jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (44 posts)

How much should society allow minorities to influence it?

  1. aguasilver profile image87
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    More than seven out of ten Britons say they are Christians, according to an official count.

    The high figure will be seen as a firm endorsement for those who argue the British public remain wedded to traditional religious values despite the fall in church attendances.

    It comes in the week after the Pope�s state visit which led to a battle of words between those who believe Christianity has a vital role in national life and the opposing �aggressive atheists� who believe religion should be regarded as the private pursuit of a minority.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z10PSNGPLL

    Comments?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is the problem.  The liberal agenda has been allowed to become agressive, which is total nonsense; and it's been based on falsehoods and riding the coattails of legitimate human rights activism.   Somebody in the legal systems of several Nations not only has dropped the ball, but kicked it right into the hands of the devil's puppets, and they're trying to sneak in a touchdown.  How else did it become legal to tout immorality while calling religion a "minority" issue?  Time for God-fearing people to shut down the game legally.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "and it's been based on falsehoods "

        Wait wait wait...what's been based on falsehoods? Brenda, you have been telling people all kinds of false things at least since the first post of yours that I've seen, starting with the whole "Christian Nation" load of bullhockey you keep spouting.

        But on the original question, how much should a society allow a minority to influence it? Well, I'd say just enough to ensure that the minority in question has all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as the majority has, and equal protection under the law.

        As of now, US society doesn't let minorities influence it nearly enough.

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Great answer Jeff, and strikes the balance that is required.

          Minorities must be protected from majority abuse, but also must realise that they cannot abuse their 'minority status'.

        2. drbillfannin profile image60
          drbillfanninposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Minority rights are abusing me.  So long as everything is equal. That will never happen. Humans don't have the ability to treat people equally. Everyone is out for their special interests regardless of what they say. Just watch how politicians vote. They always vote for their agendas. Minorities will always have trouble, but so will the rest of us. God is the only one who can fix this mess, if we don't all kill each other first.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Majority rules!!!!!!!

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        When it comes to religion? Choice rules.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Or killing babies I guess.......

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You know that's not too smart to say? hmm

            Even your OWN religion give people a choice to believe. What part do you NOT understand? hmm

      2. 69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        sometimes it does; sometimes it does not.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But the majority of the time it does.

      3. Uninvited Writer profile image85
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If that were true, gay people would be allowed to get married because most people are in favor of it. If that were true, gun control would not be such a fight since most people are in favor of it. And, according to the Constitution of the United States, freedom of religion exists regardless of how many believe what..

    3. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Society should not allow minority to shut down Christianity. Christians have a right to believe in live by their faith.

    4. Joe Badtoe profile image61
      Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Using the Daily right wing pious Mail as a source is laughable.


      What 'official' count is this?

      Did they ask 10 people walking out of a church.?

      Utter garbage.

    5. 69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You mean Atheists Agnostics Humanists are in minority in Briton as they are in America?

    6. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think you'll find that society isn't just influenced but wholly dominated by a small minority of extremely rich and powerful arch-capitalists.

      1. aguasilver profile image87
        aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Undoubtedly correct para...

      2. 69
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you

    7. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It seem to me that Catholics would be a minority in the UK, so I would flip the question.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    As in America, I would say that Freedom of Religion should win out. It should be choice, not jammed or forced.

    But, again this topic is about a Country outside of the U.S., so it should boil down to Human Rights. It is a person's choice to go into a religion and it should NEVER be forced upon someone.

    1. 69
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you here.

    2. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agree totally.

  3. Flightkeeper profile image79
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    I actually think that whole poll about 71% being Christian is a total lie.  It just doesn't seem believable.

    1. Susana S profile image92
      Susana Sposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, the stats seem way off. 70% of the UK population are certainly not practising christians. The newspaper this info was in, the "Daily Mail", has a reputation for being right wing so this story coming from them is no surprise.

      1. Amanda Severn profile image92
        Amanda Severnposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        The 70% figure probably comes via some form of survey where there is a tick list of choices. Most people I know consider themselves to be more 'christian' than 'atheist' whether they are church-goers or not. The word 'christian' means different things to different people. I grew up in a church-going family at a time when there were still prayers said in school assemblies and at the end of the school day. Until fairly recently, I understood 'christians' to be followers of Christ's teachings in a more general sense, and I suspect that it is true for most people who tick 'christian' rather than 'atheist'.

