|
To the question, as a secularist, I see Halloween like Christmas: the sentiment of the holiday can be appreciated without the spirituality (whatever you think it is). And who doesn't like candy?
Edit: I don't you you'll find anybody on the Paizo board who's opposed to pretending to be a supernatural creature. ;-)
I'll let my daughter go out as a ghost; but I'll be damned if I'm letting her go out as a succubus!
|
|
Id Vicious' Proof of Vegetable Worship
1. In Catholic communion, worshipers consume wafers representing the body of Christ. Fundamentalists believe the wafers to actually be the body of Christ.
2. Communion wafers are made of starch and cellulose (so are some packing materials).
3. If communion wafers are both the body of Christ and made of starch and cellulose, then Jesus was a plant.
You been reading that 'lost' issue of 'Swamp Thing' by Rick Veitch, that DC refused to print?
Wouldn’t easing his suffering kind of defeat the whole ‘suffering for humanity’ thing JC had going on?
|
|
Swampy's not human, he's an elemental, so what would he care?
I think his attitude was; I recognise a kindred spirit, and hate what's happening to him, plus, I really need to talk with him to stop this pesky body-hopping curse I got going on.
NB; all the above, I took from interviews and partial transcripts I've seen. As far as I'm aware, the full finished story will never escape the vaults at DC!
I am not suggesting Swampy would care. JC’s old man might have a thing or two to say about it though.
|
Two, four, six, eight- it's time to transubstantiate.
Let's all get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your heads with great respect and
Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
Make a cross on your ab-do-men,
When in Rome, do like a Roman.
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya!
Gettin' ecstatic and sorta dramatic and
Doin' the Vatican Rag!
- Tom Lehrer
|
|
Taoism - S&!% happens.
Confucianism - Confucius say, "s&~@ happens."
Buddhism - If s~&$ happens, it isn't really s#$@.
Zen - What is the sound of s&+! happening?
Hinduism - This s$%! happened before, and will happen again.
Islam - If s&!$ happens, it is the will of Allah.
Atheism - I don't believe this s&&~.
Agnosticism - Maybe s@$@ happens. Maybe it doesn't.
Unitarianism - I love s*@~.
Rastafarianism - Smoke that s!++.
Presbyterianism - Let s~+~ happen to someone else.
Calvinism - S$$~ happens because you don't work hard enough.
Episcopalianism - When s~$$ happens, it doesn't stink.
Catholicism - If s#*& happens, you deserve it.
Christian Science - If s$$@ happens, don't worry. It will go away by itself.
Moonies - Only happy s+*$ ever happens.
Seventh-Day Adventism - S!*! only happens on Saturday
Jehovah's Witness - Knock, knock! S%&! happens!
Hare Krishna - S+*& happens, rama rama ding ding.
Evangelical Catholicism - Send money or s@+! will happen to you.
Hedonism - When s*!# happens, enjoy it.
Existentialism - What is s!%*?
Stoicism - S~!& happens. I can take it.
Judaism - Why does s~&& always happen to me?
Nihilism - Who gives a s*%&?
- Attributed to Richard Lederer
I take it we've run out of ideas now?
'Cause I'm sure I have existential quandries hiding in my closet somewheres if anyone would like to discuss them.
Taoism - s%%* happens.
Confucianism - Confucius say, "s%%* happens."
Buddhism - If s%%* happens, it isn't really s%%*.
Zen - What is the sound of s%%* happening?
Hinduism - This s%%* happened before, and will happen again.
Islam - If s%%* happens, it is the will of Allah.
Atheism - I don't believe this s%%*.
Agnosticism - Maybe s%%* happens. Maybe it doesn't.
Unitarianism - I love s%%*.
Rastafarianism - Smoke that s%%*.
Presbyterianism - Let s%%* happen to someone else.
Calvinism - s%%* happens because you don't work hard enough.
