-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 21:48 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 3479267.uH1ECHvTeG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 7/2/11
> 12:33 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Preaching absence of something?
>>>
>>> No, inciting hatred and discrimination towards Christians.
>>
>> Why name one religion? It's the phenomenon in general, including the "bigger"
>> religion of Islam (I am not *entirely* sure it's bigger, but it probably
>> will be).
>
> Each religion sees themselves as the good religion who promotes good
> behavior... unlike all those "bad" religions. There are some exceptions to
> this, of course... and very closely related religions (say different sects
> of Christianity) tend to tolerate each other more than less closely related
> ones (say Christianity and Islam) and then the really diverse ones tend to
> ignore each other (Christianity and Buddhism).
>
>>> There's nothing passive about that.
>>>
>>>>> So frankly the only difference is an opinion, where one side has
>>>>> apparently decided to "debate" their opinion militantly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound familiar?
>>>>
>>>> In an evidence-based debate there are hardly two sides in this case.
>>>> Arguing about the invisible elephant under my bed might get the
>>>> audience laughing, but I would lose the debate.
>>>
>>> But atheist militancy is not about the preponderance of evidence, or
>>> even about establishing "fact" at all, it's about discriminating against
>>> people who simply choose to live a certain way. So what if every
>>> religious principle contradicts science? What do you care? It's not your
>>> life, so it's none of your business. Let them live like that if they
>>> want to. Would you force a farmer to go live in the city because you
>>> don't like the agrarian lifestyle? So why would you force a Christian to
>>> give up /his/ lifestyle?
>>
>> Nobody forces this. In fact, the movement you speak of seeks to remove
>> indoctrination towards this lifestyle by state institutions like schools.
>> In the US, education needs to be secular to comply with the Constitution
>> or amendments (can't recall which), for the same reason teaching just
>> Microsoft as "computing" is wrong.
>
> First Amendment: the government cannot establish a religion. By teaching
> any one religion (or the tenants of even related religions) the government
> is clearly going against his by working to establish those religious views
> as "the truth". One can, of course, teach a comparative religion course or
> the like - but you cannot push one as the "right" one. So, sure, teach the
> creationism myth along with the world-on-a-turtle myth and the myth that we
> all came from a magic reed. I have no problem with that and there is
> nothing illegal about it.
Since you mentioned Buddhism, well.. it seems quite harmless to me. Metaphorical
from the get-go.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4Sv+gACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5SAQCfTAAFO146FpwhUuMKqMEXF5mr
hUcAniZuZaI51ESop4RiIY5BPa7rf7Sm
=iBIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
