Unruly Passengers

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Why should you be allowed to promote your political opinion, but
'Mormons'
should not?

My political opinion has nothing to do with religious views or even my
morals. That stuff is between me and my alter ego.

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions. It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
religious beliefs. Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions.

Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead of
faith, don't talk to me about rationality.

It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of their
religious beliefs.

I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
various sects try to cram it up out behinds.

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Odd, that. Are you really asserting that your political opinions
have
nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong?

My view of what's right and wrong are NOT based on mystical theocracy.

May I suggest that you are deluding yourself? Your views of what is
right
and wrong are probably no more rational than those espoused by most
religions.

Suggest anything you want, but until religion is based on reason instead
of
faith, don't talk to me about rationality.

It seems hypocritical to demand that you have a voice in the
political system while denying that voice to others on the basis of
their
religious beliefs.

I don't deny them their belief, only the basing of policy on them. As has
been mentioned previously, we're NOT a theocracy, no matter how much the
various sects try to cram it up out behinds.

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as you
do in yours.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
do in yours.

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

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Even atheism is a religious belief, from a certain point
of view.

Wrong.

You know, few religious types exercise as much faith in their beliefs as
you
do in yours.

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. 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.

"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.

Until you realize the difference between a belief and a DISBELIEF, between
one based on faith and one based on evidence, you can take those aspersions
and stick them where the sun don't shine. Try digging outside the sources
targeting the so called "choir".

"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.