Nurse suspended for prayer offer

[six7s]

I'd link to an article but you wouldn't understand a word anyway.

See post #42 for - if not the answer to LTUAE - a link

 

[six7s]

How is that [""Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not."] a "non sequitur"? Without people there is no religion.

Insofar as it doesn't follow to imply that religion is merely an idea

Further, "cultures" do not victimise people, people do- and not all people in any culture victimise other people.

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain

Sometimes. Neither "organising societies" nor "controlling individuals" is a fundamental, inseparable quality of "religion".

Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'

 

[drkitten]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain'

You're not that crazy, are you?

From the relevant bbc cite (cited to by the article you linked):

Aikenhead had talked about his reading with friends. After John Frazer was imprisoned and sacklothed for reading deist literature, one of them, possibly Mungo Craig, informed on him. In the autumn of 1696 Thomas was arrested and remitted to the Tolbooth Prison "to be tryed for his life" for blasphemy. He mouldered there until December 23, when he crossed Parliament Square to the High Court to be charged under both of Scotland's Blasphemy Acts, one enacted before and one after the Revolution of 1689.

[The members of Parliament who passed] The 1661 Act ordained death for anyone "not being distracted in his wits" who shall "rail upon or curse or deny God, and obstinately continue therein." [The members of Parliament who passed] The 1695 Act confirmed the earlier act but graduated its penalties: first offence, imprisonment and sackcloth; second offence, imprisonment, sackcloth, and a fine; third offence, death.

The charges were that for more than twelve months Aikenhead had blasphemed against God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures, and all revealed religion. Five student 'friends' appeared as prosecution witnesses. Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation. They further reported that he had declared that he preferred Mohammed to Jesus and hoped to see Christianity soon extirpated. Finally, he was accused of having wished, when cold, to warm in Hell.

No defence was recorded, but the prisoner did have defence counsel. On December 24, the next day, came the verdict [from the jury]: "that. . . Thomas Aikenhead has railed against the first person, and also cursed and railed our blessed Lord and second person of the holy Trinity, and further finds the other crimes libelled proven, viz. The denying of the incarnation of our Saviour, the Holy Trinity, and scoffing at the Holy Scriptures." He was sentenced [by the judge] to be hanged on the 8th of January.

Aikenhead petitioned the Privy Council to consider his "deplorable circumstances and tender years." Also, he had forgotten to mention that he was also a first time offender. Two ministers and two Privy Councillors pleaded on his behalf, but to no avail. On January 7, after another petition, the Privy Council ruled that they would not grant a reprieve unless the church interceded for him. The Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, sitting in Edinburgh at the time, urged "vigorous execution" to curb "the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land". Thus Aikenhead’s sentence was confirmed [by the Privy Council].

"Religion" didn't take any of those actions. Laws are created by people, enforced by people, and executed by people. Decisions don't make themselves. No confirmation ever happened, except that a person confirmed something. No one has ever been sentenced except by a person.

 

[six7s]

You're not that crazy, are you?

From the relevant bbc cite (cited to by the article you linked):

[a bunch of names highlighted]

Are you seriously (non-crazily) implying that those names constitutes a comprehensive list of all the oppressors

If so, you're nuts

"Religion" didn't take any of those actions. Laws are created by people, enforced by people, and executed by people. Decisions don't make themselves. No confirmation ever happened, except that a person confirmed something. No one has ever been sentenced except by a person.

Although I am very familiar with each and every word, your arrangement of them conveys nothing of meaningful relevance

 

[drkitten]

Are you seriously (non-crazily) implying that those names constitutes a comprehensive list of all the oppressors

A comprehensive list? No.

But a list, nevertheless. And "religion" did not appear on that list, nor would it appear on a comprehensive list.

Every oppressor of Mr. Aikenhead was a person.

None were a belief. Beliefs cannot oppress anyone; they possess no mass, have no energy, cannot convey momentum, and cannot have any physical effect on the material universe whatsoever.

Or to put it another way --- how much does a person's stupidity weigh?

 

[six7s]

A comprehensive list? No.

But a list, nevertheless. And "religion" did not appear on that list, nor would it appear on a comprehensive list.

Every oppressor of Mr. Aikenhead was a person.

And how would you describe, collectively, the actions, mores and values of those persons?
An amporphous, non-homogeneous, unconnected irrelevance?

I'd use the term culture

 

[drkitten]

And how would you describe, collectively, the actions, mores and values of those persons?