Episcopalianism - When s%%* happens, it doesn't stink.
Catholicism - If s%%* happens, you deserve it.
Christian Science - If s%%* happens, don't worry. It will go away by itself.
Moonies - Only happy s%%* ever happens.
Seventh-Day Adventism - s%%* only happens on Saturday
Jehovah's Witness - Knock, knock! s%%* happens!
Hare Krishna - s%%* happens, rama rama ding ding.
Evangelical Catholicism - Send money or s%%* will happen to you.
Hedonism - When s%%* happens, enjoy it.
Existentialism - What is s%%*?
Stoicism - s%%* happens. I can take it.
Judaism - Why does s%%* always happen to me?
Nihilism - Who gives a s%%*?- Attributed to Richard Lederer
What does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to say about s*^%?
Does anyone know exactly why some christians have such a negative reaction to D&D or any other thing involving lots of magic for that matter?
What does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to say about s*^%?FSM - If s*@# happens, it was obviously the will of a higher power.
Or maybe if God s&$% there is no way to prove that the FSM dosen't too? or something like that.
discussion starter:
I know there was a thread on this specific issue last year or so, but rather than ask about possible Christian opposition to Halloween, I wondered if some non-Christians would be willing to share how they interpret this particular holiday in relation to their religious beliefs.
For example, if you don't believe in angels and demons, is it okay to still dress up as one for a party or allow your children to dress as such for trick-or-treating?
Sure - I mean I don't believe in ghosts or superman but if my kids want to dress up as them thats perfectly OK. Angels and demons are fun and they sure look neat in a good costume.
I'd hesitate before allowing them to dress up as Jesus or Muhammad for fear of offending some one (everyone has a right to their beliefs and your not allowed to insult their beliefs) but this would be about respecting others beliefs really - not about the costume.
|
|
I'd hesitate before allowing them to dress up as Jesus or Muhammad for fear of offending some one (everyone has a right to their beliefs and your not allowed to insult their beliefs) but this would be about respecting others beliefs really - not about the costume.
I remember seeing a clip of a NOFX concert in some Muslim country. This one guy threw his headscarf on stage, and El Hefe put it on. As soon as he did, this other guy jumped up on stage, took the mic, and started reaming Hefe out for disrespecting the religion.
Obviously, this guy doesn't know the band very well.
|
|
OK, this is more sociopolitical than religion (and quite controversial), but here goes:
Whenever a woman (or minority) says that (insert name of group here) should "run the government" or "rule the world", it's OK, but if a white man says something like that, it's "racist" or "sexist". It's just as racist or sexist if, say, a black woman says it?
Why does this one-way gender/race/age-ism slip through?
|
|
Does the first parenthesis directly relate to the second parenthesis or are they mutually independent?
Mutually independent.
On a base level, I dislike anyone suggesting any one particular group should "run the government" or "rule the world".
Exactly what I'm getting at. It makes me f!&~ing livid; and the tiny little town I live in is full of that same " ___ is awesome, ___ sucks" mentality.
Director of Narrative
|
We're getting terribly off topic, but I don't even like calling heads or tails on a coin toss. I always call "tummies". One day it will land like that and people will be amazed and for once I'll be voting with the winner.
Why are there more choices in a good toilet paper than in a candidate? That doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
Does anyone know exactly why some christians have such a negative reaction to D&D or any other thing involving lots of magic for that matter?
I'm out of it for a little bit and see what happens?
"Exactly"? No. I think that it would be at least a little different for each person that has an issue with D&D and magic, etc.
But here are a few thoughts...
They were told to. For some reason, psychologically, it appears that many people really want to be told what to believe. They don't want to put a whole lot of thought into it. They simply want someone else to tell them what is right or wrong.
Fear of the unknown. People typically tend to shy away from things that they don't understand. There are a lot of people out there that don't "get" D&D.
