CONSIDER TOPLESS RIHANNA AND TESCO SPONSORING LONDON PRIDE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM RELIGIOUS INTERFERENCE

Rihanna Topless
 
Rihanna ran topless through a field for her video . The Christian owner of the field objected. She respected this and put the clothes back on.
 
Analysis,
 
The field belonged to the man and he had the right to object about her going through it topless. It is not the use of the field that was the problem but what she was doing in the field.
 
But only if she was actually doing harm. She wasn't.
 
Now would the man have the right to object to her going through the field just because her skin was black? He could say this is not racism but just dislike for black skin.
 
It is bound to be easy to become a racist if one is against people for showing off their bodies and doing no harm. Is she degrading herself by showing her body? A man will not see Rihanna as a sex object unless he is inclined to do that in the first place. The attitude is still there whether he sees her breasts or not.
 
The claim that she could find another field to do her topless run in overlooks the following,
 
She was not doing any harm.
 
The man agreed to let her use the field. He consented to her nudity implicitly. He knew she was a raunchy pop star. He went back on his word.
 
The man may say she can use another man's field if she gets one. The problem is he is implying, "Unfortunately I cannot stop her using somebody else's field. I am saying she may do it not in the sense that I permit it but only in the sense I sadly can't compel the owner to keep her out."
 
Let him show his intolerance if he wants to. He degraded Rihanna by opposing her harmless flaunting of herself . He insulted her womanhood in the guise of showing respect for women.
 
Tesco,
 
Tesco decided to sponsor London Pride. The Christian Institute and the Christians said they would not shop in Tesco unless this sponsorship was withdrawn. As a result, Tesco changed its mind.
 
It was the vociferous Christian leaders and the self-appointed Christian spokesmen who convinced Tesco that it would lose the Christian customers. Nobody did statistics or a poll to check out their claims.
 
Most Christians would still stop in Tesco. Even many of those who said they wouldn't would still go there.
 
The gays who have often have more money to spend than straight people would shop elsewhere and this would be to Tescos detriment.
 
Tesco apologised for comments on the Tesco website that stated that not all Christians were evil but those who oppose gay marriage and want gays to be unhappy were evil. The trouble is, how could Tesco sincerely apologise for the truth? There are indeed Christians who oppose gay marriage because they want gay people to suffer. LGBT people should have protested vigorously against the apology.
 
Morality:
 
Morality and law are not the same thing but closely related. Morality is about declaring what deserves disapproval and punishment and what does not. The law is about that too. But as life cannot go on if the law forbids everything that is immoral or considered immoral it has to be selective. Actions cannot deserve disapproval. Only people deserve disapproval. Morality then is about giving people rewards and getting back at them if they do what is supposed to be wrong.
 
Should we like moralising and moral people?
 
No. They might lie about loving the sinner and hating the sin. If you really hate the sin then you want to punish it. Hate has to do with the wish to hurt. People might like the moralisers only if they confuse, "Love the sinner and dislike their sin as it will do them harm", with "love the sinner and hate the sin." The two are not the same at all. If you love a person you will dislike what harm they do themselves.
 
Punishment is not about the wellbeing of the criminal or wrongdoer. People say that it is dignified to give people what they have asked for. It is dignifying the criminal because the criminal forces others to deal with his criminality and to respect him as responsible for his actions. True. But that is not enough to justify taking his wellbeing away from him. In theory it is dignified but not in practice.
 
What does that imply about God?
 
According to the Bible, God punishes. God then is an evil being.
 
CONCLUSION:
 
Religious morality is really based on the desire to force one's will on others and to threaten and wish evil on them if they decline to comply.