Catholic church and condoms

[Autodidact]

Not really. It's a republic. They can try to get any law that want passed. Just like in the states. A petition can be signed presented and voted upon. It's their LEGAL right to do so. Whether it passes or not is entirely different.

Yes, I said that. It's your legal right to advocate any legislation you wish, no matter how wrong. The question is, is it right to do so? It is not.

 

[Autodidact]

Loud and clear.

Now let me expound on my signature if I may. When I say "beliefs" I'm not just talking about the supernatural rituals and all those things you probably call myths (I wouldn't impose those on you). I'm talking about the totality of my morality. Like: Rape, murder, stealing, and a number of other things that hopefully you agree with me on.

Same answer?

That's not the totality of your morality. Those are our mutually agreed upon morality, necessary for society to function. Once you start to include, say, blasphemy in that, then you're looking at imposing beliefs.

 

[Quiddity]

That's not the totality of your morality. Those are our mutually agreed upon morality, necessary for society to function. Once you start to include, say, blasphemy in that, then you're looking at imposing beliefs.

Are you serious? Now you're going to tell me what I believe?

And now it's "mutually agreed upon" ?

So it's only imposing when we don't agree?

How covenient, eh?

 

[doppelganger]

I don't have a problem with them even pushing the policy frankly . . . that's their right. But there's no special respect or protection due to their position by virtue of it being an expression of their faith. If they don't want to have to defend their position with evidence, keep their faith out of the public arena. If it is stupid on policy grounds, then it is stupid policy, no matter what other personal or creedal reasons one has for advocating it.

The same goes with IDers who want their creeds taught to everyone else's children. You can believe whatever you want, but if you present it in a public arena and ask for it to be policy, then if it's ridiculous expect it to be ridiculed, regardless of whether it may seem sacrosanct to you.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't have a problem with them even pushing the policy frankly . . . that's their right. But there's no special respect or protection due to their position by virtue of it being an expression of their faith. If they don't want to have to defend their position with evidence, keep their faith out of the public arena. If it is stupid on policy grounds, then it is stupid policy, no matter what other personal or creedal reasons one has for advocating it.

The same goes with IDers who want their creeds taught to everyone else's children. You can believe whatever you want, but if you present it in a public arena and ask for it to be policy, then if it's ridiculous expect it to be ridiculed, regardless of whether it may seem sacrosanct to you.

If we have no grounds to stand on there is nothing for you to worry about.

 

[doppelganger]

If we have no grounds to stand on there is nothing for you to worry about.

Sure there is. Some people will support idiotic policies because religious leaders tell them "God" wants them to do so. A majority of such people makes my civil rights and those of my family potentially very tenuous. This is one of the hidden dangers of even "moderate" religion.

 

[Quiddity]

Sure there is. Some people will support idiotic policies because religious leaders tell them "God" wants them to do so. A majority of such people makes my civil rights and those of my family potentially very tenuous. This is one of the hidden dangers of even "moderate" religion.

We could just keep religious folks from contributing altogether?

 

[doppelganger]

We could just keep religious folks from contributing altogether?

Or we could ask that policy decisions not be made on the basis of religious creeds, and then all of us (even the religious folks) are safer in our rights and our faiths. :yes:

 

[wednesday]

Maybe they should fix the internal problems within their sects before they attack changing government policies based on conflict with their morality?
Once they're a perfect religion, then i wouldn't mind them interfering, until then im sure theres more important things they can do with their time.

 

[Quiddity]

Or we could ask that policy decisions not be made on the basis of religious creeds, and then all of us (even the religious folks) are safer in our rights and our faiths. :yes:

I don't think people realize the outcome that would have.
Allowing it is bad. But also not allowing it is also bad.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't think people realize the outcome that would have.
Allowing it is bad. But also not allowing it is also bad.

If the policy effects would be "bad," then you won't need a religious creed or dogma to demonstrate it.

 

[Quiddity]

If the policy effects would be "bad," then you won't need a religious creed or dogma to demonstrate it.

How exactly would they be deemed "bad"?

 

[doppelganger]

How exactly would they be deemed "bad"?

Evidence. Research.

 

[Quiddity]

Evidence. Research.

Some people will support idiotic policies because leaders tell them so. A majority of such people makes my civil rights and those of my family potentially very tenuous. This is one of the hidden dangers of even "moderate" secularist.

People don't need leaders or religion in order to make it dangerous.

 

[doppelganger]

Some people will support idiotic policies because leaders tell them so. A majority of such people makes my civil rights and those of my family potentially very tenuous. This is one of the hidden dangers of even "moderate" secularist.

LOL.
"Secularist"?

Do you tell your doctor that your kids shouldn't get their antibiotics prescription filled when they have a serious illness because he's using science (gasp!) and therefore must be a "secularist"?

Also, which rights am I opposing by asking for evidence to support a policy? Your right to mandate your religious creeds through the force of government based on nothing more than your assertions of faith?

 

[Quiddity]

LOL.
"Secularist"?

Hey, I'm not excluding theist out of that. But I figured you'd like that.

Do you tell your doctor that your kids shouldn't get their antibiotics prescription filled when they have a serious illness because he's using science (gasp!) and therefore must be a "secularist"?

Ha!

Also, which rights am I opposing by asking for evidence to support a policy? Your right to mandate your religious creeds through the force of government?

My point was that non-theist are not immune to the same powers that influence theist. As you alluded to in a prior post that if you have the right numbers and influence, evidence is irrelevant.

 

[doppelganger]

My point was that non-theist are not immune to the same powers that influence theist. As you alluded to in a prior post that if you have the right numbers and influence, evidence is irrelevant.

Which would be nihilism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

BTW, I'm not a "non-theist" or a "theist."

 

[Autodidact]

We could just keep religious folks from contributing altogether?

Religious believers should be the strongest supporters of a religion nuetral, which is to say secular, government. The worst thing for religion is to be dictated to by a government. After all, if the government can promote religion, it might not be yours that it promotes, and the next thing you know, YOUR religion is illegal.

 

[Quiddity]

Which would be nihilism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

It's only wrong if you're religious.

BTW, I'm not a "non-theist" or a "theist."

Oh...my apologies. What are you then? You can PM it to me if you wish.

 

[Quiddity]

Religious believers should be the strongest supporters of a religion nuetral, which is to say secular, government. The worst thing for religion is to be dictated to by a government. After all, if the government can promote religion, it might not be yours that it promotes, and the next thing you know, YOUR religion is illegal.

Very possible. But I'm not talking about making Catholicism the religion of America here. That's a leap that is made by you (and others) simply because I and others belong to a religion. I'm arguing in terms of ideologies, but since you disagreed you attached it to my faith. Had I been arguing to not make consensual cannibalism legal, I doubt people would be thinking I want a theocracy. I hope you see that.