I wouldn't, because I would be committing a category error in trying to collectivize those disparate things.

 

[six7s]

I wouldn't, because I would be committing a category error in trying to collectivize those disparate things.

Yet you are content to use the terms belief and religion in this discussion... how quaint

 

[Piscivore]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain

Regardless if I (or anyone) can name them, even in asking the question you admit that "individuals" did so.

Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'

Wicca. Buddhism. Taoism. Shakers/Quakers. There's four.

 

[legne]

See post #42 for - if not the answer to LTUAE - a link

I'm so incredibly good at missing things, could've sworn I read the whole thread. Bah.

 

[six7s]

Please name the individuals responsible for the oppression of atheists in 17th-century Britain

Regardless if I (or anyone) can name them, even in asking the question you admit that "individuals" did so.

Bollocks

My point is that for oppression to 'work', it is typically perpetrated by an infinite number of people - infinite as in uncountable, simply cos they come from an exceedingly wide range of 'societal-strata' (or whatever 'they' call it) with an equally diverse range of 'convictions': overt/covert active/passive

If y'ain't part of the solution...
...you're part of the precipitate​

Please cite one religion that does separate such 'qualities'

Wicca.

Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion

Buddhism.

Bollocks

Go to Thailand and see how wrong you are

Or simply ask some Buddhists about the uber class-conditioning woo that is karma

Taoism. Shakers/Quakers. There's four.

Maybe you're right... I know next to nothing about them... but I doubt it

If you think about it, the phrase religion is the opiate of the masses is more than merely a hackneyed t-shirt slogan

 

[Piscivore]

My point is that for oppression to 'work', it is typically perpetrated by an infinite number of people - infinite as in uncountable, simply cos they come from an exceedingly wide range of 'societal-strata' (or whatever 'they' call it) with an equally diverse range of 'convictions': overt/covert active/passive

Yeah, that is still people doing the oppressing. People doen't stop being people because you cannot count or name them.

Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion.

They consider it so, and most reference sources call it a religion. Unless you have some qualification for what constitutes "true" religion of which I am unaware?

Maybe you're right... I know next to nothing about them... but I doubt it.

Don't take my word for it. But don't consider your ignorance proof that your premise is correct, either.

If you think about it, the phrase religion is the opiate of the masses is more than merely a hackneyed t-shirt slogan

Thank you for restating your assertion. I agree that it is, sometimes, for certain people. That does not make it a fundamental, necessary, or defining quality of "religion". Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of religion. And it certainly does not make "religion" a pernicious, self-aware entity that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create it.

Television and sports has a similar effect on some people, but that does not make it a fundamental, necessary, or defining quality or purpose of televison or sports. Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of televison or sports. And I dare say that you would never make the same sorts of assertions about television or sports that you do about religion- assertions that imply that they are pernicious, self-aware entities that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create them.

Or would you?

In any case, I don't advocate being an ass to someone who wants to tell you about their favorite televison program or asks you to root for their favorite sports team, either. So what's your point?

 

[six7s]

Neither does it make "crowd control" the purpose of or reason for the existence of televison or sports. And I dare say that you would never make the same sorts of assertions about television or sports that you do about religion

Au contraire, mon poisson muncher, I do... maybe not exactly the same... ok... not exactly the same superficially... but fundamentally, yes

I work (occasionally) in the performing arts industry and see sports, the arts and other 'leisure activities' (incl theism) as competitors in essentially the same market (their are only so many disposable notes and coins at large)

assertions that imply that they are pernicious, self-aware entities that can think, feel, and act apart from the people that create them.

Please, don't put words in my mouth

You might infer as much

I did NOT imply that, at all

 

[Piscivore]

Au contraire, mon poisson muncher, I do... maybe not exactly the same... ok... not exactly the same superficially... but fundamentally, yes

I work (occasionally) in the performing arts industry and see sports, the arts and other 'leisure activities' (incl theism) as competitors in essentially the same market (their are only so many disposable notes and coins at large)

Do you feel that television watchers form a "culture" with collectively the same actions, mores and values?
Do you feel that television watching fundamentaly constitues a system of organising societies and controlling individuals and/or a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam?

Do you feel that sports fans form a "culture" with collectively the same actions, mores and values?
Do you feel that the following or watching of sports fundamentaly constitues a system of organising societies and controlling individuals and/or a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam?