Hard to figure out where reality and fantasy begins and ends. Regardless of what you believe, there are witches out there. There are warlocks. There are people out there that feel that they can cast spells. If you believe in Christianity, you most likely believe in angels and demons. A lot of Christians feel like D&D makes light of things that they take very seriously.
I think that most of the bad publicity happened when there were a couple of kids that killed themselves and it appeared as though D&D was the "cause". That seemed to be the jumping point to give credence to the "fact" that D&D was "evil". (Or something like that.)
For what it's worth, most Christians that I have come across recently know that they don't really have enough knowledge of the subject to cast judgement. On the other hand, it doesn't really take that many loud crackpots to make any group look bad.
Hope that helps.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Don't make me go all Calculus on you...Didn't I win this thread like 5 pages ago by making a watertight argument that absolutely and completely proved my viewpoint.
Edit: Just checked. Yup, I did! Woot!
Edit2: Wait...is this not the basic math thread? Aw s@%~.
That's not basic math!!!!
|
|
That's not basic math!!!!Don't make me go all Calculus on you...Didn't I win this thread like 5 pages ago by making a watertight argument that absolutely and completely proved my viewpoint.
Edit: Just checked. Yup, I did! Woot!
Edit2: Wait...is this not the basic math thread? Aw s@%~.
Ummm...
Associative Property?
|
|
Wow...this is a tremendously-long thread I shall never have the time to fully read.
I had a Religious Studies prof in college who made an interesting, if unoriginal argument. If you take the Ten Commandments from the Torah and the basic didactics of Christ from the New Testament, pare any reference to God or the supernatural, you result in a product promoting and counseling a pure, logical peace where the guidelines naturally culminate in a war-free, altruistic, social-democracy whose chief pursuits are the exploration and study of humanism, philosophy, and the natural universe.
Then he ruined it with, something to the effect of, "Earth would be like Vulcan, from Star Trek." I was the only student who appreciated the comment.
Wow...this is a tremendously-long thread I shall never have the time to fully read.
I had a Religious Studies prof in college who made an interesting, if unoriginal argument. If you take the Ten Commandments from the Torah and the basic didactics of Christ from the New Testament, pare any reference to God or the supernatural, you result in a product promoting and counseling a pure, logical peace where the guidelines naturally culminate in a war-free, altruistic, social-democracy whose chief pursuits are the exploration and study of humanism, philosophy, and the natural universe.
Then he ruined it with, something to the effect of, "Earth would be like Vulcan, from Star Trek." I was the only student who appreciated the comment.
Your professor missed the point.
Does anyone know exactly why some christians have such a negative reaction to D&D or any other thing involving lots of magic for that matter?And some good points by Moff
Well, I must say in many ways this thread (just from reading this last page) doesn't seem like it's stayed either civil or necessarily focused on religious discussion...Of course, I started the thing and then bailed before it got up to 20 pages, much less 40...
However, assuming someone is actually still interested in such discussions, and it seems so from Shenzoe's question, I'll be happy to continue.
For the specific reason why many Christians have such a negative reaction to things involving lots of magic, that one is fairly easy. There are biblical strictures, both Old Testament and New Testament, against Christians participating in "sorcery" and/or "witchcraft" (roughly "practicing divination" or "casting spells" in both Hebrew and Greek). These are fairly unequivocal statements, and any but the most liberal Christian thinkers would agree that such practices are outside the normative faith.
The sticky point is in the first part of your question--why some Christians react so negatively to D&D. As Moff states, much of it is due to the person simply following along with whatever they've been told (Note this is a human condition, not a Christian one. Indeed we humans tend to do this every day with tons of things, be it with politics, science, economics, etc. It's our easy way of making judgement calls without expending too much effort on whatever it is that we don't really care that much about...). And there is is still a strong following in some Christian denominations (especially those of a Charismatic bent in my recent experience) supporting the 80's mantra that D&D is evil. Much of this is indeed based around the concept of D&D involving magic, being a "gateway" to occult practices, or even that the game opens up one's soul to demonic possession. The actual scriptural foundation for this position, however, is not so clear as the above prohibition against sorcery/witchcraft. Obviously as I'm both a Christian (and a minister) and a gamer, I do not hold to their arguments.
