(Ron) Ron and a standard of

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

<snip>

>RON

>  Just what warped ideas are you trying to combat here? Christian ideas 

>that you shouldn't slaughter your children by abortion? The notion that 

>a guys penis doesn't belong up another guys anus? The notion that one 

>man with one woman is the only possible form of marriage? That shacking 

>up and divorce do not produce good environments for Children? The belief 

>that a woman should be married to a man who can be a father to her 

>child? That we should help the poor? That promiscuous sex is dangerous 

>because it risks spreading disease and the production of "unwanted" 

>children, not to mention the psychological damage to those involved? Oh, 

>I forgot, you guys keep telling me it has nothing to do with sex. So 

>what are these pernicious Christian ideas that threaten you so mightily?

>

ACHILLES
How about the notion that you Xtians (or whichever particular group of
xtians you happen to belong to, in your case Catholics) have a monopoly on
truth and morals. The idea that anyone who disagrees with you is
automatically wrong. 

The abortion issue is too deep to get into here, suffice it to say that a
foetus is not a child. 

"The notion that a guys penis doesn't belong up another guys anus" is
however a very good example that I can deal with properly without turning
this post into a book. This is your opinion. You have a right to that
opinion. You have a right to refuse to put your penis in another guys anus.
You have the right to refuse to allow another guy to put his penis in your
anus. You even have the right to try to *pursuade* men who are engaging in
these activities voluntarily to cease doing this. You do NOT have the right
to use *force,* either personally or through the mechanism of the state to
punish people for what they choose to do with their own bodies simply
because it offends your religious belief however, much as you might like to.
If you value the freedom to practice your own religion as you choose then
you would do well to think twice about legitimizing the use of the state to
enforce your version of morality, because that will only leave the door open
for others (non-catholics, even non-xtians) to turn around and use the state
to enforce their moral beliefs on you. 

"The notion that one man with one woman is the only possible form of
marriage" again this is your opinion, you have the right to hold it and to
live by it. You do not have the right to force others who do not share your
opinion to live by it. The ultimate protection for the concept of marriage
btw is simply to end the uneccesary involvement of the state in it. 

In every case the sticking point is not your personal moral beliefs, nor the
stances of your church on moral matters, but rather the seperation of church
and state, to protect the minority (religious or not) from the majority
(religious or not) who would wish to use the state to deny the minority the
right to live by their *own* moral standards. 

This is very much to the inerrancy issue. Those who believe the bible is
inerrant will find it much easier to justify forcing others to follow their
beliefs, or punish them for deviatiating from them, while those who realize
that the bible is a collection of books written by fallible human beings
find it easier to show a little humility, a little tolerance and compassion
for those who disagree with them, and also are more likely to realize that
if they do not stand up to defend the rights of those they disagree with now
they leave the door open for their own repression in the future. 

Achilles

"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato 

• Previous message: (Ron) Ron and a standard of
• Next message: (Ron) Ron and a standard of
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]