Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The phrase 'crumpled heap' comes to mind.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                       

Religious Offence Scale

A little test to see how flexible people are to religious change.
  (+5, -9)
(+5, -9)
  [vote for,
against]

This is a test to see how flexible people are on a spectrum of not being at all religious to being extremist.

10) I would kill someone not of my faith.
9) I would kill someone from the West.
8) I would kill someone who is not of a tolerated faith.
7) I would use violence and strong intimidation to encourage someone not of my faith to be part of my faith.
7)b) I am a Jehovah's Witness.
6) I would encourage someone not of my faith to be part of my faith.
6)b) I am a capitalist and believe the word of economic growth is the true word. Everyone should adhere to it.
5) When the subject of religion is raised, I will defend my religion.
4) When the subject of economics is raised, I will defend capitalism
3) When the subject of economics is raised, I will defend capitalism even though there's less and less in it for me.
2) I am tolerant to other people's faiths
1) I am tolerant to other people's faiths and non repressive beliefs.

Serving suggestion: Please start annotation with choice.

bigsleep, Jan 26 2013

Wikipedia: D&D Alignment http://en.wikipedia...ngeons_%26_Dragons)
Seems apt, even if somewhat tangentially. [zen_tom, Jan 26 2013]

Deviant Art: Character Sheet Resume http://laughingsqui...acter-sheet-resume/
Some prior art on the D&D character sheet approach to writing a Curriculum Vitae [zen_tom, Jan 28 2013]

In case you didn't know about my anno http://www.guardian...ancient-manuscripts
My pyromania got the better of me for 'religious' reasons. [TomP, Jan 28 2013]

UB's perfect companion http://ilovemyhouse...lovemiss-piggy.html
Ticks all the boxes. [bigsleep, Feb 04 2013]

[link]






       I guess I'm a 6-1, or possibly a 1(6): as part of my spirituality/faith I strongly encourage tolerance for other people's faiths andor beliefs. Maybe bump that up to a 1(7), since I once used physical violence in defence of somebody being persecuted for their faith, and would do it again without hesitation.   

       My only comment, other than to say that 7b caused me to laugh so hard that milk and half-chewed ejecta dribbled into my beard, is that I wish I didn't know what capitalism has to do with it.
Alterother, Jan 26 2013
  

       7b very funny. I am a zero. Not on scale. Believe all to be true. All religions, all Gods, all faiths
blissmiss, Jan 26 2013
  

       [mfd] thinly disguised mini-rants, all rolled up in a poll-rant.
FlyingToaster, Jan 26 2013
  

       Slightly modifying the scale here:   

       5) When the subject of religion is raised, I will defend my (lack of) religion.   

       6) I would encourage someone of religious faith to have more faith in humanity, to stop looking to the heavens for salvation and look around you instead.   

       8, 9, and 10 are irrelevant. I embrace my right to kill for legitimate reasons (ie, defense of self, defense of others, defense of nation) and would kill anyone, of any national origin, ethnicity, or religious persuasion, for such reasons without discrimination. In short, I wouldn't kill anyone based solely on such criteria, but I would not spare anyone based solely on such criteria either.
21 Quest, Jan 26 2013
  

       1 is the lordliest neotheism that you'll ever dooo...
2 can be as rad as 1 cuz it's the lordliest number since the number whu-one.
  

       I was thinking of re-writing my cv as a D&D character sheet the other night. That was making me try and fit different ideas/philosophies into the Law- Chaos/Good-Evil Scale.
zen_tom, Jan 26 2013
  

       INteresting idea [zt]. Can you give a {non personalised} example of what you are talking about?
pocmloc, Jan 26 2013
  

       My anno got deleted. :(   

       I am number 1, I guess, but I find a couple of religions are pretty repressive to insiders and outsiders as well.
Kansan101, Jan 26 2013
  

       That's as high as the scale goes? You've barely scratched the surface of intolerance.   

       11) I would kill someone who professes to have the same faith as I do but is actually a heathen unbeliever.
12) I would kill someone who is of the same faith as myself, but has a slightly different viewpoint on some minor doctrinal issue.
13) I would kill someone who is of the same faith as myself, but doesn't follow every single article of faith quite as rigorously as I do.
14) I would kill someone who is of the same faith as myself, but who associates with heathens.
15) I would kill anyone—of my faith or not—with no justification whatsoever, simply to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who even THINKS of straying from the path of my faith.
16) I would gladly commit suicide for the purposes of expanding the influence of my faith and/or destroying nonbelievers.
ytk, Jan 26 2013
  

       What [F-T] said. [-]
AusCan531, Jan 27 2013
  

       [bigsleep] deletes annos?   