I've seriously considered the question of faith and gaming for nearly twenty years now, since the time when folks first started telling me it was evil. I'd really say my struggle with answering this question was probably one of my earliest real steps into maturing my faith. My Baptist relatives mostly labeled it as a distraction (they didn't get into spiritual warfare issues as much), while my Church of God relatives at one point actually took all my books and said they had thrown them away to save my soul (they were actually just locked up in a trunk). I wanted to know, first off, if God was truly considering D&D on "the sin list" that I needed to avoid in order to be saved (a works-based salvation model, to be sure, and not something I've carried forward to today). My research in that area is what first led me to realize that Tolkien was a Christian. That he was friends with C.S. Lewis. That both men, apparently both learned and faithful, saw no condemnation in the utilization of imagination that involved such things as magic and fairy-tale creatures and indeed that Lewis saw it as a means of evangelization. I've played D&D for over two decades now and I've never participated in anything that would be covered by the biblical strictures against witchcraft. Gaming can, obviously, support such practices just as much as it can support rampant violence, sexual misconduct, etc. These are not endemic in the game, however, but in those playing the game. I've never been tempted to such things, or even persuaded in some way that they are "okay" as long as they are not part of my life. So, 20+ years of playing, no evidence of witchcraft. I have indeed found that my involvement with gaming has, if anything, given me a greater chance to share my faith with people that otherwise would not even listen to a Christian (as with this very thread). Ultimately a game (just like any "thing") has no potential for evil because it cannot, by its nature, make a choice to be separated from God. It simply is what it is—it is the person, a child of God that is either lost or not, that has by nature the potential for evil.
Now, the distraction aspect of gaming is really of more concern than the witchcraft to me. By this I mean that at times in my life I have spent more time, energy, and money on gaming than I have on far more important things like ministry and family. This, however, is actually more reflective of an individual than of the game and is unfortunately true throughout our culture. Most folks simply replace D&D with consumerism, sports, or some other "god" of this world. I have a somewhat addictive personality—parents and grandparents on both sides of my family have struggled with true addiction to alcohol and/or drugs. This plays heavily into my distraction with D&D as it was my "out" in life when things got too stressful. Had it not been D&D, however, it would have been something else (likely computers or some other sort of tinkering—I'm not a sports guy).
|
|
I had a Religious Studies prof in college who made an interesting, if unoriginal argument....
Your professor missed the point.
Well, he was a Religious Studies professor, not a theology professor--this was the School of Liberal Arts at UNC; the Seminary is across the highway. Religious Studies is an academic discipline designed to look at world religions from a scientific, anthropological, secular point-of-view.
|
|
And then, of course, there's the idiot intern (IQ: 75 +/- 5 points) at work that insists he's a witch/wizard/warlock (it varies day-to-day) even though he knows nothing about the religion (from what I can tell: Wicca) he supposedly practices. He keeps saying he's going to "hex" me. I keep telling him I'm going to break my fist on his face.
Best part is, he says that D&D is for losers.
Ignorance is a disease for which there is no cure.
Pesonally I have never really understood why reading certain books would shake the foundation of a religion. I would think that it would be good to read books filled with 'hereasy' because then you would have to make sure that you really did believe all of the things that you thought you did.
Thanks for all of the explanations.
I remember seeing a clip of a NOFX concert in some Muslim country.
AND they made it out alive.
Pesonally I have never really understood why reading certain books would shake the foundation of a religion. I would think that it would be good to read books filled with 'hereasy' because then you would have to make sure that you really did believe all of the things that you thought you did.
Thanks for all of the explanations.
