Re:Political Ravings of Intolerance
› Forums › Other Forums › The Pub › Political Ravings of Intolerance › Re:Political Ravings of Intolerance
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]Sgt draino, I didn’t say that no intelligent people were religious,[/quote]
Bang!… splash! First shot over the bow, eh? 🙂
What you said was:
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]I use my brain to decide what is moral rather than simply accepting self-contradictory BS[/quote]
Refering to religion. By that statement, I took you to mean that you believe religious people do not use their brains, and instead accept self-contradictory BS. Did I misunderstand?
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]I said that religion is a load of self-contradictory BS. I do in fact know at least one very intelligent person who is Christian,[/quote]
So, this is a very intelligent person who accepts a load of self-contradictory BS?
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]but I think that within organised religion, there does come a certain point at which one is programmed to shut your brain off and respond with the ethical equivilent of an ansaphone message – “You must have faith”.[/quote]
Certainly faith is a cornerstone in all religions. Of course, you would surely admit that no belief system, religious or secular, can explain everything. Sometimes the answer to a question is simply not known. It doesn’t mean the answer does not exist.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]though she is intelligent, well-informed and largely very open-minded, there comes a certain point beyond which she always becomes unwilling to debate, and the ansaphone message comes on.[/quote]
I think we’re all like that. It doesn’t sound like either of you have a chance of changing the other’s mind, so after a point, doesn’t the effort of debate become pointless? Why keep banging your head into a brick wall. I sometimes get that way with my father.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]I attended a repressively Christian school as a child,[/quote]
Why did you do that? 🙂 I guess your parents forced you. That’s too bad. Repressively Christian?
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]believe that orgainsied religion exists as a aeries of memes that suppress these processes in favour of creating a mental climate in which they flourish.[/quote]
So, you’re saying that religion suppresses human intelligence and the ability to think for ourselves? Hmmm. Maybe some forms of religion do, and maybe some people misuse religion for that purpose, but I think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]The results of this can be witnessed in history – think the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, the long-ranging and socially-acceptaed torture of women. Therefore, I think that using these memes as the basis of justice in a democratic judicial system is stupid,[/quote]
I think you’re confusing religion with evil people who have misused religion to do evil things… just as evil people will misuse anything else to do evil. Just because somebody uses a belief system in order to accomplish something evil, doesn’t mean the belief system is itself evil, or unjust. Anything can be corrupted or perverted.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]especially compared to using secular principles widely agreed on by highly educated people of many schools of thought. These are always up for review, and people have the right to protest etc, and thus give their input, they do not descend from the sky engraved on tablets of stone.[/quote]
I have studied philosophy. There are many different schools of philosophy, with beliefs going back a century or more. They often disagree, and each, you will find, tends to view its ideals as engraved in stone.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]By the way, you may not mean it to, but your post does come over as having some rather homophobic overtones.[/quote]
How so? If I did disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle, would that make me a homophobe?
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]Why exactly would homosexual relationships be easier to fake for tax breaks etc than heterosexual ones?[/quote]
Simple. With the current definition of marriage, it would specifically take a man conspiring with a woman to get together purely to get government benefits. If the definition was extended to include gay marriage, then any combination of man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, any two people could get together for government benefits, whether there’s any real love there or not.
And if gay marriage becomes lawful and constitutional, then that also opens the door for polygamy. Then ANY NUMBER of people can get together purely as a loophole to get government benefits. Heck, the whole country can “get married,” and ta-da! Government benefits.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]And your implication that homosexuality is on a par with paedophilia is disturbing.[/quote]
I implied no such thing. I was attempting to explain Justice Scalia’s reasoning behind his opinion. And even that was not that homosexuality is on a par with pedophilia. It was that giving sexual acts protection under the right to privacy, may lead to unintended consequences. And once again, that is Scalia’s opinion, not mine.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]And your slippery slope theory is illogical.[/quote]
Not mine, Scalia’s. I’m not a big believer in “slippery slope.” Either a particular law is a good idea, or it isn’t. Case-by-case basis.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]Are you taking the line that sex should be conducted principally for reproductive purposes or it is verging on immoral?.[/quote]
That is a judgement call between you and your belief system. Of course we each have our own opinions about the morality or immorality of various sex acts. We’d probably all agree about the immorality of pedophilia. But where adults are concerned, I would not want those opinions codified into law. In short, my opinion on sex is my own business, and not relevant to this discussion.
