Unruly Passengers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...


Come back and we'll talk when you learn the proper definitions of
terms...such as "faith", "religion", "belief"...

All I am saying is that wanting to deny people a political voice simply
on
the grounds of religious belief exhibits a level of intolerance
bordering
on
fanaticism.

And nothing I've said indicates I want to deny them a voice. What we
cannot
tolerate is trying to foist a non-objective view of morality into the
politcal process, whether it's the religion of the Bible or of Marxism.

You want to try to play semantics to define your way out of it,
fine, but no matter how you define it, the effect is the same.

Sigh...I've heard those logical fallacies for years and they get more and
more tired (and nauseating) with each passing. Move away from the "old
wives
tales" and try again without just parroting the same old lines that
religionist have been spouting for centuries.

No more nauseating or trite than that there is an objective view of
morality, or that a non-religious view of morality is somehow more objective
than a religious one. Really, if you want to talk about old wives tales, try
looking at the lines the non-religionists have been spouting for centuries.


Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence

I am not sure that you realize the difference yourself. Allow me to
illustrate. Perhaps you believe it is wrong to kill in order to take things
that do not belong to you. What evidence do you have that it is wrong to do
that? Conversely, I would like to see an example of something that you would
consider a faith based imposition of morality on the legal system.