I actually tend to agree. However, many people unfortunately don't actually know what they believe, be it religion or some other subject. They "lock in" on something, whether due to cultural influence, heritage, etc. and then isolate themselves from exposure to alternate concepts because that path leads to uncertainty. And again as Moff noted, we humans don't often like the unknown.
The truth is, Christianity (and most religions, for that matter) is not easy. It is not mass-marketable. What one might call "Cultural Christians"--those that self-identify as Christians due more to cultural influence than actual maturity of faith--may indeed have their religion shaken by reading a single book that is counter to their notions.
|
|
And again as Moff noted, we humans don't often like the unknown.
Fear of the unknown is a survival trait. If that other person is babbling words we don't understand, she might be feverish and dangerously insane. If his skin is a funny color, better stay away, he could have some deadly disease. Simple prehistoric instincts to avoid that which is different than ourselves.
Today we have to choke it back and pretend that the veteran with the visible disfigurement or missing limb doesn't bother us on a primal level, when something deep inside of us wants to run, shrieking a warning to the other monkeys.
And then there's the other type of monkey, the type that runs *towards* the fire. Neither type of monkey has any moral superiority to the other, both the monkey who runs away in fear and the one who runs towards in curiousity are following their natures.
I seem to be a runs-away kind of monkey, but I've become acclimated to the sort of people my grandmother would have run away from, thanks to moving out of the boonies and living in urban areas. Fear of the unknown goes away when the unknown becomes known. In my home town, the laws (blue laws, they called them, for some reason) were never taken off the books that black people weren't allowed to own property within the city limits (the laws where obviously unenforceable, but the one black family that moved in during my time there had their place of business, their barn and then their house all mysteriously burn down in the same summer...). The people there had all sorts of dire commentary about black people, *and they'd never met any.*
I'm sure that most of the kids who stayed behind from my class never got over their baseless distrust of black people. In hindsight, it seems kinda funny that they'll spend so much of their lives worried about people that they will never encounter.
And now, in a modern city of supposedly enlightened people, I'm eating Indian food, because all the Mediterranean / Arab restaurants closed down after 9/11 because fear-monkeys wouldn't eat in an Arab restaurant anymore...
Rural, urban, religious, atheist, whatever. Fear-monkeys run the world.
|
|
Pesonally I have never really understood why reading certain books would shake the foundation of a religion. I would think that it would be good to read books filled with 'hereasy' because then you would have to make sure that you really did believe all of the things that you thought you did.
As Erian_7 said, I also agree with what you are saying. I guess that the only thing that I would add is that if someone really thinks that reading any one book would "shake the foundation" of their religion, I question how good a foundation it is to begin with.
Erian_7 -- good to see you are still around.
Wow, 40 pages...
There are many odd things about religion. One of these is the idea that "you can't offend people's religious feelings". Sure, to most this means merely common respect for what others believe... however, many religious movements today consider it an offense to NOT ACT IN ACCORDANCE with their religious demands. Taken at a general level, this quickly becomes utterly ridiculous, and even more so given that most of us live in countries that profess to have freedom of religion.
For example, when muslims protest against depictions of Muhammed.
Within Islam, there is a religious tenet that says that depicting any human is bad, depicting Muhammed is very bad. However, I am not a muslim, and I can't be held to that tenet. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
Even more ridiculously: A religion might have any sort of tenets. Respecting all religious feelings quickly becomes absolutely impossible, if you count all the smaller sects and movements.
So, I can't see any possibility to give religious people that, and I will not. They get basic civility from me, nothing else. If they don't want me to act in certain ways because of their religious feelings, the fault lies with their religious feelings, not my actions.
With all seriousness... there are enough fascinating ideas in this post to form one helluva book. I did not mean for hell to be ironic.
|
|
Wow, 40 pages...
...
So, I can't see any possibility to give religious people that, and I will not. They get basic civility from me, nothing else. If they don't want me to act in certain ways because of their religious feelings, the fault lies with their religious feelings, not my actions.
