• Last Seen: 11 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 2579 (0.58 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. So Boerd 12 yrs ago

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

Knowing Disney, they probably felt obliged to put some PC crap in just so no one would hassle them for having an all-white cast (given this is ripoff Denmark)
The recent text walls are too much for me to hit on my phone, just letting you all know I read them. With a few divergent points, I think we have done the impossible on the internet and reached a consensus on the policy side of things.

Nobody wants religion to get taxpayer money or force of government, nobody wants any parts of religion mandatory, and nobody has any problem with people using their religiously derived values system in voting. Got that right so far?

The only reason I want the decor voted on and built with private money as opposed to letting anyone set up what they want is that, sorry to say, the Kim Jong Un personality cult beer can tower has no place at a Christmas celebration. Were it not for ridiculous and confrontational stuff like that (That was hypothetical, but it has happened that people put up obnoxious things) I would have no problem.
You are conflating religious influence on the state with the state's influence on religion. Once Caesaropapism ended, religions could go back to their proper role. Religion was still influencing government in the 1700s and the 1800s for the better (Colonialism was a matter of material concerns, and would have happened, atheist or not [for proof, see USSR],) as government had taken a passive role in religion. Compare the experience of the French Revolution vs the American Revolution. The atheist one was much bloodier. Freedom of religion does not protect the government from religion.

And I return again to Communism if we're going to keep up this consequences argument. Show me one communist (as in, professing communism, I'm not interested in No True Marxist fallaces) government, exactly ONE, which did not quickly devolve into mass murder and wide scale universal repression. Communism is worse, yet I don't hear you decrying it or wanting to have a separation of Communism-State.

Now, I'm going to make a controversial statement, and the only reason I give fair warning is that I want the rest of my points answered. So just because I am going to make a point many will disagree with, doesn't mean I want the rest to get ignored, since evidently that's the trend.

Religion is a part of the human spirit. It's biological. If you quash religion in its benign forms, which let's face it, most religions are very benign, it will spring up somewhere else. It will spring up in the Church of Science (different from real science, these are the "Toxins-Juice Cleanse-Gluten Free-MSG causes cancer-Vaccines cause autism" idiots), where the Bible is replaced by "studies" they read in tabloids. Or it will spring up as mentioned earlier in the form of Communism or a similar system, itself every bit a religion. Mother-Earth environmentalism is a possibility to. You simply cannot crush the human belief in something he cannot prove. Take Mr. Atheist himself, Richard Dawkins.

Another controversial point coming, don't ignore the rest.

He believes there is no God, and has no evidence of that. Obviously, that does not prove there is God, but it does show he is being irrational. The only strictly rational position is, "I don't know.", and anything beyond that is faith. Could there be an invisible incorporeal unicorn sitting in front of your screen right know? There could be. I don't know, and neither do you.
Google the "Story of Stuff". It is not educational.
Vortex said
Example of this supposedly offensive material? And anyhow chances are that religion will be more offensive to people, especially since religion is a dominant factor in most peoples lives.


Anything can be offensive. I found the decision of the school to show the idiotic "Story of Stuff" or as I like to call it, "Economics for dummies by an even bigger dummy" very offensive, and we did not even get to vote on that!
Vortex said
Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean other minority's don't like it. The problem with voting is that the majority wins and the minority will still be offended. Better to just remove all relgious monuments no matter what relgion it belongs too.


Why? It's not the government's job not to offend you. We put all kinds of potentially offensive but materially inconsequential things to a vote, why should religious displays be any different
I used to understand that viewpoint, however I don't anymore. I imagined myself in Saudi Arabia, with crescents and Islamic imagery everywhere and asked myself how much it bothers me. Doesn't. Let people vote if they want a nativity scene or not.
As well, nobody has shown me any tangible harm to letting the government permit religious displays on public property.
Also, is there some list of restrictions on reclass? Could I, if I wanted to, reclass a barbarian as a wizard?
Says the shops buy crap back at 1/2 price. Void Seal goes for 10k, ergo, I get 5k.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet