Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

8. Who defines what respect means?

Reply to el_bryanto (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 12, 2013, 03:07 PM

Jul 2013

Those who get offended, of course. You've just shifted the problem, you haven't solved it.

What I feel about religious DUers is that many of them do not fully understand the role of religion in the problems we face and how combating it with MORE religion (just the "good" kind) is the answer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In Russia It Is Now a Crime to Insult Someone's Religious Feelings [View all] cbayer Jul 2013 OP

From what I've seen on DU, trotsky Jul 2013 #1

I would oppose such a law. el_bryanto Jul 2013 #3

Do you believe people have a right to not be offended? trotsky Jul 2013 #4

No, Definitely, Sometimes, and Sometimes el_bryanto Jul 2013 #5

Someone is *always* going to be offended no matter what you do. trotsky Jul 2013 #6

Well 2 points el_bryanto Jul 2013 #7

Who defines what respect means? trotsky Jul 2013 #8

2 more points el_bryanto Jul 2013 #9

2 more responses: trotsky Jul 2013 #10

I suppose then I will continue challenging you and disagreeing with you el_bryanto Jul 2013 #13

Go right ahead! trotsky Jul 2013 #15

I post in interfaith still. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #20

Speaking of butthurt, rug Jul 2013 #19

I would oppose it as well. cbayer Jul 2013 #18

Not me! hrmjustin Jul 2013 #11

No, not you. trotsky Jul 2013 #12

Interesting. I wonder who this description could apply to? nt el_bryanto Jul 2013 #14

Not you either. n/t trotsky Jul 2013 #17

I would hope nobody would agree with the sentiment. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #16

Cbayer, is this law something you agree with? cleanhippie Jul 2013 #2

From this exchange, the answer seems to be yes cpwm17 Jul 2013 #30

You might want to read my responses in this thread before putting words in my mouth cbayer Jul 2013 #31

I almost didn't want to make that comment above cpwm17 Jul 2013 #33

That exchange was in a total flamebait thread. Why take my words out of context from cbayer Jul 2013 #35

Yeah, I think you are right. Notice her complete lack of an answer, just obfuscation. cleanhippie Jul 2013 #32

Yes, and that linked exchange shows why separation of church and state is really important cpwm17 Jul 2013 #34

I totally agree with you and again point out that you are taking my previous words out of context cbayer Jul 2013 #36

Russia is drifting back into the system that held at the time of the Czar. dimbear Jul 2013 #21

One person's religion is another's blasphemy... uriel1972 Jul 2013 #22

How can blasphemy be a religion? cbayer Jul 2013 #23

Religion A believes X is true Religion B not only believes X is not true... uriel1972 Jul 2013 #24

Isn't blasphemy a verb, an intentional action taken by a person? cbayer Jul 2013 #25

Okay I get your drift... uriel1972 Jul 2013 #26

I guess it can be a fine line, which is why this law is pretty frightening. cbayer Jul 2013 #27

Blasphemy is a noun Rob H. Jul 2013 #28

You are correct. I think I messed up my point by making that distinction. cbayer Jul 2013 #29