[knox]

everyone is entitled to have their religious beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights to have their own. could it be more obvious? I don't really see what is so complex about this, it is that black and white by definition.

[pbradley]

The church and state don't require each other to produce catastrophes but they certainly make the task easier.

[SONIC GAIL]

Originally Posted by knox

Not really. And you know it.

A home is a personal thing, a church is a place you choose to go to, a school is something public.

There's "supposed" to be free speech, free thought, religious freedom, equal civil rights.

If you are enforcing your values on people you're taking away that freedom. Freedom that you should cherish and protect, because you too have it.

I hope you are not a christian tho, because I thought good christians shouldn't be judgmental.

I did not address your points because you changed the post and added them after I posted.

What specifically was judgemental?

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by knox

everyone is entitled to have their religious beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights to have their own. could it be more obvious? I don't really see what is so complex about this, it is that black and white by definition.

Religious beliefs are quite pointless if they aren't held to be true of all creation.

It's like having dairy-free milk.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by pbradley

The church and state don't require each other to produce catastrophes but they certainly make the task easier.

Interesting you say 'produce'; the same logic that says war's good for the economy would probably say the same of catastrophes. Not that I'd necessarily agree, you understand.

[knox]

Originally Posted by SONIC GAIL

I could give a fuck less if gay people get married. It affects me in no way.

I did not attack you because you are not a christian. I was making observations after reading through the thread.

And by the way you can tell a lot about a person's personal beliefs as well as age when they display them in posts. This is not the first of your posts I have read.

What does wtf mean? Why the fuss?

Where are your facts? I have a 4 year old fact that condoms break.



And how in the hell is abstinance teaching that being a homosexual is wrong? The episcipal church supports gay marriage and has gay preists.

And I know a few facts who now have STDs.

Happy new year. I'm goin home.

so because condoms break we should teach children that they don't work?
so they have absolutely no knowledge of how to protect themselves?

I am basing my comments on data from researches that I have been reading. I have seen videos of them telling kids that being homosexual is a disorder and should be treated. This is broader than the episcopal church and your personal group of friends and story with birth control, don't be so bias.

[knox]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Religious beliefs are quite pointless if they aren't held to be true of all creation.

It's like having dairy-free milk.

I'm lactose intolerant and that hurt my feelings.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Religious beliefs are quite pointless if they aren't held to be true of all creation.

It's like having dairy-free milk.

Those beliefs don't necessarily appertain to state democracy though. I know there's quite a bit in the Torah/ Bible/ Qu'ran about serving God but also the state. In that context, you only get problems when there's a tension between state and religion, but I don't think it's necessarily a fundamental problem for either enterprise.

[knox]

As long as you can follow your religion and beliefs, why should you care if your neighbor is getting fucked up the ass or getting abortions?

or even worse, teenagers having access to birth control.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Glice

Interesting you say 'produce'; the same logic that says war's good for the economy would probably say the same of catastrophes. Not that I'd necessarily agree, you understand.

Well I have been on leaning toward the libertarian left for a while now so perhaps that is the same logic at play, albeit critically.

Though, as par for the course, I remain politically skeptical and religiously quietist.

[knox]

Yes. Now stop this nice talk and join me being angry.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Glice

Those beliefs don't necessarily appertain to state democracy though. I know there's quite a bit in the Torah/ Bible/ Qu'ran about serving God but also the state. In that context, you only get problems when there's a tension between state and religion, but I don't think it's necessarily a fundamental problem for either enterprise.

But they're structurally necessary to religious identity and, though not necessarily, tend to bare relevance from time to time, typically producing catastrophe. Otherwise, the religious get antsy that their beliefs are merely ego-coddling fancy with no real impact in the world. They pursue, through politics, to make these beliefs true.

While state democracy doesn't demand religious activism, religious activism demands state democracy and only in those times when religious faith begins to fall into subjectivity and needs to reassert itself.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by knox

Yes. Now stop this nice talk and join me being angry.

Fuck off, you massive prick.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Well I have been on learning toward the libertarian left for a while now

That's interesting. I've never been quite able to get my head around that concept. I read something by Chomsky recently where he was claiming himself as a left-libertarian but I couldn't really work out what he meant by it.

Brilliant thread, btw

[knox]

glice
this is not the time and place
to try and turn me on

[demonrail666]

oh, and in answer to the thread's initial question, lapsed protestant.

[Glice]

That's not the first time someone's said that to me.

[Glice]

The lapsed protestant bit, no-one's ever not happy to be turned on in my presence.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That's interesting. I've never been quite able to get my head around that concept. I read something by Chomsky recently where he was claiming himself as a left-libertarian but I couldn't really work out what he meant by it.

Brilliant thread, btw

Oh, I don't mean to align myself with Chomsky. Perhaps I'm just pessimistically Left.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Oh, I don't mean to align myself with Chomsky. Perhaps I'm just pessimistically Left.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were a chomskyite just that he kept banging on about being a left-libertarian without bothering to explain how, or what it actually meant to him.

Your saying that you're pessimistically left seems to be a common thing now. It's the old Francis Fukuyama 'end of history' concept, that the Right has ultimately won the ideological war and that all the left can hope to do now is try and make it a bit more 'fair'. Capitalism with a smile, and all that.