Can you relate?

I see that that people can have an opinion, but not at the expense of the whole. Some people need to moderate their opinions
Those whose opinions don't concur with my own?

It's the last line of Animal Farm by George Orwell, imo
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
 
Those whose opinions don't concur with my own?

It's the last line of Animal Farm by George Orwell, imo
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
There is a God given standard we can all consider.

Regards Tony
 
There is a God given standard we can all consider.

Regards Tony
I'm interested to know where you're going with this. Churchill said: "I might disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

There is a move at UK universities to block some people from speaking, whose views do not please the 'trans' crowd, or whose views fall on the 'wrong' side of the Israel Palestine issue. People like JK Rowling are cancelled for their opinions on womens' rights, and so on.

So whose views do you think need to be moderated? And by whom?
 
I'm interested to know where you're going with this. Churchill said: "I might disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

There is a move at UK universities to block some people from speaking, whose views do not please the 'trans' crowd, or whose views fall on the 'wrong' side of the Israel Palestine issue. People like JK Rowling are cancelled for their opinions on womens' rights, and so on.

So whose views do you think need to be moderated? And by whom?
Godless views by our own selves.

Regards Tony
 
Can you expand? Do you mean that we should moderate our own opinions?
Very much so, in line with God's Laws. There is no greater wisdom, why would we want to offer an opinion that is not in tune with that wisdom?

Regards Tony
 
I'm interested to know where you're going with this. Churchill said: "I might disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

There is a move at UK universities to block some people from speaking, whose views do not please the 'trans' crowd, or whose views fall on the 'wrong' side of the Israel Palestine issue. People like JK Rowling are cancelled for their opinions on womens' rights, and so on.

So whose views do you think need to be moderated? And by whom?
You raise a very interesting point. I have never been a conservative, and generally have supported what might be called progressive elements. However I find myself very sympathetic to Churchill's statement.

I was always uncomfortable with the unquestioning as opposed to qualified support that can be given to certain causes, but that does not mean there is not at least some justice in those causes. So rather than argue, I try to get people thinking. At one time support for the IRA was standard fare with the British left. I would express sympathy for oppressed people but mention that I was upset when some members of the IRA once referred to some British anarchists as "****** lovers." I have also quoted anti-semitic and pro Nazi remarks made by some Palestinian supporters.

So I do not as a rule support blocking and cancelling. I do find some ruffling of feathers though to be a healthy practice.
 
why would we want to offer an opinion that is not in tune with that wisdom?
@Tony Bristow-Stagg

You mean in line with what you believe to be God's laws, as expressed by someone whom you believe to be God's only true representative -- where others may differ?

In other words, those who disagree with your (religious) opinions, should moderate theirs, to comply with yours?

And surely you see where that leads?
 
Last edited:
You raise a very interesting point. I have never been a conservative, and generally have supported what might be called progressive elements. However I find myself very sympathetic to Churchill's statement.

I was always uncomfortable with the unquestioning as opposed to qualified support that can be given to certain causes, but that does not mean there is not at least some justice in those causes. So rather than argue, I try to get people thinking. At one time support for the IRA was standard fare with the British left. I would express sympathy for oppressed people but mention that I was upset when some members of the IRA once referred to some British anarchists as "****** lovers." I have also quoted anti-semitic and pro Nazi remarks made by some Palestinian supporters.

So I do not as a rule support blocking and cancelling. I do find some ruffling of feathers though to be a healthy practice.
Hi @Leveller
England seems to be starting to stand up to the cancel culture Nazis:
I'm glad England is starting to get a handle on cancelling and no-platforming at universities:

The Times 1/06/2023
I'll defend all views, vows professor


Universities face "urgent threats to free speech and academic freedom", Arif Ahmed, the government's new freedom of speech champion has said.

Ahmed pledged to use his new role to stand up for "all views", adding that he was not in the role to join in any culture war nor promote the views of the government.

The Cambridge professor is the first to fill the job, which was announced by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2021 as part of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

As well as championing freedom of expression on campus, Ahmed will be responsible for investigating any infringements of the duties placed on universities to promote freedom of speech.

The bill, which became law on May 11, also includes a new complaints scheme which could result in sanctions for universities that do not uphold freedom of speech within the law.