       [zen_tom], that's a great idea...is there prior art or is that a new idea in itself?
normzone, Jan 27 2013
  

       // Somebody has set fire to my [book of religion]//   

       You know, that's something I've always had a problem with. The possessive attitude in such statements. Take the infamous Koran burning threatened by Baptist preacher Terry Jones. All those folks in the Middle East screaming "He's burning OUR holy books!" No, they were not THEIR holy books. It wasn't as if he broke into a Mosque and stole their Korans. He didn't take them from anybody. If he bought the books, then they were HIS books, to do with as he pleased.
21 Quest, Jan 27 2013
  

       // My anno got deleted. :(// //[bigsleep] deletes annos?//   

       Mostly my own lame ones. I think in your case I was reaching for my mug and grazed the mouse button and the mouse just happened to be hovering on the delete link. Yes, that's it.   

       [zen_tom] That's just how I imagined it. But I have posted some multi-dimensional ideas. Mind Horizon Profile probably being the best.
bigsleep, Jan 28 2013
  

       Fishbone from me. I hate multiple choice questionnaires and would gladly use violence and strong intimidation to encourage someone with a multiple choice questionnaire to go and pester someone more gullible instead.
DrBob, Jan 28 2013
  

       I love multiple choice questionnnaires because you can select random answers and, without thinking, appear to have a quirky and original take on the subject.
pocmloc, Jan 28 2013
  

       //I hate multiple choice questionnaires//   

       This is more of a multiple choice question.   

       //You've barely scratched the surface of intolerance//   

       Right you are [ytk]. 15) Ha. Bun for your anno, otherwise this is a pretty sucky idea.
bigsleep, Jan 28 2013
  

       I will answer this multiple-choice questionnaire truthfully.

[ ] True
[ ]False
hippo, Jan 28 2013
  

       Where does 'I just burned all the ancient manuscripts in Timbuktu' rank on the scale?
TomP, Jan 28 2013
  

       [TomP] Oh no. I told you not to do that again.
bigsleep, Jan 28 2013
  

       //I will answer this multiple-choice questionnaire truthfully.//   

       [hippo], that's not a multiple choice question, as the only logical answer is "True". If someone replies "False" they either intend to lie, but failed, or they didn't intend to lie, but reply that they will, so in effect, are lying.   

       You can only reply "True", whether you're lying or not.
theleopard, Jan 28 2013
  

       Is there a halfbakery troll scale?
RayfordSteele, Jan 28 2013
  

       1) I indiscriminately cast X number of fishbones per day/week to counterbalance all the sappy niceness of my fellow Halfbakers.   

       2) I automatically fishbone every post I see, whether or not I've actually read it.   

       3) I fishbone every idea posted by certain Halfbakers because I simply don't like the person and/or I take great pleasure for reasons all my own in ruining their day to whatever extent I can.   

       4) I claim all of my fishbones by posting an anno for each one declaring that it was me.   

       5) I hide behind the anonymity of the internet and laugh maniacally at my own cleverness as my victims stuggle to guess who the autoboner might be.   

       6) I post annotations stating that I have voted (or intend to vote) positively, but really don't vote at all.   

       7) I post annotations stating that I have voted (or intend to vote) positively, but really cast a negative vote.
21 Quest, Jan 28 2013
  

       Cf halfbakery geek code, 21Q.
calum, Jan 28 2013
  

       8) I have three or more accounts and I set up vicious arguments between my false names to drag other upstanding bakers into.
pocmloc, Jan 28 2013
  

       8) I worry about the voting totals excessively...   

       9) I routinely post diatribes for / against religion / custard / guns / politicians / America / UK...
RayfordSteele, Jan 28 2013
  

       Choice. (Has nothing to do with being religious)
I followed your rule and started my anno with choice....could never imagine killing anyone, except in self-defense.
xandram, Jan 28 2013
  

       Did you mean diatribes or polemics, [Rayford]?
UnaBubba, Jan 29 2013
  

       0) I'm willing to be killed so that other intolerant religions can exist.   

       -1) I was not able to answer this, since I have committed suicide in order to allow other suicidal religions to succeed.   

       -2) I'm so skeptical about the actual existence of any religion that I doubt anybody would react in any way for reasons that have any connection with religion.   

