Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[MidknytOwl]

Originally Posted by pepak

1) Any book will seem "intolerant" to someone (there is no shortage of people who believe that "tolerant" is synonymous to "matching my preferences"). If Sony placed the Bible on the Reader, it would be muslim, atheists and others who would complain.

Well that was going to be a main portion in my argument. Would you have been irritated or even noticed if they included an excerpt from the Bible? It would have bothered me.

I was half expecting when opening this thread to see that someone found out that the Sony store offers a Bible but not the Koran, or something similar. (Which as a side note I looked at the store to see if they did have both, and they not only did, but the religious sub-sections included one for atheism. I would argue that Sony seems to be more religious tolerant than most, although other posts are probably more accurate with they care about money and not the other parts.)

My question to you is do you think your strong reaction to the inclusion is in part that you are used to things being on your side of religion? Like the above Bible question? I would bet that as a believer in god you probably don't even notice how many things across the US have Christian undertones. For example, I read a news article today about the Maryland kid who killed his family getting four life sentences. The last line of the article?

"The question of whether his actions were just diabolically evil," Bollinger said, "is up to almighty God."

Bollinger being the County Circuit Judge that did the sentencing.

Would you have even noticed or thought about that sentence? As part of the 10-15% that doesn't believe in your god, it's something I get harassed with every day. A judge shouldn't be mentioning god. Nor should there be god in the presidential oath, on the money, etc. It doesn't matter that the majority of the population believe in it, although I don't think the 85-90% all refer to their deity as god anyway. The country was founded on the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion, yet there is clear Christian bias in the country.

How much of the inclusion of the book is because it really offends you, and how much is because you're just not used to being faced with the blatant countering of your religious beliefs on a regular basis? I would have been pissed off if they included the Bible, but nowhere near to the degree that you were for them including this book. I think you're just not used to the tables being turned against you.

[kazbates]

As another poster did, I deleted the excerpts from my 700 as soon as I got it up and running without really looking them over closely since I already know what books I like to read in the small amount of free time I have. If I had noticed the book, I would have been mildly frustrated with the type of book that was included. If they were going to include that excerpt, they should have given equal time to the opposing view point. That doesn't mean they would have needed to post a book with Christian overtones, but something that discussed the belief in a God. I honestly don't think Sony was trying to promote an agend. However, as evidenced here in this thread, peoples' views and feelings on religion (or non-religion) are so strong that it might have been a better choice to leave off that excerpt completely.
Kaz

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by MidknytOwl

Well that was going to be a main portion in my argument. Would you have been irritated or even noticed if they included an excerpt from the Bible? It would have bothered me.

I was half expecting when opening this thread to see that someone found out that the Sony store offers a Bible but not the Koran, or something similar. (Which as a side note I looked at the store to see if they did have both, and they not only did, but the religious sub-sections included one for atheism. I would argue that Sony seems to be more religious tolerant than most, although other posts are probably more accurate with they care about money and not the other parts.)

My question to you is do you think your strong reaction to the inclusion is in part that you are used to things being on your side of religion? Like the above Bible question? I would bet that as a believer in god you probably don't even notice how many things across the US have Christian undertones. For example, I read a news article today about the Maryland kid who killed his family getting four life sentences. The last line of the article?

"The question of whether his actions were just diabolically evil," Bollinger said, "is up to almighty God."

Bollinger being the County Circuit Judge that did the sentencing.

Would you have even noticed or thought about that sentence? As part of the 10-15% that doesn't believe in your god, it's something I get harassed with every day. A judge shouldn't be mentioning god. Nor should there be god in the presidential oath, on the money, etc. It doesn't matter that the majority of the population believe in it, although I don't think the 85-90% all refer to their deity as god anyway. The country was founded on the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion, yet there is clear Christian bias in the country.

How much of the inclusion of the book is because it really offends you, and how much is because you're just not used to being faced with the blatant countering of your religious beliefs on a regular basis? I would have been pissed off if they included the Bible, but nowhere near to the degree that you were for them including this book. I think you're just not used to the tables being turned against you.

I'm suprised you wouold be pissed off if the Bible was included. I'm an athiest to, but I recognize the fact that the Bible is the most ubiquitious book. I even have a copy of it.

[HarryT]

I find it deeply worrying that anyone would object to a book such as this being included. As others have said, the only "religious intolerance" here appears to be that of the original poster .

[MidknytOwl]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

I'm suprised you wouold be pissed off if the Bible was included. I'm an athiest to, but I recognize the fact that the Bible is the most ubiquitious book. I even have a copy of it.

I thought I changed that to annoyed, actually. I probably wouldn't be pissed, but at least agitated. I think it's the ubiquitousness that irks me.

