Hard News: Belief Media
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Ben Curran, in reply to
The thing which tends to bug me about discussions in which religion is an element, is that people's beliefs seem somehow to have more weight, more significance, than (mere) facts. It's as though more energy is behind things that (by definition) you don't know, than behind things that just are.
Which is what happens, I think when people start confusing the various meanings of respect. If one party is using the term to acknowledge that other viewpoints exist and the other is using it to expect that their ideas be considered more weighty than the facts justify, you get problems - the second party being offended when their ideas are not accorded more weight and taking it as an insult/lack of respect for themselves personally, rather their ideas/beliefs.
It's a tricky line to tread.
-
Deborah, in reply to
It is a difficult line, especially when actually, I think their beliefs are ludicrous. But if that's what they want to believe, and as you say, they aren't causing any serious harm, then really, it's none of my business.
-
Ben Curran, in reply to
To me that's an important part of being a New Zealander (whatever that is), the idea that it's OK if your neighbour thinks something different from you so long as your kids can still play together without causing too much damage to the vege garden.
This, I like. And I think day to day it's mostly true for New Zealanders. I get the impression that when we deal with each other, religion/belief is a private thing. And that's a good thing. It's when it religion/belief starts creeping into the media that it disturbs me - I find that when it plays out in the media, the various belief systems don't play nice. When it creeps into political advocacy, again it doesn't play nice - it's usually about imposing a set of values held by a minority onto the population as a whole.
-
I suppose the problem is that people's sense of themselves can be deeply tied up with their beliefs, so not have any respect for the content of their beliefs is tantamount to not respecting them.
-
Generality: as an atheist (who studied & practised religion for over 30 years), I am in favour of letting people believe whatever they like – so long as it does no personal or social harm…and therein lies the rub. Many religious beliefs *do* on occaision harm people who do not share those beliefs (e.g. -anti-abortion/anti-voluntary euthanasia/pro-hitting children/anti-sex education.)
Specific gripe: the tax-exempt staus given to religious institutions. Yes, I am aware of the argument that they ‘do social good.’ There are other ways the State takes over that role, much more equitably. I especially resent the public monies that go into religious schools…and yep, know about religious parents being taxpayers BUT – if I was to set up an atheist primary school, it would attract no
public funding, right? -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
then “WTF is she wearing a lab coat for … and doesn’t she know they should not be worn in the lift”
I didn't know that.
I'm sure any scientist would tell you that if you look into the nature of absolutely anything deep enough, you will find a point beyond current knowledge and understanding.
People with faith don't have this particular problem. -
Ben Curran, in reply to
aren't causing any serious harm, then really, it's none of my business.
I completely agree. It's when it stops being a private thing that it becomes worrying. Especially when it's not flying it's true colours, i.e. my impression of say, Family First has always is a religious advocacy group that is deliberately attempting to present itself as something other than religious and that, I find disturbing.
-
Ben Curran, in reply to
People with faith don't have this particular problem.
Unfortunately. It's a wonderful problem to be faced with day in, day out. If you want wonder and excitement these days, that's where it is.
-
Islander, in reply to
<q>f you want wonder and excitement these days, that’s where it is.
O, agreed!
I'd respectfully suggest they're also to be found in artistic creativity - and good scholarship in any field. -
Will de Cleene, in reply to
You know what, Will, far be it from me to tone police anyone but you think that's a particularly helpful turn of phrase in this context?
It is not my intention to troll, but nor to censor unduly. Would you prefer if I replace the offending term with puritans or religious extremists?
-
if I was to set up an atheist primary school, it would attract no
public funding, right?As far as I am aware, you shouldn't need to as that is the norm in our public schools. Anything religious is - and should be - voluntary. I have issues with religion even being accommodated within the education system. Other than in social studies as a means to educate the world wide existence of it.
But back to the media. I do notice media is easily tempted to dangle the miraculous to rare and extraordinary events. Miracle birth, miracle miss - lots of those after the Chch earthquake. It is a miracle someone lives. Is it a miracle someone, inches away, died?
I am all for tolerance of the diversity. But imposing diverse effects on the rest of the population because some authority (usually male BTW) has chosen to tell their followers they must pray on a specified day of the week, five or seven times a day, and demands days that are allocated as acknowledgement to some event related by this head-voiced authority it then becomes a wider issue when the imposition affects others. So rid the country of all of celebratory days. Celebrating or acknowledging nothing is an option.
