This will be another installment in my 4GrinsNGiggles department.
Per my usual, the original comments in bold, my replies in regular font. I'm sure you'll understand the title after reading very little of this particular person's attempt at reasoned discourse.
LuciferWrote:
I already have to wait until after noon to buy beer on sundays, out of deference to a god I know doesn't exist, so, I'm wondering how much more of YOUR superstition am I expected to tolerate? I ask, because, of late there's been a HUGE push on the part of christian theocrats to get YET MORE of their beLIEfs made law for me to follow. some of these proposals, like gay marriage, don't affect me directly but the fundie effort to ban it is still highly offensive to me since, being an actual patriot, i cannot sit idly by while the rights of my fellow americans are being trampled.
Likewise, many theocrats want abortion banned outright as well as research on embryonic stem cells - two more "ideas" that only make "sense" in the context of the superstition that spawned them; a superstition I and many other American citizens do not believe in.
So, I know what the likes of jerry falwell, pat robertson and john hagee "think" about these matters, but I'm curious as to what more rank-and-file christians think about the encroachment of theocracy on our hitherto secular code of laws.
Nothing like making the mistake of assuming that simply because people of faith support something it must therefore only be a religious edict being imposed, on top of the error of equating desires with rights.
uh, all humans have the right to do whatever they wish so long as said activity doesn't cause harm to the person or property of another, directly. Period. so, yeah, most desires are rights, unless we're talking about pedophilia or that desire I get whenever I see falwell's fat fucking face on my tv.
and there is no assumption involved when people of faith REFERENCE their superstition while RATIONALIZING their opposition to something like gay marriage or unfettered access to abortion.
nice picking and choosing what parts of my post to half-ass-way address.
---
My response to his comments above will now be interspersed within his attempted retort. The sarcasm used is due to this individual constantly using harsh rhetoric concerning Christianity in other discussions, yet never offering a solid argument or data to support his position, though being asked to on several occasions. Despite that, he claims to have a high IQ and to have studied religion thoroughly and to have repeatedly offered nothing but logic and sound arguments. Self delusion being his greatest talent apparently. I'm still waiting for a reasoned argument. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. Now, on to the fisking, more of which is coming in the future for this person.
uh,
That's probably the most intelligent thing from you yet.
all humans have the right to do whatever they wish so long as said activity doesn't cause harm to the person or property of another, directly.
The debate is about what really is harmful or not.
Period.
TMI but it probably explains your idiotic posts
so, yeah, most desires are rights, unless we're talking about pedophilia or that desire I get whenever I see falwell's fat fucking face on my tv.
Again, it isn't that simple. Much debate can be had on what is or is not harmful to people and to society. Regarding gay marriage, I would say the desire to have society approve of x, y or z relationship is not a right for anyone. But that doesn't result in laws that prevent those relationships from actually occurring, so the act of personal association, has not been violated.
and there is no assumption involved when people of faith REFERENCE their superstition while RATIONALIZING their opposition to something like gay marriage or unfettered access to abortion.
You must live under a rock. There are good secular arguments against abortion. You're only proving my point, when you act as if only religious people can be prolife. Also, marriage is restricted in a number of ways. That's what society has developed, over time, via experience as being best to promote. However, that doesn't prevent anyone from poking whomever, wherever or how many whomevers they wish. One of the problems in this whole debate is that society is not evolving in this direction, it is being forced by a minority in the judicial system that's overstepping it's proper role.
nice picking and choosing what parts of my post to half-ass-way address.
It's rather humorous that you label a direct reply to the substance of your post nit picking. Perhaps you should reconsider the quality of your OP (original post)
---
[His next attempt at a retort:]
I'll make it simple: what your superstition tells you is 'bad for society' is immaterial if what it is you think is 'bad for society' causes no direct harm to the person or property of another sentient human. What you consider 'bad for society' is inherently subjective. what causes harm to the person or property of another sentient human against their will can be objectively qualified.
As such, it is ONLY just to outlaw those things that CAN be objectively quantified and leave all subjective matters to the individual. Thankfully, the founders of this once-great nation agree with me.
[My final reply:]
I have yet to reference religion as a justification for my views on abortion or gay marriage. Keep repeating that views you disagree with are only based on religion and you make it more obvious that simplicity is your problem, in that your thinking doesn't rise above it.
---
Filed under: Apologetics -- Christianity -- Religion
Blogs with open posts: Jo's Cafe -- Woman Honor Thyself -- The Random Yak -- Madman Returns -- The Uncooperative Blogger -- Blue State Chronicles -- The Right Nation -- TMH's Bacon Bits -- Adam's Blog -- The Bullwinkle Blog -- The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns -- third world county -- Bloggin Outloud
Technorati Tags: God -- Christianity -- Jesus -- Religion -- Apologetics -- Faith -- Rationality
