Subject:
|
Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:31:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1428 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
Taking an active stance that religious beliefs have no part in making LUGNET
decisions, is not a neutral stance about how LUGNET feels about those of us
with religious beliefs. After all this decision has all the atheists here
standing up and applauding (and FYI if you aren’t aware - atheism is a form
of religion - the religion of man)...most often found in secular humanist
groups.
|
I can’t say I agree-- by saying that, you’re absolutely forcing LUGNET into a
position of choosing a religion by arguing that something that’s
*unreligious* is a religion in and of itself.
Hence, you could argue that nothing ever was religion-neutral. IBM, The New
York Yankees (read “evil incarnate”), the US goverment, a bottle of Cheez
Whiz: all religious. The Cheez Whiz doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s
atheistic? A puppy doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s atheistic? How
about a newborn baby? A 2-year-old? A 5-year-old? A 38-year-old? How about an
autistic 38-year-old?
The implication Todd made by saying that LUGNET is religion neutral is that
it’s decisions should not be made based on religious merit-- decisions should
be made based on criteria that visibly affect LUGNET. Now, you could argue
that God affects LUGNET, but seeing as how you could also say the same for
Allah, Zeus, or the Almighty Ford Prefect, all with similar visible evidence,
we’re safer just relying on stuff we can visibly see.
Will it make community members happy? Some yes, some no. Will it cause people
to leave LUGNET? Possibly, but hopefully not. Does it fit with the LUGNET
plan? Sure. Will it violate any laws? Nope. Is having such a group
detrimental to LUGNET readers? Not if we’ve got skip-filters. Does Zeus
approve? Uh, I dunno! So I’m not gonna try and factor that one in, and
apparently (and thankfully by my book) neither does Todd & co.
DaveE
FUT .debate
|
Hi Dave, the point I was trying to make was that when you deal with a topic that
has moral/religious implications (such as homosexuality), if before the
discussion has even begun, you state that religious factors will not be taken
into consideration on determining if something should or shouldn’t be done, all
I’m saying is that that is not a religion-neutral position - it is one that is
hostile (equally hostile towards all religions) to religion.
You have to understand that people of faith cannot compartmentalize or separate
their faith/morality from their decisions. To say we actively make sure that
religion has no place in the decision making process makes it a process that is
inherently hostile towards all people of faith. ANd I’m not singling out LUGNET
here, it;s just a specific example.
It’s a subtle thing that many people don’t see. And as far as LUGNET is
concerned, I am not surprised in the least that this is the attidtude they have
adopted (or always had). You have to expect it from a society that separates
things into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’.
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