As far as Newstalk ZB's cosy relationship with CBA is concerned, I wonder if it is a cheap way of getting content into the airwaves. After all, christianity hasn't got something to 'sell' but rather the funding usually comes from the collection plate and the message, no doubt, is recruitment. The production is done by the outside agency rather than the deliverer. And, it appears to both deliverer and listeners to be safe programing.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Would you prefer if I replace the offending term with puritans or religious extremists?
That, I think, would be worse. Religious folk are not all puritans or extremists. I believe Russell's post named a few of a more mild, liberal mindset. How's about replacing 'godbotherers' with a more neutral term such as 'religious people' that allows for the full spectrum of religious experience and belief?
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
People with faith don’t have this particular problem.
I'm not sure about that. There are those for whom faith certainly is a crutch. It's easier than fronting up to the full complexity and uncertainty of our existence. There are those who reach the current limit of their knowledge and who decide that whatever currently lies beyond that is a matter of faith to be updated as new evidence and knowledge arises.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I was reading 'godbotherers' as more active evangelists or proselytisers.
-
Islander, in reply to
There are those who reach the current limit of their knowledge and who decide that whatever currently lies beyond that is a matter of faith to be updated as new evidence and knowledge arises.
Yes.
I still dont think they should have tax breaks... -
Will de Cleene, in reply to
How's about replacing 'godbotherers' with a more neutral term such as 'religious people' that allows for the full spectrum of religious experience and belief?
I was referring to the exodus of people to the US, the Mayflower for example, and how they differed from the garden variety NZ European emigrant in the 1880's. The term "godbotherers" was specifically used in this context as it is an important strand in what became American Exceptionalism, among other things. Describing the pilgrims who went to the New World thusly is fair game.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
There are those who reach the current limit of their knowledge and who decide that whatever currently lies beyond that is a matter of faith to be updated as new evidence and knowledge arises.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I was reading 'godbotherers' as more active evangelists or proselytisers.
I'm no theologian, but praying for a parking spot must constitute godbothering.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Which is why I wrote "There are those for whom faith certainly is a crutch. It’s easier than fronting up to the full complexity and uncertainty of our existence."
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Describing the pilgrims who went to the New World thusly is fair game.
Fair points, but I'm not entirely convinced. Some of them were fleeing religious persecution, after all. Not that that justifies any of their later misdeeds.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I still dont think they should have tax breaks…
To be honest, I haven't really thought about the tax issue. It does, on the face of it, seem incongruous. I certainly do think that education should be secular, though. Or at the very least, those seeking a religious component to their kids' education should have to pay for it with no subsidy or assistance from the state.
-
Will de Cleene, in reply to
Or at the very least, those seeking a religious component to their kids' education should have to pay for it with no subsidy or assistance from the state.
All that changed in the 1970's when the financial crunch came to religious schools, which were bailed out to become "integrated schools" to prevent a BSOD in the state system. The incongruity with state paid religious schooling has never been addressed since. A bit of a worry when you consider the possibility of charter schools.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I still dont think they should have tax breaks
No more than any other registered non-profit charitable organisations, totally. Bringing in capital gains tax would affect the large land holdings of some churches.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I still dont think they should have tax breaks
No more than any other registered non-profit charitable organisations, totally.That would be one way to take care of Destiny Church and Scientology. The mainstream churches that have actual charitable activities would be OK, but DC and CoS would really struggle to meet the registration requirements.
Bringing in capital gains tax would affect the large land holdings of some churches.
Only if they sell which, mostly, they try and avoid. In the same way as only being able to lose money on shares if you actually sell them, you don't get stung by a CGT unless you sell a capital asset.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Which is why I wrote "There are those for whom faith certainly is a crutch. It’s easier than fronting up to the full complexity and uncertainty of our existence."
I'm not sure that really covers Kurt Wise. I don't think he sees or relies upon his belief in an almighty as a crutch at all. Rather, he has an unbending belief in the certainty of the fundamentals of his faith and no amount of logic, evidence or anything else is going to change that.
When confronted with evidence he's able - and willing - to compartmentalise his not insubstantial ability to understand it, and make that subservient to blind faith.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.