Ahmed said failures could include no-platforming external speakers, enforcing "ideological" bias training for staff and students, and disciplining lecturers for their social media activity.

The DfE has also suggested that universities that use non-disclosure agreements against staff or students who report bullying or abuse could be affected by the bill.

A blogpost by the DfE said: "Students, staff and visiting speakers will be able to bring claims to court if they feel they have suffered loss as a result of their free speech rights being unlawfully restricted."

The complaints scheme has not yet been finalised and the government is still drawing up regulation to enact the bill. When implemented, it is expected to be administered by the Office for Students (OfS) -- the independent regulator of higher education in England. Ahmed will become a member of the board of the OfS.

Susan Lapworth, its chief executive, said: "Freedom of speech and academic freedom are essential underpinning principles of higher education in England. Arif's appointment will ensure they continue to be robustly defended."

Claire Coutinho, the children's, families and wellbeing minister, said: "We're making history with the Freedom of Speech Act, ensuring fear does not undermine the rights of students and academics to debate controversial ideas and securing the right to an open ex- change of ideas in universities."

Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, which advocates for freedom of expression, said: "[Ahmed's] track record as a defender of free speech and academic freedom is exemplary.

"I'm particularly pleased the new free speech tsar is, broadly speaking, a man of the left. Woke activists on campus need to realise it's in their interests to defend free speech, not just male, pale and stale conservatives."

However, Dr Jo Grady, general secretary of the Universities and Colleges Union, which represents lecturers and staff, said the biggest threat to academic freedom came from the increasing use of casual staff who may not have the freedom to pursue research. She said: "There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, but they come from widespread precarious employment practices which strip academics of the ability to speak and re- search freely. It's clear to anyone paying attention to this government. it has ... no interest in protecting civil liberties."

A spokeswoman for Universities UK said the sector would welcome Ahmed's appointment: "Universities take their responsibility to protect and promote both free speech and academic freedom seriously."

View attachment 3411
Free speech tsar warns: Democracy is at stake
The Times 1/06/2023



Democracy is at stake if universities do not protect freedom of expression, the government's new free speech tsar says.

Arif Ahmed, a professor of philosophy at Cambridge, has been appointed director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, the higher education regulator

His role includes investigating incidents of no-platforming and the use of non-disclosure agreements among others. The watchdog will have the power to fine or sanction universities that do not uphold free expression.

Writing in The Times today, he says "We settle disputes by discussion, not censorship or violence. Today that idea is fading across our institutions. Universities must defend it by precept and example Democracy itself is at stake."

This week protesters tried to cancel a talk at the Oxford Union by Kathleen Stock, the "gender-critical" academic who has challenged trans rights. Ahmed vowed to uphold free speech for "all views and approaches: post-colonial theory as much as gender-critical feminism. He said "Free speech and academic freedom are vital to the core purpose of universities. They are not partisan values. They are also fundamental to our civilisation"

Rishi Sunak [prime minister]. said: "A tolerant society is one which allows us to understand those we disagree with, and nowhere is that more important than within our great universities"

The government will set up a complaints scheme so students and academics who feel their speech has been restricted can seek redress.

View attachment 3412

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20653/page-4#post-375888
 
Yes, I think some sort of balance will be restored. For me, one of the most frightening things about cancelling and blocking, is the setting of precedents. When you start this particular ball rolling, where will it stop.
 
Last edited:
Ok. But what do those words actually mean?
@Tony Bristow-Stagg

You mean in line with what you believe to be God's laws, as expressed by someone whom you believe to be God's only true representative -- where others may differ?

In other words, those who disagree with your (religious) opinions, should moderate theirs, to comply with yours?

And surely you see where that leads?
It means that God does not leave humanity alone and does send us Laws and Guidance, it is up to us to find that guidance and eat of the Fruit God has given us to eat of. It is up to us to embrace and practice those Laws and use the guidance wisely. All God's guidance is about looking after the good of the whole, in preference to self.

It is self based motivation that drives one to think their opinion is more important than the welfare of the whole. There is a balance that is needed. Moderation in all things is our challenge, as we are not the givers or holders of truth. We veil our own selves.