Psst…I'm not an atheist. I'm a polytheist if anything, but mostly could care less about the whole religion/spiritual thing.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by MidknytOwl

Would you have even noticed or thought about that sentence? As part of the 10-15% that doesn't believe in your god, it's something I get harassed with every day. A judge shouldn't be mentioning god. Nor should there be god in the presidential oath, on the money, etc. It doesn't matter that the majority of the population believe in it, although I don't think the 85-90% all refer to their deity as god anyway. The country was founded on the separation of church and state and the freedom of religion, yet there is clear Christian bias in the country.

The separation of church and state refers to the organizations, not personal belief.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The separation of church and state refers to the organizations, not personal belief.

isn't that the point being made ? i would think that the US justice system is a clear example of an organisation which should be secular. i also am a bit shocked that a judge would refer to god, that god is mentioned in the presidential oath, etc. even from over here it is clear that there is a very strong religious (christian) bias in the US.

[Ramen]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find it deeply worrying that anyone would object to a book such as this being included. As others have said, the only "religious intolerance" here appears to be that of the original poster .

My thoughts exactly. Love the irony

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find it deeply worrying that anyone would object to a book such as this being included. As others have said, the only "religious intolerance" here appears to be that of the original poster .

I am mildly surprised that you 'find it deeply worrying' - it's just someone's opinion, politely expressed.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

isn't that the point being made ? i would think that the US justice system is a clear example of an organisation which should be secular. i also am a bit shocked that a judge would refer to god, that god is mentioned in the presidential oath, etc. even from over here it is clear that there is a very strong religious (christian) bias in the US.

Were the judge's decisions legally sound? Did he let the Bible (or any other religious document) influence his judgments? The answer to both questions is almost certainly a negative. So what's the problem?

To insist that the judge never mention god would infringe upon _his_ freedom of religion. And again, it's separation of _church_ and state, not _religion_ and state.

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

isn't that the point being made ? i would think that the US justice system is a clear example of an organisation which should be secular. i also am a bit shocked that a judge would refer to god, that god is mentioned in the presidential oath, etc. even from over here it is clear that there is a very strong religious (christian) bias in the US.

Zeepee, there is nothing in the quote from Judge Bollinger which indicates he relied on his personal beliefs to adjudicate the case. In fact, it points to the opposite, leaving ultimate judgement to a god. Whatever decisions he made were probably guided by rules of jurisprudence and precedent rather than rules of a god or religion.

Here's an article about the case:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4cy-QD95T70LG0

[jj2me]

Book burning! ... uh, degaussing.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Were the judge's decisions legally sound? Did he let the Bible (or any other religious document) influence his judgments? The answer to both questions is almost certainly a negative. So what's the problem? To insist that the judge never mention god would infringe upon _his_ freedom of religion.

well, you may be right, i'm not sure. but i still think that the Judge as a representative of the US Justice System should keep his personal beliefs separate from his professional persona ; he's not just any guy on the street, he's a judge, and what he says is a reflection of the justice system, not only his opinion as an individual. it's a big responsibility which comes with that job. he's free to say, at home, among friends, when he is not wearing his judge's robes "almighty god will decide" as you say, but i do think that in his professional capacity it's an inappropriate remark.

And again, it's separation of _church_ and state, not _religion_ and state.

hm, i think you may be versing in semantics here...

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

well, you may be right, i'm not sure. but i still think that the Judge as a representative of the US Justice System should keep his personal beliefs separate from his professional persona ; he's not just any guy on the street, he's a judge, and what he says is a reflection of the justice system, not only his opinion as an individual. it's a big responsibility which comes with that job. he's free to say, at home, among friends, when he is not wearing his judge's robes "almighty god will decide" as you say, but i do think that in his professional capacity it's an inappropriate remark.


hm, i think you may be versing in semantics here...

Actually, church implies some kind of organization, whereas religion generally just refers to beliefs.

I'm suprised I haven't heard of anyone point that out before.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Seabound

Zeepee, there is nothing in the quote from Judge Bollinger which indicates he relied on his personal beliefs to adjudicate the case. In fact, it points to the opposite, leaving ultimate judgement to a god. Whatever decisions he made were probably guided by rules of jurisprudence and precedent rather than rules of a god or religion.

Here's an article about the case:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4cy-QD95T70LG0

thanks for the link, i read the article. you are probably right that the judge relied on rules of jurisprudence and precedent, which is as it should be.

however, as i said in my previous post, i do think that as a public figure and a figure of authority (particularly such high authority as a judge), he does have a responsibility to take care that his personal beliefs are separate from his professional statements and actions. i still do think it's inappropriate of a judge (note, not of the man) to make this reference about one of his cases.