       -------   

       Oh and 17) I will kill everybody. That is my faith.
pashute, Jan 29 2013
  

       [UB], there's a difference?   

       # include <ideatext> int main () { if (idea.includes_religion) and (humor < minimum threshold) { fishbone=fishbone + 1 }}
RayfordSteele, Jan 29 2013
  

       -3) I don't even understand what religion is, can someone explain?   

       -4) You mean people take this stuff seriously? You're pulling my leg!
pocmloc, Jan 29 2013
  

       -3 Can someone explain? Sure.   

       "Why?" Wait, that's philosophy.   

       "Why not?" No no, that's hedonism. Let's start again.   

       "Because I said so." That's religion.
RayfordSteele, Jan 29 2013
  

       "Because I got high on cannabis / kaat / psybocilin / peyote and had a surreal experience out in the wilderness / in a room filled with chanting and swaying people / in a crude hut caulked with a mixture of fibrous grass and my own feces."   

       That's spirituality.
Alterother, Jan 29 2013
  

       Don't forget, [Rayford], this one:   

       "Why?"
"Why what?"
  

       That's the crucial interface between ethics and metaphysics.
pertinax, Jan 30 2013
  

       0) I "believe" I will stay out of this one.
sqeaketh the wheel, Jan 30 2013
  

       -1) I don't give a rat's arse for religion, yours or anyone else's.
UnaBubba, Jan 30 2013
  

       People don't need organized religion to have a one-on-one with the big guy.
They just seem to need to flock together, and any group can be corrupted. It's just the way it is.
  

       I say leave all of the power bases intact but force them to become transparent and do the jobs they were designed to do in the first place.   

       Turn on the lights and the cockroaches will scatter. That's what they do.
Cover the exits with roach motels before you flick the switch and...
the leftover cream of humanity floats to the top so things can get back on track. Simples.
  

       As for Papal infallibility... wouldn't that just apply to his own actions? He could no more control the free will of others than the big guy does.
Has there ever been a pope even suspected of diddling little boys?
Is that even relevant to the idea as posted?
  

       Will I ever be not confused by humans?
I'm thinking it's unlikely, so I am going to go and be confused by other irrational humans on other websites for a while now.
  

       Change is good.   

       My understanding is that the Pope is supposed to have some sort of line of communication with the Big Guy. If there's no divine influence guiding his actions *and his choices*, how can he be considered infallible?
21 Quest, Jan 30 2013
  

       //how can he be considered infallible?//   

       The Vatican is actually an alien outpost, where individuals are chosen to have their likenesses fabricated in robot form. Hence papal infallibility and the ceremony known as 'rebooting the pope'.
bigsleep, Jan 30 2013
  

       I'd like to reboot him in the ass...
21 Quest, Jan 30 2013
  

       //My understanding is that the Pope is supposed to have some sort of line of communication with the Big Guy. If there's no divine influence guiding his actions *and his choices*, how can he be considered infallible?//   

       How should I know?
Free will exists. You can't blame one man for another mans' actions, so stop it. You can make nothing but awesome decisions your whole life and still have other people change and screw you over. Happens all the time. The pope has to wipe the shit off his ass just like every other talking monkey, whether those descisions are directed by the big guy or not.
  

       It still has nothing to do with the idea as posted.   

       So little of the discussion here ever does, [2f].
UnaBubba, Jan 30 2013
  

       //If there's no divine influence guiding his actions *and his choices*, how can he be considered infallible?//   

       You don't know what the concept of Papal Infallibility means, that's how. Look it up. It's not what you think it is.
ytk, Jan 31 2013
  

       Papa Ratzi was not infallible when he failed to adequately investigate claims of paedophilia in the church (despite that being his appointed role at the time), because there is no universal doctrine on the subject, in Catholic teaching.
UnaBubba, Jan 31 2013
  

       //-1) I don't give a rat's arse for religion, yours or anyone else's.//   

       Frightening! For the first time, ever, I am in total agreement with [ub].
Klaatu, Jan 31 2013
  

       Oh I know how the church has explained it, ytk. The Pope is infallibe, but only when determing doctrine and positions on moral issues. So he's incapable of error *sometimes*. How convenient. Except, previous Popes have apologized for such decisions made by their predecesors. Their positions on antisemitism, treatment of women, the Crusades... all these things have been apologized for. If the Popes who were responsible for the church's position on these things were incapable of error, then how could there possibly be a need to apologize?
21 Quest, Jan 31 2013
  

       //Oh I know how the church has explained it, ytk.//   

       No, you don't.   