[quote=”ShadowedVenus”]I certainly do not engage in it for that – quite the opposite in fact, pregnancy would be a disaster for me.[/quote]
Yet you take that conscious risk each time you engage in it. You take the risk, but would you accept the consequences?
I’m not saying I wouldn’t take the same risk. I’m just curious about your reasoning.
[quote=”Fatguy”]Re sgtdraino: I read the whole thing.[/quote]
Thanks, and congratulations. I still think your avatar is creepy, though. 🙂 Why is that?
[quote=”Fatguy”]Your post seems to me to be nothing more than the frustration of someone who feels helpless to do anything significant about the issues he/she feels are important in life.[/quote]
lol. That’s pretty much all of us, isn’t it? We can all say and argue what we want, but the impact on society as a whole is most likely nil.
[quote=”Fatguy”]What you have done with your post is to simply present your views in a much smaller venue (i.e. Sadgeezer.com),[/quote]
I dunno, I think of this as a larger venue. A Google search would probably connect my username to this site, and thus any enemy of mine who wanted to use my words against me would have opportunity to find some ammunition here. For those reasons, I almost NEVER talk politics on the internet. Consider yourselves lucky to hear this much out of me… uh… I guess. 🙂
[quote=”Fatguy”]so that your opinions will have more weight among this smaller group and thus alleviate some of the frustration and helplessness in your life[/quote]
lol. Since, in my experience, the vast majority of sadgeezer.com members are left-leaning, I doubt my opinions carry much weight here. I was simply attracted to the post, as politics do interest me, and for some reason I felt like weighing in on it all.
No, to be completely accurate, I’m one of those people who doesn’t like to rock the boat, whether it be on the internet or in real life. Quite honestly, I fear being persecuted for my beliefs. That something I say could come back to bite me in the arse someday, and hurt my career and/or life. Ergo I mostly keep my political ramblings to myself. At least I don’t volunteer them. If asked a question outright, though, I do answer honestly.
[quote=”Fatguy”]You wrote: “You do need to realize, however, that philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are simply other, secular forms of religion. They just don’t ascribe their origin to a higher power. Making them fundamental to governance is no better than making Christianity, Buddhism. or Satanism fundamental to governance.” You are wrong…..they are not. A religion attempts to explain away that which we can not explain with the mental tools we have available (faith).[/quote]
Well, perhaps I was not completely accurate. To be more accurate, religion, philosophy, humanitarianism, and ethics are all belief systems, and the government should not favor any specific one over another. I would also add that religion is the only one of those things that CAN explain away that which we cannot… since the others are, by definition, secular.
[quote=”Fatguy”]The fields of Philosophy, for example, are simply mental tools for a practical purpose in our daily lives; they describe relations between things, but not the things themselves…..[/quote]
Philosophies do try to describe some things, such as the nature of humanity. And each philosphy tends to base itself on certain principles it holds to be true, just like all other belief systems.
[quote=”Fatguy”]Why religion in government? Perhaps because humans are fearful creatures who would feel less in control of their fate if their governance was not tied to a religion of some kind.[/quote]
Perhaps humans believe that without religion, there is ultimately no good or evil, no right or wrong, and thus no authority for the government to make laws about anything.
What makes something good or evil? Is it because I say so? Of course not. What if a million people say so? Still not enough. Okay, how about the entire poplulation of the earth? Everyone somehow being unanimous? Sound good?
Okay, what if aliens from another planet, a planet three times the population of earth, decide that it’s morally right to kill and eat all of us? Is that right?
No? How come?
Because ultimately, good and evil transcends the opinions of any number of people. Secular belief systems, in the end, still just boil down to the opinions of a bunch of people.
[quote=”Fatguy”]It looks like the “Right” is about to unite; and it looks like Mike Harris (former Premier of Ontario) may lead this union into the next election.[/quote]
Wow. A right-leaning Canadian. I didn’t know such a thing existed. 🙂