Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Lupus surely we already have these guiding principles - the Human Rights Act for a start.

i remember jehovas witness ot something similar coming to the door for a few weeks running - i don't know why they did when they knew i had a religeon, but we sparred in an enjoyable way. when one day this fella asked if i had a bible - i did - he pointed out the - james the brother - portion of the text.

and i thought - so what. It may mean brother in the widest sense like MP is suggesting

but what if it doesn't

would that change anything for me

erm...no.

Custardo, I just meant there has been plenty of abrasiveness on both sides of the fence(and from those sitting on it!), your comment 'you are not a completely unintelligent man' followed with the passive aggressive backing up of this remark, was the most recent example of that.

I have read the whole thread now, and I can see that there were some very insensitive comments early on, which understandably got peoples' back up. Reading back over them, aside from a few(go fuck themselves etc), they were mostly down to a lack of understanding of the reasons for needing to observe such unusual rules, which from the perspective of people not involved in worship, they are. Not due to intentionally wanting to belittle and put down the Jewish faith as a whole.

From a non-believers stand point, it seems ridiculous to limit your life in such ways for something which to me is illogical and anthropocentric. That doesn't mean I think those people have to stop living that way.
I would never insult someone who chose to live this way by saying that to them or insisting they did not do it, so please take that statement in the spirit it was intended- that is, one of trying to explain where those 'what the fucks?' come from.

MP, your reaction to these (recalling the horrific Nazi camps) was one of the extreme examples, and reactions like that are the reason some non-believers shut down and are unable to have open discussions about religion, there is a fear of being labeled as an intolerant bigot for objecting to religion in any way. Intolerance is wrong, but that doesn't mean people who haven't chosen to live observing religious customs should find themselves governed by them.

In this particular instance, I think there must be a more simple solution than lawyers, and I wonder if everything has been reported, although the fact that it is a holiday home may have annoyed some enough for the odds to already be against them regardless of their religion. As it is their religion, it is being said here that the request ought to be treated with greater sensitivity, and that is true I think, but I can also understand that if their neighbours were ignorant of the importance of this rule to the couple, they may have felt they were just being difficult. We don't actually know how they addressed the issue, their manner, or their standing as neighbours in the first place. There could be all sorts of reasons for not coming to an agreeable solution, not just that they are Jewish.

Poppity : I find it bizarre (and infuriating) that people read the thread and then conclude that people get annoyed and feel they can't discuss these things because someone will accuse them of being antisemitic.

Just have a look at the comments that were offered before I did the terrible thing of "mentionning the nazis":

"selfish gits"
"superstitions"
"FFS"
"showing off"
"go and fuck themselves"
"should always be greeted with derision"
"whining"
"interfering"
"pc gone mad"
"when in Rome"
"pathetic"

It really makes me mad that MN, which was so anti the BNP, can then come up with comments like that against Jewish people. Do you not see the link? You sow a seedbed of religious hatred, you have Daily Mail columnists talking about 'burkha rage', you have people thinking it's fine to vote for the BNP: and now we have a Euro MP who used to lead the National Front and who thinks is on record for thinking it's fine to Bomb synagogues although we should avoid it because it makes the National Front look bad.

When I first went to a synagogue about 20 years ago I didn't understand why this massive building was not visible from the road, and was only accessible from a back door, with no notices or anything. When I asked and was told, with a shrug, 'Otherwise we get firebombed'.

Antisemitism is real, it isn't just a middle-class insult to win an argument. And if we are in a situation where the brief mention of Jewish people in a news article results in the instantanteous postings of otherwise intelligent people along the lines of the above insults, then I think someone has to point this out. How can you rant superior to a journalist garbling on about burkha rage when you allow these comments to go uncriticised?

So yes, I'm happy to remind you why we DON'T accept casual antisemitism; when casual insults might really offend people who have a right to be really offended, because they are worried about things that happened a couple of generations ago, and things that continue to happen today. If you read this thread and conclude that it would have been fine if I hadn't 'mentioned the nazis' then I despair. I certainly hope you 'mention the nazis' when discussing these things with your children. Because if doign so becomes a taboo then we are all in big trouble.