       //The Pope is infallibe, but only when determing doctrine and positions on moral issues.//   

       Wrong.   

       //Except, previous Popes have apologized for such decisions made by their predecesors.//   

       Not for statements subject to papal infallibility, of which there are remarkably few.   

       //Their positions on antisemitism, treatment of women, the Crusades... all these things have been apologized for.//   

       None of these positions were stated under the doctrine of infallibility.   

       //If the Popes who were responsible for the church's position on these things were incapable of error, then how could there possibly be a need to apologize?//   

       “In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know". His predecessor Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".” — Wikipedia, “Papal infallibility”   

       Your definition of the term is nothing more than a straw man. You're making up a definition that nobody except you and other similarly misinformed people accept.   

       There are five very specific requirements that must be fulfilled for a statement to be considered infallible. You can find them on Wikipedia. The doctrine of papal infallibility has only existed since 1870, and there are only two statements that have ever been made that are universally agreed to be infallible, and maybe a dozen or so that are potentially so. All of them have to do with beliefs regarding specific events or acts, such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. None of them has anything to do with antisemitism, treatment of women, or any of the stuff you're talking about.   

       There's plenty to fault the Catholic Church for without having to make stuff up.
ytk, Jan 31 2013
  

       //I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible//   

       That just makes it sound like the Pope gets to decide when he's infallible and when he isn't. Again, the whole concept just seems way too convenient. He gets to say whatever bullshit he feels like rattling off, but unless he invokes the doctrine of infallibility, that's ok because after all, he's only human. But if he does invoke it, you can't call him wrong because he's infallible.   

       1."the Roman Pontiff" 2."speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"....) 3."he defines" 4."that a doctrine concerning faith or morals" 5."must be held by the whole Church"   

       The Roman Pontiff, of course, is the Pope.
Speaks Ex Cathedra, basically if he chooses to invoke his apostolic authority.
He Defines, basically means it's entirely up to him.
That a doctrine concerning faith or morals (this could include, for instance, banning homosexuality)
Must be held by the whole church. This means you can't disagree with the guy.
  

       Now, I'll concede your point that the papal infallibility has thus far not been abused, but the potential for an immoral Pope to declare Ex Cathedra that all homosexuals must be shunned, or all women who have had an abortion must be shunned, or something equally ridiculous, is too great.
21 Quest, Jan 31 2013
  

       //That just makes it sound like the Pope gets to decide when he's infallible and when he isn't.//   

       Uh, yeah, he's the Pope. That's how it works. Just like the President gets to decide when he's giving an executive order and when he's just stating his opinion. Making infallible statements is part of the authority the Pope has. It is exercised very rarely.   

       Teachings of the Pope must meet five very specific criteria to be declared infallible. Again, it has only been used a handful of times, possibly as few as twice.   

       //Again, the whole concept just seems way too convenient. He gets to say whatever bullshit he feels like rattling off, but unless he invokes the doctrine of infallibility, that's ok because after all, he's only human.//   

       Isn't that true for everyone?   

       //But if he does invoke it, you can't call him wrong because he's infallible.//   

       You don't really understand what infallible means. In essence, an infallible statement defines a specific article of faith that Catholics /must/ hold, if they want to be considered Catholics by the Church. We're talking about things like the Immaculate Conception here, not political opinions. These infallible statements are used to define the nature of Catholicism, not to imply that the Pope is always correct about everything.   

       You're fixating on a concept you don't understand at all, defining it to mean something it doesn't, and using it to justify your prejudice against a group of people.
ytk, Jan 31 2013
  

       //the potential for an immoral Pope to declare Ex Cathedra that all homosexuals must be shunned, or all women who have had an abortion must be shunned, or something equally ridiculous, is too great.//   

       Not sure what your point is. How is that not true of /any/ leader, religious or otherwise?
ytk, Jan 31 2013
  

       You're right, [ytk], but you have to agree he does wear a very silly hat and believes some very silly things.
pocmloc, Jan 31 2013
  

       I don't think his hat is all /that/ silly, as those sort of things go.
ytk, Jan 31 2013
  

       A 500 question test including slights against important religious doctrines and figures, including redundant questions throughout to challenge the memory and honesty, and complex ethical questions offering invalid, intuitive and religious responses. The test taker will be observed throughout, and after submitting each question presses a button which will result in a random audio tone.
rcarty, Jan 31 2013
  

