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 13:09:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1462 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
<snip>
> 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'.
Don't certain faiths hold the average bovine in high esteem? Would that
necessitate that all topics of conversation regarding having a 'LEGO Buildfest
and BBQ at Biffs Place' be inherently a religous topic, and an affront to those
that hold the cow in high esteem?
I'm not trying to be flippant, but this is what the arguement comes down to.
I'm just saying...
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