Mp, I'm actually horrified at your return, you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

I agree, there is no way it should be forgotten, I am insulted you think I felt it was taboo! That wasn't at all what I was saying. My children have been to visit many sights involved in the second world war, as it is a particular interest of my eldest. These have included places involved in the holocaust, my eldest has also read Primo Levi. I want to make sure they are highly aware of it, as it disgusts me. I would not accept casual anti- anything really, especially when it involves such a gross and violent history.

I said your comment was one of the strong ones, and I stand by that. I also said beforehand that I could see why peoples' backs had been got up. I didn't say it would all have been alright if you hadn't said that!(and don't think that either)

I might be wrong, but the when in Rome remark is a common phrase used when people are expecting others to fit in, I don't think the poster intended it specifically to be a historical reference to the Romans.
It wasn't right to say some of the things that were said, and I feel fairly certain that many people in RL would not use such inflammatory language.

I did say there were comments which were unacceptable, I was trying to show why those might have been made(a lack of perception and understanding), and that perhaps the problem wasn't actually to do with them being Jewish. Do you not think that is possible?

Actually, DS1 doesn't even want to go to Germany on holiday(and is horrified that we do), as he feels we would be betraying so many! I know this is not right, but am not quite sure how to deal with that one, we have talked to him about it at length. I just wanted you to be clear how aware my family actually is of the Nazis.

Poppity: TBH It wasn't specifically aimed at your post (sorry that it sounded way), really at ALL the posts that said similar things.

You sound like you are doing a good job of educating your DS.

oh, ok. Thanks, he is really interested in it.

I think it is very hard for people to put themselves in others shoes anyway, and even harder when those people have been persecuted. How can you understand what that actually does to your identity unless you have directly experienced it?

People are persecuted for many reasons, all unacceptable. I hope that no-one would think I would condone that just because I don't believe in god.

mp, could you just highlight which of those comments you listed are antisemitic?

I stand by my earlier post that the same language would have been used regardless of the religion of the litigants. So you were BU by jumping straight to Nazis.

Do you really want us to read the article and think, 'Well, how ridiculous! Oh no, wait, they're Jewish, better not say anything.'
Because that is patronising. (to the religion, I mean)

Hellobeastie, that's kind of what I was trying to say about non-believers clamming up. It is difficult to strike a balance between arguing about the point in question, and being seen as a bigot re religion.

When someone is in a position where there is potential for horrible bigotry, be it racism, antisemitism or anything else, it can be difficult for those who disagree with something they are doing without it being seen as discrimination. I would hate to be seen as being discriminatory, I really love different cultures and backgrounds and find them immensely interesting. It can be easy for someone on the 'outside' to make a mistake though, and there is perhaps not enough acceptance that this is just a mistake born of ignorance and not intention. I realise, however, that this is nothing in comparison to the lack of acceptance in the other direction, especially historically, but this fear of offending does put people off discussing it openly.

All the comments are antisemitic since they were made against people who were Jews. to some people this is how it works.

It's a pity OlympedeGouges deregistered, but it won't be the first time so I'm sure she will be back and indeed is probably reading this now. She was rude and condescending, but I did my best to ignore that. I only mention it now in case anyone thought she was driven off by an evil antisemitic conspiracy.

I hate to be seen as being discriminatory too, but I won't let it stop me engaging in debates about it. There is too much giving in to be on the safe side as it is.

Olympe looks like one of the less rude/condescending posters on this thread to me. At worst she seemed exasperated. Great shame she has deregistered.

Is it really anti-Semitic to point out that getting so hung up about a light sensor is nutty, though?

It touches on the thorny issue of where comments about a religion become comments about a race, really. The justification for the 'religious hatred' bill that didn't get through parliament (AFAIK) was partially that eg the BNP were saying 'Muslims do XY and Z', and couldn't be prosecuted under race hatred legislation because 'Muslim' is not a race. With Judaism, I guess, the race/religion thing is more closely correlated so though people meant to criticise a religion, mp saw them criticising a race.

The difference of course being that as an adult, not only can you choose your religion, but you can choose how strictly you follow it. We each have our own place where we draw the line. I don't imagine any of you Christians posting on the thread go out and picket abortion clinics, for example.
And I think the reaction of the initial posters stemmed from the impression that the motion sensor/timer issue is well beyond where most of us would draw the line in any religion.