       //after submitting each question presses a button which will result in a random audio tone.// Or in the test subject receiving an electric shock on an increasing scale.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 31 2013
  

       hmm...
FlyingToaster, Jan 31 2013
  

       What [FlyingToaster] said.
Voice, Jan 31 2013
  

       //an infallible statement defines a specific article of faith that Catholics /must/ hold, if they want to be considered Catholics by the Church //   

       That is exactly the kind of thing that shows the mindless moronicity of religion. Given that most of today's religions were invented several centuries ago, and contain so much ludicrous stuff, you have to wonder if the Flynn effect isn't real after all. Maybe we really are getting smarter, and religious adherents are just the laggards.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 31 2013
  

       // Maybe we really are getting smarter, and religious adherents are just the laggards.//   

       There's a case for that, [Max], as science becomes more universally accepted as the truth.   

       For instance, ask someone today the difference between dogs and rabbits and most people will probably tell you they're both mammals but one is a herbivore and one is a carnivore or that one belongs to the canids and the other is essentially a type of rodent (as best they understand it).   

       100 years ago the response would have been more like "Dogs chase rabbits".   

       As people understand more about the world, the less likely they are to make sweeping statements to the effect it's been that way since creation... with the exception of the fundamentalists who just don't want to get it.   

       That process of understanding began with The Enlightenment and continues to this day.   

       I feel the current friction between Islam and the rest of the world is down to the fact Islam is beginning to go through its own Enlightenment. The Western one has taken almost 250 years so far. We're gonna have trouble with Islam for at least half that long, I fear.
UnaBubba, Jan 31 2013
  

       //The Western one has taken almost 250 years so far//   

       I'd go along with that as depressing as it is. Between the dome of the rock and a hard place.
bigsleep, Feb 01 2013
  

       Heh!
Alterother, Feb 01 2013
  

       The great thing about the Reformation is that it sought to remove the middleman between man and God. This (along with a great many other factors) weakened the social imperative of belonging to/participating in a Christian congregation to the point now where, by and large, each flavour of Christianity can operate on the basis of "if you don't like the rules, you don't have to join the club." The effect of this is that Papal Infallibility, as a statement of the preconditons for Catholicism, is as fair as the requirement to wear a jacket and tie in the bar at the golf club. Belief is not necessarily voluntary, but you can add yourself to whatever splinter or rump church that matches most closely your beliefs.
calum, Feb 01 2013
  

       Well I'm not going to google "rump church".   

       What does strike me is the leading values of the good old Great British society.   

       We had in the early 80's a series called Not The Nine O'Clock news. It was also a BBC production but of an 'alternative' variety. Playing down to the viewship, Britain, recently infiltrated by 'corporates' and foreign investment were making cars by 'robots' and not 'Roberts' and other privatisation vs nationalisation sketches. Privatisation was seen as 'selling out' in that any moral aspect of industry was given to the lower bidder. Hence I guess, the rump church or church of no pants.   

       Anyway, major point is. Britain during the 80's had a wonderful sense of self-deprecation. Humourous and hope-filled. Britain went through this during relatively positive times e.g. public companies going on strike because tea breaks had been cut from 4 to 3.   

       If we are to start brandishing the right to bear values, then having a populace aware of their own limitations is a great start.
bigsleep, Feb 01 2013
  

       //a populace aware of their own limitations//   

       Good luck selling that one. Pigs don't know that pigs stink.
UnaBubba, Feb 01 2013
  

       But humans do know that humans stink, UB. That's why we invented soap, perfume and cologne.
21 Quest, Feb 01 2013
  

       You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig, [21].
UnaBubba, Feb 01 2013
  

       //You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig, [21].// You've never been to Wales, have you?
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 04 2013
  

       Put lipstick on a cheap hooker and she becomes an 'escort'.
21 Quest, Feb 04 2013
  

       Put a $5,000 dress on an "escort" and she becomes a "companion".
UnaBubba, Feb 04 2013
  

       [link]
bigsleep, Feb 04 2013
  

       The fact that a specific religious group is singled out in one of the survey items, and that membership in that group, in itself, constitutes a survey response, suggests that the author of the survey is not particularly tolerant.
LoriZ, Jun 12 2013
  

       [LoriZ] Its a long-standing joke in the UK - their very pushy door to door tactics. It actually happened to me as well. Just imagine me as a small child and two suited JW's at the door trying to convince me to let them in - so wrong.
bigsleep, Jun 13 2013
  

       Rump Church, calum? That would be the Church of No Pants.
DrBob, Jun 13 2013
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle