Being 'socially inacceptable'...

[MrsSeanBean]

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

No I've never been persuaded by the fluffy clouds either (sounds more like hell actually)!

I think the bug is on its way out thank fully!

And thank you for finding my posts interesting - that is really all I want them to be to people!

Onagar - I agree that it would be wrong to say 'they'll get better now I've prayed' (even as a christian I'd find that offensive - they must believe their prayers are pretty powerful!!)
I think if you are not Christian and someone says they are praying for you, you can just think of it as their way of saying ''I'm thinking of you and hope things get better''.

I find that being a Christian and doing rather than saying also works well - ie. actions speaking louder than words. I try (and don't always succeed, but still keep trying) to be a good friend, patient, forgiving, kind and caring to others, random acts of kindness etc. There is no need even to mention God, but you can still be a good ambassador by how you live and relate to others. This can give a more powerful message than being verbally preachy.

Mersman: but to say that sex is only about vaginal-penetration-without-contraception and everything else is wrong for everyone (so no foreplay, no sex for pleasure even between married couples with 20 children...), to the extent that your whole organistaion is obsessed with controlling other people's sexual behaviour (which the Catholic church, and, so you don't feel unduly picked on, quite a few other sets of crap-peddlers as well - IS) is a disgusting and dysfunctional attitude towards sex.
Access to birth control has been shown over and over again to help raise the status of women, which is hugely beneficial to societies: having fewer children is better for women;s health and allows them to take a fuller role in the societies they live in etc. And dont bother suggesting that women's status could be improved by 'abstinence' - in sexist societies, men will not stop having sex with women because what the women think is seen as irrelevant; it's only access to birth control that will improve women's lives.

Mersmam, I don't mind so much if people mention christian beliefs in RL (not just prayer), but like MrsMerryHenry was saying for christions it leaves you with a choice of pretending to agree or hurting their feelings. I might argue the points on here since we're here to discuss it, but in RL I am mostly very polite and nod a lot.

I agree with Solidgold's point about organised religions being obsessed with sexual matters. I've read that this has been true of all (or nearly all) religions in one way or another. Some advocating abstinence (or at least only having relations when decreed acceptable by the church) and some going to the other extreme of incorporating sex into church services.

As sex is a natural function I do think the christian (and presumably muslim) attitude is unhealthy and controlling.

I would ignore what the church does, but sadly while those of us who do not believe are not trying to force those who do into following our ways. Those who do believe feel entitled to decide for us. This is true of many christian beliefs

MrsSeanBean - I agree that doing is far more important than saying...I heard a quote somewhere from someone (not very specific am I?) saying that tellingothers what to do tends to be pointless, but the best you can do as a Christian is to live a good life and pray for others. (I'm not very good at it either - but will keep trying!)

Solidgoldbullet - no the church does not say that sex is only about vaginal penetration, foreplay is fine! Sex for pleasure is also fine between married couples, so long as pleasure is not the only purpose and they are also open to producing a life... I really think I've made my point on this now... Personally, I do not find it a 'disgusting and dysfunctional attitude towards sex' but a natural, healthy and unselfish one. You are obviously allowed to have your own opinions - but do not assume that evryone should share them. Under no duress I LIKE my religions attitude to sex and marriage and I think it treats women with far more dignity than they are treat by society in general. The whole point of the church's attitude is that women should not be seen as sexual objects, and men should also show their love in other (non sexual) ways. For example, if a couple are avoiding sex during the time when the woman is most fertile they are supposed to find other ways of showing each other that they care - which I think is a great attitude!

As I mentioned, the church allows natural family planning which I know from personal experience is reliable (although takes a bit more effort and self control than unnatural forms of contraception).

Onagar - I don't think the church is obsessed with sex at all - it rarely comes up in conversation with my friends who are Christians! I do think that other people are obsessed with the church's views on sex though...

I'm the 'nod a lot' type too by the way! Although I wish I was braver

Mersman: thing is, whenever any new issue to do with sex or sexuality occurs, there are always these crap-peddlers musvcling in with their views, which are not only moronic, but totally irrelevant to sensible people. Hence the various religions' not-undeserved reputation for being obsessed with sex in an unhealthy way. While there are plenty of religious individuals who are happy to attend to their own sex lives and leave other people's alone, this is not true of the institutions.

So many posts! Aaargh! I really have to do some work so I'll come back later.

Just wanted to point out to KTNoo that were you said: "I would say that occasionally I do not get invited to social events by non-Christians because they think I might not "agree" with what they are doing."

• do you think this may be because they do find you to be judgy? (as I said before, this may either be down to your judgy behaviour or their wrong assumptions...or both!)

Glad we've got off the bizarre turn this convo took last night.

Catch you all later!

But solidgoldbullet if you believe that certain things are right and others are wrong, it would be a very selfish attitude to just get on with doing what is good yourself and leave everyone else to do what they want irrespective of the consequences.