CoteDAzur! We are trying to avoid the word 'nutty'!

I know this is Wikipedia, but it's very interesting on the historical proof of Jesus' existence, here is a snippet " There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[42] [4] Mention of "Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla" (Acts of the Apostles 18:22) has been conjectured[43][44] to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances". The full article is There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (circa AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[42] [4] Mention of "Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla" (Acts of the Apostles 18:22) has been conjectured[43][44] to refer to the expulsion at the times of these "persistent disturbances". here

And the accounts of Josephus have not been proved to be fake at all, they've been questioned because of their favouritism towards Jesus.

And UQD, you said "The only reason it seems like religion and superstition get a hard time is because their supporters are, perhaps, more shocked by it, as they don't expect it. They expect, in some measure, to be untouchable. They expect "respect". And they don't always get that challenging their religion, faith or superstition is not disrespectful."

That's very general don't you think? I've gone to great pains to show respect to non-believers on this thread, shame that some people can't return that respect. But you are wrong, the only criticism I've found levelled at believers on this thread, is that they imply non-believers somehow miss out. Whereas the insults from the non-believers against the believers are far far worse.

Remember folks, that once you get personal on a debate like this, you might as well kiss goodbye to any reasonable arguments you have, because the only reason to get personal is if you've lost the argument.

Here even!

As for Olympe deregging, perhaps what non-believers ought to bear in mind, that for some people their faith is their life. When you attack them, insult them, patronise them because of their faith, it cuts much deeper than anything else.

You might think it's a pile of crock, but at least have the bloody courtesy to treat people how you'd like to be treated yourself. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, I think many of you could do to read his words of wisdom.

People certainly do try to make a connection between Race and Religion, but they are just wrong. It's an excuse to put religion under the protection of the law when it has no right to be there.

If you are talking (as we were) about the practices based on the bible which certain Jewish people adhere to then that has nothing whatsoever to do with race, but some will try and make out that it is.

I thought Olympe is agnostic?

Just popping back in before I go.

Hellobeastie - I've mentioned Russell's Teapot many times on here before. People seem to take objection to it for some reason, yet I think it's a brilliant piece of analogy.

Custardo "you are not a completely unintelligent man" Nice backhanded compliment there

I do have to reiterate that I feel a lot of religious types are happy to cry "disrespect" at the first sign of having their arguments challenged. I don't know why this is. Maybe they are just not used to being asked to account for their faith. How can it be disrespectful to introduce an analogy coined by Bertrand Russell, one of the world's greatest philosophers?

I take the same approach here as I would with anything I was sceptical about - flat-earthers, crystal healing woo and the lot of it. I say "show me some evidence." If there isn't any, we can't have a debate. That's what I meant by the "not allowed to debate with me" comment. The way I phrased it may have been a little strong - I was more an expression of frustration than a cross prohibition.

If you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, we've got some shaky film and some blurred photos to talk about. It's not great, but it's a start.

The fact remains that, if you are the one making the extraordinary claim you've got to show something in the way of evidence. Otherwise it could all exist just in your head and we'd be none the wiser.

Rhubarb - I believe "in" Jesus in the same way I believe "in" Julius Caesar, i.e. as a historical figure whose words and deeds may or may not have been accurately reported. I just don't think they were "divinely" inspired as I don't believe in a concept of "the divine". Hope that clarifies things.

Actually, I don't think Olympe has a faith - as far as I know she is agnostic. Which is rather ironic given all these accusations of believers taking offence too easily.

Yes it does. I take it that the historical evidence of Jesus is enough for you then?

But again, I'll say that I don't believe in ghosts or fairies, however when someone starts a thread about seeing their dead relative's ghost, I'm not going to go in there and be rude to them, tell them that they are delusional, or mad. A couple of work colleagues go on about Tarot cards, I think they are a pile of crock, but again, I respect the fact that this is what they believe. If asked, I'll give my opinion.

But there is a difference between a debate, giving your opinion and views and deliberately goading, being rude, offensive and so on. There really isn't a call for it.

I thought Olympe was religious? I've obv not paid much attention to the thread!