Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:20:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
471 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> I would let this whole post of yours slide as it repeats the same
> refuted themes. But I can't let this one item go.
Disagreed with, but not refuted.
>
> Bill Farkas wrote:
> >
> > My personal summation of the matter is as follows:
> > (not that anyone should or will care)
> >
> > Ultimately, this matter started over the issue of posting of the ten
> > commandments and teaching creation. Still, it's hard to say that the simple
> > posting of the commandments is government mandated religion.
>
> It is NOT AT ALL hard to say that this is government mandated religion,
> and the fact that you don't seem to see why shows that you have a
> different viewpoint than non evangelicals, and shows why evangelicals
> make me so very very nervous.
>
> You just don't get it. And, you're dangerous to anyone who doesn't
> believe as you do. That's scary.
Once again, an over emotional knee-jerk reaction to something I didn't say. You
ignore my point that they are currently posted at the Supreme Court and have
absolutely nothing to do with what happens there. The simple act of posting
them does not require anyone to bow to them. You react like a vampire to a
crucifix. To me, that's scary.
I DO get it, and I'm not the slightest bit dangerous. My whole point was that
people who believed in those principles created the system which allows you to
exist the way you describe you want to (with rights and freedom). As far as
Sundays - it just didn't interest me - but yeah, I think it's a silly
law...now. It had it's place when the majority felt that way, but now can be
laid to rest - there, ya happy. I personally believe that government should be
involved in the bare minimum - just a general framework of laws - not the
micromanagement we see today.
>
> When I pointed out a number of silly laws that evangelicals had foisted
> on the perfectly innocent who didn't (for example) see shopping on
> Sunday as a sin, I didn't hear you agreeing that imposition of morality
> in that way was wrong. It is. But you don't see it. That's scary.
Every law is an imposition of morality.
>
> Remember what I said about usurping the rights of those who wish merely
> to be left alone, left to do as they wish within the boundaries of
> others rights... at some point they will resist your imposition of your
> morality, and you'll be sorry you tried. For the innocents who may be
> hurt in your attempt, I grieve. But you won't. And that's scary too.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPOSING MORALITY!!! There I typed that really slow so
everyone will understand. Posting the commandments does not mean that everyone
MUST submit to them! To me, it is just a historical reference to a moral
influence that shaped our system in some part - a reference that is not
outrageous - the moral part of it is no different than any other code. You're
hung up on the "God" part - but if you don't *want* to believe in Him, He
doesn't mind.
Look, I'm sorry that someone in your life tried to control you like a religious
drill instructor, but those people were wrong and I'm not them. Relax man.
Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| I would let this whole post of yours slide as it repeats the same refuted themes. But I can't let this one item go. (...) It is NOT AT ALL hard to say that this is government mandated religion, and the fact that you don't seem to see why shows that (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