        1. Susana S profile image92
          Susana Sposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Yes, probably some kind of tick list. I suspect the majority that ticked Christian did so simply because they like Christmas and like to see their kids in a nativity play and that's the sum total of their Christianity, never giving it a moments thought throughout the rest of the year unless they have a funeral or wedding to go to.

          That's fine by me, whatever they choose to identify themselves as, but I would question whether that makes them Christian in any real sense.

          1. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But it does indicate that they CHOOSE to be identified with a Christian culture and society.

            1. Susana S profile image92
              Susana Sposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              Active choice or passive "let's just tick a box" apathy? Only 15% of high schools are faith based (mostly christian) which would be surprising in a country where 70% thought that christianity was important. I think the stats in the article have little real meaning.

              My belief is that a strong society has room for all its members and listens to all of them.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Define "practicing."

        "So I asked this God a question
        and by way of firm reply,
        He said -- I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
        Jethro Tull, "Wind-Up"

        1. Amanda Severn profile image92
          Amanda Severnposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Obviously Susanna must speak for herself, but I'm guessing that she probably meant church-going.

          Personally I like to think of 'christians' as people who try to consider others, even those who are different in some way(the Good Samaritan), who are forgiving of human nature ( as in 'the Prodigal Son'), and who do not squander life's opportunities (as in the parable of The Talents). They may not be church-goers, or God-Botherers or wind up artists, but to me they are more Christian than many of the Bible bashers I see on these forums.

        2. Susana S profile image92
          Susana Sposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          It's hard to define - I don't mean going to church. I guess I mean Christianity playing a role in someone's life in some kind of meaningful way and not just because they happen to be born in a country that has a tradition of christianity.

    2. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you read the article, it clearly states it's an OFFICIAL poll, i.e. either government controlled or requested from a private organisation and conducted under pre determined rules of question/s and scope, reflecting a wide proportion of the populace.

      This covers Mr Badtoes inane comment also.

      1. Joe Badtoe profile image61
        Joe Badtoeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        An official poll? commissioned by who?

        Any private organisation can do this and it doesn't have to involve any great number of pollsters. I could find 10 people and ask how many of them like sex and if 9 say yes well that's an impressive percentage ain't it? But it means shit in the real world.

        The source of your orignal post is from a right wing newspaper that thrives on extolling right wing racist views whilst aligning itself with 'christian' values you know like the conservative  right wing christian media does in the US.

        'A wide proportion of the population'? Really? I mean you really believe that?

        as god might say..oh my me.

        Now that's inane.

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Like I said... IF you had read the article, you would have seen:

          " The Office for National Statistics  said 1.3 per cent of men are gay and 0.6 per cent of women are lesbian.

          Tying the knot: Chris Bryant MP, right, and Jared Cranney are among the 1.3% of men who are gay. ONS figures explode the myth that one in ten are homosexual

          Another 0.5 per cent consider themselves bisexual, according to the figures gathered from questions put to nearly 250,000 - the biggest survey possible outside a full national census.

          This means that, in total, around 1.5 per cent of the population is either homosexual or bisexual.


          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z10puqrY4o

          Now how much more OFFICIAL do you want to get than The Office for National Statistics, a government OFFICIAL body.

          1. qeyler profile image78
            qeylerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Despite all the attempts to skew information to support this and that and the next thing, the most scientific studies have revealed that homosexuality is about 1% of the population.  The fact they have 99% of the mouth is why it seems so prevalent.  This 99% is constituted of  the usual 'politically correct'  mind dead.   What they say and what they really think are two different things.  As to Xianity; many nations consider themselves 'Christian' confusing the term with their values, i.e. the 'Protestant Ethic' (Capitalism) or the nebulous religious beliefs/practices which have Santa Claus in store windows, give a day off on Good Friday, etc. 

            When it comes to the right to annoy people, many western nations have licensed particular minorities.  Hence in France for example, one can understand Sarkozy's responses, as well as in other countries.