There are many tangents to moderation that can be explored, as there are times when the good of the whole does rest on certain principles. The holders of Truth are not able to be moderate, (in delivering the Message they are meak) as they are the scales of Justice, (we can use Jesus, as an example of this). The Message of God given by Jesus, was seen by the majority, those who had an education based opinion, to be an blasphemous opinion of Jesus. In this case the Message is not able to be compromised, as that Message is the foundation of all that is good. The people that needed to moderate their views were those that opposed Jesus and subsequently opposed those that embraced that Message.

This is applicable everytime God gives humanity a Message. It is each of us that have to subdue our own opinions and embrace the world redeeming Word that is the standards required of all of us, and the guidance that is required of us all.

It is naught to do with my opinions or choices. In all of this, my part is my own moderation, of my own opinions, that are not founded in a Message given by God.

Then the quandary unfolds. What is of God and what is of our own selves?

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:
It is naught to do with my opinions or choices. In all of this, my part is my own moderation, of my own opinions, that are not founded in a Message given by God.

Then the quandary unfolds. What is of God and what is of our own selves?
Well it has to do with your choice whom to believe as the Messenger of God? Mormons believe it is Joseph Smith; Amadiyya believe it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; Rastafarians believe it is Haile Selassie? There are countless Hindu gurus whom their followers believe are the embodiment of the message of God ...
 
Often they can seem to become cults of personality, and when there is talk of 'non-believers' needing to moderate their opinions, it can seem to reinforce that impression? It is understood that Baha'i sincerely believe Baha'u'llah to be the embodiment of God's message. The sincerity is in no doubt.

Peace
 
What does that mean? Always be an ignorant and dumb person?
I think the writer was saying that gaining more knowledge(of the world) increases awareness of bad things.
While this can be true, the joy of increased knowledge out weighs the bad things.
The writer's view is pessimistic, imo.
 
Well it has to do with your choice whom to believe as the Messenger of God? Mormons believe it is Joseph Smith; Amadiyya believe it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; Rastafarians believe it is Haile Selassie? There are countless Hindu gurus whom their followers believe are the embodiment of the message of God ...

I see the Word of God does not need any of us to accept RJM. It remains the Word, it remains the life giving force, the call to humanity, no matter what we choose.

Many are called, few are chosen, and God bless them all, it is own reaction to God's Message that unites or divides humanity.

All the best will sign out for a while.

Regards Tony
 
I see the Word of God does not need any of us to accept RJM. It remains the Word, it remains the life giving force, the call to humanity, no matter what we choose.
And I believe 'God' responds to the sincere soul any time, any place -- any faith or lack of faith. I'm unlikely to 'modify' my opinion to meet those who choose to believe a thousand reign of the inerrant word of Baha'u'llah as the only option for all humanity and essentially binning Jesus and all previous 'messengers' ... so
 
Last edited:
And I believe 'God' responds to the sincere soul any time, any place -- any faith or lack of faith. I'm unlikely to 'modify' my opinion to meet those who choose to believe a thousand reign of the inerrant word of Baha'u'llah as the only option for all humanity and essentially binning Jesus and all previous 'messengers' ... so

Yes indeed, God cares for us all.

It is God that sends the Messengers with what is required in the age we live.

"So", we all get your choice and may that choice be born from all that is Christ.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion"

Abdu'l-Baha explained it well.

"...To recapitulate: our meaning is that the change and modification of conditions, and the altered requirements of different centuries and times, are the cause of the abrogation of laws. For a time comes when these laws are no longer suitably adapted to conditions. Consider how very different are the requirements of the first centuries, of the Middle Ages, and of modern times. Is it possible that the laws of the first centuries could be enforced at present? It is evident that it would be impossible and impracticable. In the same manner, after the lapse of a few centuries, the requirements of the present time will not be the same as those of the future, and certainly there will be change and alteration. In Europe the laws are unceasingly altered and modified; in bygone years, how many laws existed in the organizations and systems of Europe, which are now abrogated! These changes and alterations are due to the variation and mutation of thought, conditions and customs. If it were not so, the prosperity of the world of humanity would be wrecked. For example, there is in the Pentateuch a law that if anyone break the Sabbath, he shall be put to death. Moreover, there are ten sentences of death in the Pentateuch. Would it be possible to keep these laws in our time? It is clear that it would be absolutely impossible. Consequently, there are changes and modifications in the laws, and these are a sufficient proof of the supreme wisdom of God..." Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, p. 92.

Regards Tony
 
Back
Top