Please, don't put words in my mouth

You might infer as much

I did NOT imply that, at all

Fair enough. Explain then what you meant when you said religion, separate and apart from the people that follow it, is "is not (merely) an idea".

 

[CORed]

Unfair. If the nurse, say, was a Christian Scientist and suggested prayer before medical treatment, suspending her would have been appropriate but just for offering to pray? The proper response is "No, and please don't ask me again."

Maybe it's just me, but, nonbeliever that I am, if somebody offered to pray for me, I think I would say thank you, at least if the offer was made in a sincere belief that it would help, not as an attempt to proseletyze. I don't believe for a minute that the prayer would help, but it wouldn't hurt, etither.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Maybe it's just me, but, nonbeliever that I am, if somebody offered to pray for me, I think I would say thank you, at least if the offer was made in a sincere belief that it would help, not as an attempt to proseletyze. I don't believe for a minute that the prayer would help, but it wouldn't hurt, etither.

Yes, in almost all circumstances except that of when you are a patient in hospital. I do not know how unwell the patient was, but s/he is not at home, or meeting people elsewhere, or in fact anywhere where s/he can alter the circumstances. S/he is in an unequal and, to some degree, vulnerable position. Although it seems in itself to be a minor incident, it needs to be dealt with firmly I think.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Shirley Wicca is merely a minority-interest hobby, not a religion

Shirley Wicca? I think I went to school with her!



What, precisely, is your basis for judging which religions are "real" and which are "merely hobbies". Is it a black-and-white distinction, or is there a sliding scale?

BTW, my husband is a Wiccan and he strongly disagrees with your assessment of his religion (it's even on his old Army dogtags).

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, in almost all circumstances except that of when you are a patient in hospital. I do not know how unwell the patient was, but s/he is not at home, or meeting people elsewhere, or in fact anywhere where s/he can alter the circumstances. S/he is in an unequal and, to some degree, vulnerable position. Although it seems in itself to be a minor incident, it needs to be dealt with firmly I think.

Minor correction: the nurse in question was a community nurse, and the patient was not in hospital.

 

[six7s]

What, precisely, is your basis for judging which religions are "real" and which are "merely hobbies". Is it a black-and-white distinction, or is there a sliding scale?

For me, this is an interesting question - simply cos I haven't really thought about it before and I doubt if I can give you a "precise" answer... but I'll try

I think, for me, the qualifiers are primarily concerened with 'power and influence' on a political/societal/cultural/etc level

I'm thinking that its a religion if...

If the adherents, in accepting - on the basis of woo - a (typically) prescribed set of rules, attitudes, collectively equate to a significant 'force' as a lobby group on the fundamental issues such as health, education, peace/war, etc - the issues that have a real day-to-day and generation-to-generation impact on human rights and the associated responsibilities​

Please note... this is merely my 'first draft' on what I think is a fascinating question

Anyhoo... by the above 'criteria' (combined with the exceedingly little I know about a lot o'stuff) I think that Wicca ain't a religion

It's with no offense intended that I say that, for me - in my ignorance, Wicca is but one of the many 'hobby clubs' that is variously and interchangeably practiced by angst-ridden teens and those that view reality as a lifestyle choice for those who can't handle drugs

BTW, my husband is a Wiccan and he strongly disagrees with your assessment of his religion (it's even on his old Army dogtags).

Whilst not wanting to hijack this thread, I'd be very interested to know if - by my 'criteria' - your husband (dis)agrees with me and/or can (is willing to) alleviate some of my ignorance in regard to the depth (real-world influence) and breadth of Wicca

 

[Piscivore]

For me, this is an interesting question - simply cos I haven't really thought about it before and I doubt if I can give you a "precise" answer... but I'll try

I think, for me, the qualifiers are primarily concerened with 'power and influence' on a political/societal/cultural/etc level

I'm thinking that its a religion if...

If the adherents, in accepting - on the basis of woo - a (typically) prescribed set of rules, attitudes, collectively equate to a significant 'force' as a lobby group on the fundamental issues such as health, education, peace/war, etc - the issues that have a real day-to-day and generation-to-generation impact on human rights and the associated responsibilities​

Please note... this is merely my 'first draft' on what I think is a fascinating question

Anyhoo... by the above 'criteria' (combined with the exceedingly little I know about a lot o'stuff) I think that Wicca ain't a religion

Some information for you:
Religion:

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religion is ALL and ANY of those things. Your "definition" seeks to limit the word to a narrow version of the third, and then apply it to any and all religions. That's equivocation.