, a date needs to be set to be emission free, at least as far as our land transportation system is concerned.

If I were king for a day, I would regulate the telephone system, and make cell phone service a constitutional right. You have to buy your own cell phone. Eliminating the cost over runs, and providing the same communications service to all people would do more than anything else to balance the economic scales. Much the same way the free highway system did.

Again in the king for a day department, I would leave minimum wage alone, only eliminate exemptions. Then I would make overtime start at 24 hours, rather than 40. This would dramatically reduce the amount of work being accomplished by highly paid professionals, and increase the job opportunities in these areas almost 2 fold.

Finally, As my master stroke, I would cure aids, cancer and aging. I would institue a lottery to allow the population to replace its self as accidents happened, because unlimited procreation could not be allowed to persist.

[outinforce]

46. If I Were King For A Day

I would BAN -- that's right, BAN -- the use of cellular telephones in the following locations:

1. In the driver's seat of any moving vehicle.

2. In the hand of anyone who does not recognize that they are in a public space where not everyone wants to hear about how last night's date went or what the latest is on the health of the corporation.

3. In any theater, concert hall, or museum.

And, just to be curious here -- you want to decrease the work performed by highly skilled and trained professionals who also happen to be highly paid?

[DoktorGreg]

49. How is that more of a problem than

Praying in any of those areas? How is cell phone use while driving a car any more burdensome than prayer while driving a car?

How is it any more obnoxious than prayer in a public place?

oOr for that matter a theater, concert hall or museum?

As for the economic question, I want them to work less. People willing/needing to work 80 hours a week is a problem. It is not a good thing. If we had... say twice as many people working 40 hours a week, a lot of our so called "problems", would not seem as bad. As far as economics go.

More simply, if people only worked 40 hours a week, they might have time to help their child with home work.

[outinforce]

53. Hmmmmm.......

I'll have to think about your non-economic question.

But regarding your economic question, I think that in the following situations, I would want to have a person with more experience performing the work, rather than a person with less experience, even if it meant that the person with more experience receives a higher salary and even if it means the more higly paid person receives some OT:

1. Mechanics on an airplane on which I am about to board.

2. Electricians who come to perform work at my residence.

3. Plumbers who come to perform work at my residence.

4. Any Governmental Employee handling any case that involves me.

5. Attorneys who represent me in a criminal matter.

6. Attorneys who represent me in a civil matter.

7. People who develoop and maintain the software for DU.

[zonmoy]

22. both options one and two

require that you listen to the monster causing all the evil that is happening right now.

[starroute]

30. #3 is not far off from the opinions of the Founding Fathers

Jefferson once wrote of Christianity, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

John Adams has been quoted as having said, "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

The Founding Fathers had an intense sense of higher truth, which commonly led them to regard all religion as primitive superstition, and all priests and churches as the agents of tyranny.

Statement #3 is a wish for everyone on Earth to be free. #1 and #2 are wishes for everyone to be enslaved. There is absolutely no equivalence between them.

[MisterP]

32. even fundamentalist atheism is fundamentalism

[Minstrel Boy]

36. Statements 1 & 2 express certainty; statement 3 expresses hope.

I am not offended by fundamentalist Christians or Muslims expressing the hope that the world will find their faiths provide the answer. What offends me are eschatological sureties.

[outinforce]

39. Do You Mean.......???

"What offends me are eschatological sureties."

Do you mean like this hoped-for eschaton:

"I hope that someday Mankind will realize the futility of religion, and will abandon all such superstitious beliefs"

????

[Minstrel Boy]

44. No, because

that comment expresses a hope, not an expectation of an inevitable outcome.

And I say this not as an atheist, because I'm not one.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 5:00:52PM EDT, Monday, May 10, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
6 days,
6 hours,
59 minutes, and
8 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[TrogL]

40. I look for a time when people will stop arguing about religion

Including whether or not it is "futile".

[JohnLocke]

41. Statement II is CLEARLY the most offensive.

[Nihil]

55. Why?

Or was that just a hook dangling in the water?

[pezcore64]

42. pfft

its just an opinion, why would it be offensive? differing opinions are offensive?
i mean, with words 'i think' and 'i look forward to' and 'i hope' i dont see how anyone could be offended.
thinking doesnt hurt anyone
being excited about something doesnt hurt anyone
and hoping for something has never hurt anyone

now if they said, 'we should hold guns to the heads of people who dont think ....etc' then wed have a problem ;)

[outinforce]

47. Offensive Opinions

I happen to be gay, so I use the following example as an example only. Please do not be offended by it.

If I were to express the opinion, "I Think that all Gay people are immoral perverts, and I hope they all get AIDS.", I am not calling for any action. I am hoping for something.

But I am, I think, being terribly offensive.

At least, I know lots of people who would take offense -- deep, deep offense at that opinion.

Opinions -- offensive opinions -- do hurt.

[bryant69]

54. I suppose from a Christian/Muslim/Atheist Point of view

The difference would be that they are wishing that something good would happen to people who don't agree with them.

A Christian believes that people would be better off if they accepted Christ, A Muslim believes that people would be better off if they submitted to Allah, an Atheist believes that people would be better off if they abandoned religion.

That's different than wishing that homosexuals woudl gets AIDS and presumably die. However, if your statement were "I think that all Gay People are Immoral perverts and I hope they all repent of their sins and become Heterosexuals" that might be a parallel. But similarly offensive, I suppose.

[outinforce]

56. Thanks For Your Observations

I was reacting to another poster who had posted this:

"its just an opinion, why would it be offensive? differing opinions are offensive?
i mean, with words 'i think' and 'i look forward to' and 'i hope' i dont see how anyone could be offended.
thinking doesnt hurt anyone
being excited about something doesnt hurt anyone
and hoping for something has never hurt anyone"

What I was attempting to point out was that even though something might be "just an opinion", it could be quite offensive.

And I was also attempting to show, by example, that "hoping for something", and expressing that hope, can sometimes hurt.

[MrSlayer]

43. Statement three I agree with.

I don't find the first two offensive though, just pitiful.

[knight_of_the_star]

50. All of the above

I believe that all paths to the Divine are valid and that there is SOMETHING out there. To say that all will fall under one faith, or that there is no faith at all, goes completely against the grain for me.

[Renew Deal]

52. It depends on who it's coming from.

It's offensive if they are coming from governments. It's not a big deal if it's coming from individuals.