So, let me get this straight --
You either think that it is either ridiculous to think that we can have 40 pages of civil discussion about religion and learn from each other or you think that it is ridiculous to think that people can have a civil religious discussion without forcing everyone to conform to all beliefs held.
It was a little difficult to tell -- did you have a question that you wanted to ask or did you have something to say that would actually contribute to the civil discussion?
You cut the majority of the message I wrote, and then draw weird conclusions from it? How odd. If you want to quote me, please quote me correctly and in context.
I'll take a stab at where I think Corian is going with this...At the core, your argument seems to be that the bounds of religious judgement cannot extend further than those who willfully submit to the tenets of that religion. By my understanding of Christianity, I actually agree with that stance. Various New Testament writings, from those about Jesus to the letters of Paul, talk about judgment and its appropriateness. We are told, for instance, to "judge not lest we be judged." But we are also told that if a brother (in religious terms, not familial) refuses to conform to the basics of Christian faith even after repeated attempts by his congregation to correct his actions, then we must "cast him out." This process would obviously involve judgement of said brother.
Are we Christians thus doomed to judgment by the first stricture because we must follow the second? Yes and no. If we as Christians, either individually or congregationally, unfairly judge a member of the congregation for anything, be it a fabricated infraction or a true issue but one for which the person repents, then we are indeed subject to judgement. Likewise if we judge anyone that does not claim to be a Christian we are under judgement because such people have not placed themselves under the same commitments as a Christian. Indeed without first being a Christian, it can be argued that a person cannot even understand the faith. If they have no understanding, then they are not subject to the same personal judgement by humans. However, once someone claims Christianity as their faith and joins to a community, that person is under the same obligation to conform to the ways of Christ as everyone else. Part of that process indeed involves others in the congregation helping members, both old and new, in daily coming closer to this goal. This is more properly called accountability than judgement, and should always be done for the edification of the individual and the church. Only in an extreme case, as above when a member is so recalcitrant as to cause disruption in the congregation, must the congregation then take the harsh steps of removing that individual.
Now, I should probably clarify how this whole process works in a Christian world view and such things as social interaction, governmental support, etc. I must not judge any non-Christian for actions I see as counter to my faith, but that does not mean I must accept such actions as normal, legal, etc. (yes this is the cliched "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra, but at it's core this is a very true statement for Christians). I am not an apologetic Christian that will bow to everyone else's beliefs in order to be politically correct, culturally sensitive, or any such thing. If you ask me my beliefs on a particular topic, I will state them to you. I will live my life, including casting a vote/supporting a business, according to my beliefs fully recognizing that my beliefs may collide with others. I will not, however, insist that anyone else accept my ways or try to force my point of view as the only one open for consideration. That's one of the reasons I'm so staunchly in support of freedom and democracy. True faith is strengthened not by isolation and dogma, but by careful consideration and daily application to one's life. Part of that application involves interaction with others, both of your faith and not. From a gaming perspective, there are members of my local group (and I'm sure even more from my online friends) that do not agree with me on religious issues (and political, and economic, etc.). We are all, I hope, made better people by our interactions with one another.
And howdy Moff...good to be back!
|
|
You cut the majority of the message I wrote, and then draw weird conclusions from it? How odd. If you want to quote me, please quote me correctly and in context.
Ok, so let me try again...
There are many odd things about religion. One of these is the idea that "you can't offend people's religious feelings".
Where does this idea come from? I don't think that I have ever heard this before. And actually, quite the contrary.
Sure, to most this means merely common respect for what others believe... however, many religious movements today consider it an offense to NOT ACT IN ACCORDANCE with their religious demands. Taken at a general level, this quickly becomes utterly ridiculous, and even more so given that most of us live in countries that profess to have freedom of religion.