            There is a difference between your right to annoy and other people's right not to be annoyed.  Hence a Muslim Call to prayer will disturb your sleep. Do you have a right to sleep?  Or do the .03% have a right to practice their 'religion', as is often the way the argument is stated.

            Of course, it has nothing to do with religion or the freedom thereof, it has to do with the right to annoy.  It is like smoking in an elevator. I can smoke in my own house.  I can smoke in open places, I can not smoke where it will annoy other people.

            The Jehovah's Witnesses are past masters at expressing their right to annoy.  They will knock on your door, they will accost you in the street, etc.
            Other groups have copied this 'door to door salesman' tactic.

            The fact that many 'politically correct' people do not grasp is that certain things are done for a particular reason so as to be wrapped in some 'Freedom of...'  right.

            For example,  politically correct zombies have bought out the 'right' for an Islamic center to be as close to Ground Zero as possible.  One would ponder why that spot?  If I were going to build an Islamic center to be an Islamic center I would think, 'hmmm it would be in bad taste to be within a mile of G.Z.', but that is because if I built an Islamic Center I would be doing it to have an Islamic Center not for the ulterior motive of proving the conquest of Islam. Knowing Americans are fairly ignorant of history, even their own, they had no trouble using the name Cordoba, as a kind of 'in joke'.

            It would be like the German Society wanting to build a German Center in a Chasidic Neighborhood and call it  Reichstaag, or like the Japanese wanting to put up a center calling it 'Pearl Harbour'. 

            Because so many people do not understand ulterior motives, but are programmed to knee-jerk reactions when the keywords are 'Freedom of..' they go along with what is no more than a ploy.

            To put it simply, you can do what you want in your own house as long as you don't bother the people next door.  John Stuart Mills said it best, "Do  what you want, but don't do it in the street, it will scare the horses."

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              ""For example,  politically correct zombies have bought out the 'right' for an Islamic center to be as close to Ground Zero as possible.  One would ponder why that spot?  "

              Not true, that Islamic Center had been in the neighborhood for decades.

  4. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    very well said.

  5. paradigmsearch profile image87
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    "How much should society allow minorities to influence it?"

    All majorities started as minorities...

  6. kazemaru2 profile image60
    kazemaru2posted 6 years ago

    Well in a perfect world majority rules but whether it's government or business influence or wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few.

  7. mega1 profile image79
    mega1posted 6 years ago

    Society succeeds more or less depending on how the weakest people in it are treated.  This is not to say that minorities are weak, but that all society is a bunch of minorities finding common human ground.  What we all have in common, our needs, our aspirations, the fact that we all have the capacity for compassion is what is important.

    I think that when you cease to look at people as part of some group or other, according to skin color, religion, race, etc. then you truly see others for their humanity and treat them with respect.

    Sorry, but I think the OP's question is rather ignorant - since we all influence each other and society doesn't have the choice whether or not to "allow" it.  As much as you may dislike one group or another, you will still be influenced - and you might as well be accepting and compassionate, understanding and welcoming to others.  You will learn from this kind of interaction not to even need to ask such a question!

  8. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Minorities are as much part of society as majorities.  Everyone gets the same rights to speech, protest and representation.  Just as well as pretty much everyone eventually ends upbeing a minority eventually (disabled, elderly etc).  or perhaps we should just euthanise the elderly too rater than make healthy working people pay to support them?

    1. 74
      Girandolaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's just not true that everyone gets the same right to speech, protest and representation. The LGBT lobby is vastly over-represented and gets funding and charity status. It has now wormed its way into control of the media and all the political parties, and is in complete control of education. Everybody else is silenced, ridiculed and bullied. Russia has got the right idea  - keeping them in their place.

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image85
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Reading this thread... someone have been passing out the paranoia pills...

  10. peeples profile image88
    peeplesposted 3 years ago

    It strikes me odd how the same people who are okay saying minority atheist should have no say would panic if someone said "Well hey, you're a black person/mexican/woman (insert any minority who was once suppressed with religious backing) you can't have a say". ALL minorities deserve the same amount of say, and the only reason anyone has a problem with the idea is pure ignorance.

 
working