It is the church's job as an institution to talk about moral laws - just as the government as an institution has to talk about legal laws.

I am not saying that crap-peddlers don;t have a right to their opinions (by which term I include all religions, cults, new age bollox etc, there is nothing to choose between them), organisations or individuals. I resent the power that too many of them have over the lives of people to whom they are irrelevant, when they are not democratically elected yet get chunks of taxpayers' money for pushing discriminatory and socially harmful policies.
And I am aware that we have a state religion in this country. The only reason I am not actively involved in campaigning to get rid of the CofE's privileged status is that I think there is a strong possibility that mainstream Anglicanism, being at the moment rather wooly, daft and benign-ish, does actually help keep at bay the fucking nutters, and that keeping this fluffy stuff as the official crap peddler makes it less likely that the UK will have the same sort of problems that the US has in this department.

Yes churches obsessed with sex not christians as such. I doubt the catholic standing next to me at the bus stop is really worrying that I might have a relationship without a licence from the church.

"It is the church's job as an institution to talk about moral laws" Solidgold kind of covered this, but I don't see it as the churches job to police my morals since I am not a member.

Also which church? Yes the CofE could make a case for being entitled to an opinion (though I'd totally disagree) but what right has say the catholic church or the '7th day evengelical church of the small bucket". By virtue of all being 'christian' they claim a common goal and authoritity.

solidgoldbullet - whether churches should have power over us politically is something that's difficult to answer... I probably agree that they shouldn't - they should just be allowed to put their views across and then leave it up to the individual's views and conscience. However, they should be allowed to put their views across (and I would say that in the UK the Catholic church isn't even allowed to do that!)
In some ways though it would be nice to see religion having a bit more influence as at least it aims to distinguish right from wrong whereas politicians really just aim to win votes for their party!
Anyway, no-one can really complain about my religion (catholicism) influencing Society in the UK too much (just look at the abortion laws to see it has no influence whatsoever!) so I'm probably on the side of it having more influence (not necessarily power).

I couldn't care less about distestablishment and the CofE - as far as I can see they don't have any real influence or make anything different - they just agree with the politicians (but I know little about it!)

Justaboutindisguise - I don't see that the Catholic church 'demands' control over people's bodies (certainly in today's society) - it just puts forward its views of right and wrong in a very definite, non wishy-washy way (which I personally like) - it is up to you whether you agree and want to live in the way the church teaches. I do think it is wise to at least listen and think about the church's views though, and not just dismiss them as being outdated.
''To me a one-night stand is far less damaging to the individuals concerned than an unloving marriage.''
Do you still think a one night stand is less damaging if it results in an unwanted pregnancy? Being in an unloving marriage is certainly damaging but that is not the church's fault - it's really up to the individual to think seriously about it before they get married, and to work hard at making the marriage a loving one.

Onagar - with regard to your 'which church' question' I think they should all have a right to at least put their views across, and perhaps there should be some kind of committee with representatives from all of the major religions that can have some kind of a say in parliament. I certainly do not believe that any one religion should have complete power (or even a lot of power!) - every institution can be open to corruption and should always be questionned...

The BNP is tolerated although it espouses nasty racist views.

The Catholic Church is tolerated although it
espouses nasty bigoted views.

Nice that we live in a liberal democracy isn't it.

Interregnum - I have tried to explain that the church's views are not 'nast and bigoted' already so I'm not going to go through all that again! The thing is, I don't think the church is really 'tolerated' by most people - it is just dismissed without question.

Justaboutindisguise - the church doesn't need to say 'you are free to choose' because we obviously are free to choose! As a Catholic I believe in free will, but I also believe in right and wrong. The church presents the Catholic view of right and wrong, and whether you want to go with it or ignore it completely is up to you.
The church puts it's views across re birth control etc just as any other organisation does. It does have a right to do that! It is not really that likely that it is ever going to have that much of a say anyway, so it will never take away people's choice.
Personally I think the government is taking away the choice of unborn babies by saying that abortion is legal... but that is just my opinion.

I was meaning that it's never going to have much power in the UK (in the foreseeable future anyway!)

You might be right that there are parts of the church that want political power, but I have no particular support for them. As I said above, I believe the church should put it's views across (and that people should really listen before they judge them!) and then be able to decide for themselves.
What I would like is for catholics just to be able to put their views across without being immediately shouted down from every angle. Everything the Pope says at the moment is portrayed in a negative way by the media (but then perhaps the media just like to portray everything in a negative way!)

I am not after Catholic world domination (believe it or not!)
God chose to give people free will so the only reason they should accept God is by choice - not by force.

I have to add that there is one issue that doesn't fit into what I've said - abortion is a very difficult issue because unborn children do not have that choice, they have no say in what happens to them. So perhaps I feel that the church does have a right to step in as much as it can in that area - because it honestly believes it is doing so to protect people who the government is not allowing to have a choice.
Can't see much hope of the church ever having the chance to do that though!