I kind of understand what you are saying here, but overall (as has been stated here before), most religions seem to boil down to "be groovy to each other". In which case, acting in accordance should be a fairly simple matter.
In any case, that really isn't the point of this thread. The point of the thread is really to gain a better understanding of each other's religious beliefs. There are a lot of misconceptions out there -- this thread was set up to help address many of those. No one here is trying to make others "act in accordance with their religious demands." So, not quite sure what your point is.
For example, when muslims protest against depictions of Muhammed.
Within Islam, there is a religious tenet that says that depicting any human is bad, depicting Muhammed is very bad. However, I am not a muslim, and I can't be held to that tenet. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
And...?
I am not asking you to conform to any religious tenet. I don't think that anyone here is asking you to either. So why bring it up?
Even more ridiculously: A religion might have any sort of tenets. Respecting all religious feelings quickly becomes absolutely impossible, if you count all the smaller sects and movements.
What you say is true for any number of things -- from politics to 4th edition. "You can't please all the people all the time."
But, again, so what? We have pretty much said that if you can't handle that, then this probably isn't the place for you.
So, I can't see any possibility to give religious people that, and I will not. They get basic civility from me, nothing else. If they don't want me to act in certain ways because of their religious feelings, the fault lies with their religious feelings, not my actions.
Except that when you use words like "ridiculous", it tends to feel considerably less "civil".
Perhaps I'm wrong but it feels like you are saying that this entire discussion is a waste of time and ultimately "ridiculous". You didn't really ask a question and you didn't really contribute to the discussion.
Maybe I am just especially dense today. But if your point was not to say that all the people here are "ridiculous" for having a "civil religious discussion", then I really missed it and I apologize -- perhaps you could rephrase what you were trying to say.
(yes this is the cliched "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra, but at it's core this is a very true statement for Christians)
I have to disagree. (You might argue that I'm not one to argue, given I don't fit your "technical" defintion of a Christian, but bear with me.) Jesus wasn't saying, "love people despite their sins", his message was "love people because of their sins". God doesn't need love, because he's perfect. Humans, on the other hand, are imperfect beings, and they need all the love they can get.
There are many odd things about religion. One of these is the idea that "you can't offend people's religious feelings".Where does this idea come from? I don't think that I have ever heard this before. And actually, quite the contrary.
If I might, I think Corian meant to say "not permitted to," not "can't." And, yes, it's considered bad form to make fun of another person's beliefs. There's no point in it; they won't change them, and they'll just dislike you. Net loss for everyone.
Sure, to most this means merely common respect for what others believe... however, many religious movements today consider it an offense to NOT ACT IN ACCORDANCE with their religious demands. Taken at a general level, this quickly becomes utterly ridiculous, and even more so given that most of us live in countries that profess to have freedom of religion.
Let me also interject that this thread, taken as a whole, is hardly ridiculous... but that's not the issue, I think. What I think Corian is trying to say -- correct me if I'm wrong, C, but this is something that drives me up the wall as well -- is this growing phenomenon of "Aggressive Christianity." It's no longer a matter of peaceful co-existence; fundamentalists now claim that they're being "discriminated against" if Creationism isn't taught in science class; they say things like, "Merry Christmas -- yeah, I said CHRISTMAS, not holidays! And if anybody won't celebrate CHRISTMAS, then get out of my county!" (These are predominantly the socially-conventional types whom Erian (welcome back!) and Moff mentioned.) We saw it tellingly in earlier in this election year, when Sen. McCain was insisting that "the United States was founded as a Christian country!" (untrue, or at least misleading), and Gov. Huckabee went so far as to advocate rewriting the Constitution to "bring it more into line with God's word."
Non-Christians are no longer tolerated in many places by a growing number of people: people who seem convinced that we need a "Culture War" to "retake America from those secular-progressivist heathens." I personally have to be very careful here in Texas not to let on around most people that I'm not a Christian, lest I be socially and professionally ostrasized.