Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-30-2012, 12:41 AM #1030
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Men create boundaries, yes. But I find them unnecessary and a rather crude creation. I don't think boundaries are reason for differing the treatment of fellow human beings and their basic foundations for well being. It forces one to be subject to unnecessary punishments like the one I provided earlier simply because they were unfortunate enough to be born there. I realize there's not much we can do about this, but it's an ideal I strive for.

We are not obligated to care for anyone either. You're right about that too. But it doesn't mean we can't.
You are absolutely correct. Care can go in many directions.

Here's the deal. When you live in a nation that has a death sentence for blasphemy, don't do it. If you feel that compelled, leave. This man obviously did. If the penalty for theft is limb loss, don't steal.

The penalty for murder is life in prison or death. It doesn't matter if you shoot down a known pedophile. By penalty of law you cant do it without consequence. So don't do it. Despite the absurdity of the scenario.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 06-30-2012, 12:46 AM #1031
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
You are absolutely correct. Care can go in many directions.

Here's the deal. When you live in a nation that has a death sentence for blasphemy, don't do it. If you feel that compelled, leave. This man obviously did. If the penalty for theft is limb loss, don't steal.

The penalty for murder is life in prison or death. It doesn't matter if you shoot down a known pedophile. By penalty of law you cant do it without consequence. So don't do it. Despite the absurdity of the scenario.
I completely understand your reasoning, but...

1 - it's not as easy to leave a country like that as it is a country like this. It's actually extremely difficult to find citizenship in the outerlying countries. Many people have tried for many years and you can read all about the troubles they go through.

2 - the person in question right now did absolutely no harm. I don't care what their law dictates as much as I care about the reason behind the law. If I disagree with the law, I'll disagree with it. I won't say it's okay. I know I have little power to change it, but I have an ideal I like to follow. That's what I'm attempting to express for myself.

To me, he is not the one at fault. It is the outrageous laws that are fault for the calling of the murder of an innocent person; a person that did no harm.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 12:48 AM #1032
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
What?
lol. Really? I said you originally asked a rhetorical question. Why do you then quote said question and some posts you made after it? You truly are a bull****ter and damn good.

Did you post that link expecting everyone in the atheist thread to provide you with information of muslims who are outraged by that?



Quote:
Me asking that question does not mean I never said there aren't real boundaries. Read my posts:

This is me stating I don't believe there are real boundaries. Not that hard to understand, is it?
Read my posts. I never said you claimed there weren't real boundaries. I've said this in two consecutive posts in this thread. I originally said your post that I quoted, that one post, was begging the question.

Here is that post. Please, read:

Quote:
Why should we let our care for others be separated by false boundaries, aka nations?

That question only begs the question, what is a real boundary? You not only asked (and in doing so assumed our care is separated this way) why should our care be separated by false boundaries, you provided an example of one! Forgive me for pointing out the fallacious qualities of your question. After I pointed it out it was YOU who started the he said she said game by telling me that I said you believe there are real boundaries.

Here is a quote from me in the previous post I made in this thread:
Quote:
You never said there aren't real boundaries. You said why should our care for others be separated by false boundaries. This assumes real boundaries. Either way you're wrong.
Right ****ing there I said you never said that. So stop bull****ting. It's an annoying and all too obvious quality that I am willing to articulate for you to better yourself.

And next time, before you insinuate that I don't understand simple things, read your own writing. In that quote you provide you say,
"I don't care what fake "boundaries"."

Again, describing the boundaries (or whatever you believe them to be given how you quoted it) as fake. Not saying there aren't any real boundaries. Bull**** in the finest of qualities.

Quote:
Martian expressed that he didn't care because it's his fault for the repercussions at hand. I've been trying to say that his repercussions are unjust and I don't see a reason for such a treatment to take place on such a consistent basis. I'm not going to regurgitate our previous posts though. You can actually read them and catch up.
It's all fine and well that you believe that. We all have individual ethos. But trying to regurgitate individual ethos into foreign policy for the way everyone should treat everyone is just silly.

Edit: And if that's not what you're trying to do then what is the point? It takes one sentence to say you don't like what's going on. Where is this discussion being led, because I've definitely caught up by now and it's located in Nowhere at the moment.

double edit: And that little block doesn't answer the question I asked in the quote you made. How did he treat them any differently than you? You're just offering your opinion, you aren't actually interacting with these people.

Last edited by Vit Beeyer : 06-30-2012 at 12:51 AM.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:00 AM #1033
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
You are correct it is not easy to leave a country. But is easy to refrain from breaking a law such as the one he did. He didn't steal to put food on the table. He didn't kill out of cause. There is nothing inherent to survival that neccesitates his crime. I could go my entire life without speaking Ill of Jesus. Especially with a punishment as severe as death

We look at law as being asinine because neither of us are Muslim nor do we live in a nation that upholds its laws. That is their land and they defend it with their blood. It is not my right nor desire to tell them that they cannot live by Islam any more than it is there right to tell us in the states that we should. That is where I draw the line. We are on the same side in a way.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:06 AM #1034
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Oh and I've noticed that you care for those who see things your way and not those who don't. You don't care that there are men who wish to live under Islamic law. Not that I disagree with that sentiment. I just want you to understand you are not in a position of benevolence.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:10 AM #1035
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Supra's feelings can only be expressed on a forum such as this. In any public place he would expose himself. By default, he is a garbage human being.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:13 AM #1036
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchistMatt View Post
well I mainly consider myself as an atheist, but I feel that atheism almost goes hand in hand with nihilism and I don't necessarily jive with nihilism. And symbolic satanism gives me a broader range of personal spiritual freedom.

Can atheists be spiritual? idk, i just dont know.
Buddhists are atheists. Something to consider.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:33 AM #1037
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Oh and I've noticed that you care for those who see things your way and not those who don't. You don't care that there are men who wish to live under Islamic law. Not that I disagree with that sentiment. I just want you to understand you are not in a position of benevolence.
I wouldn't say that, necessarily. You may be somewhat true and I am not without fault of contradicting myself from time to time. I am, after all, a developing human being

I do care that there are men who wish to live under Islamic law. If that's what they want, then all the power to them. I don't, however, believe that just because they want to live under such law means they should force others so, especially if those others are causing no harm. My stance on religion has been the same thing; you're fine to play with your toy as you see fit, just don't force your toy down my throat, nor the throats of anyone else who doesn't want to partake in the play of that toy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
You are correct it is not easy to leave a country. But is easy to refrain from breaking a law such as the one he did. He didn't steal to put food on the table. He didn't kill out of cause. There is nothing inherent to survival that neccesitates his crime. I could go my entire life without speaking Ill of Jesus. Especially with a punishment as severe as death

We look at law as being asinine because neither of us are Muslim nor do we live in a nation that upholds its laws. That is their land and they defend it with their blood. It is not my right nor desire to tell them that they cannot live by Islam any more than it is there right to tell us in the states that we should. That is where I draw the line. We are on the same side in a way.
Again, my problem lies within the fact that he didn't harm anyone. If Islamic law still deems a death penalty on him, then I find fault in that, as they would have absolutely no solid backing for their claims of "justice." I find problems with using nothing more than "belief" that has no evidential backing as the source for authority over others.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:35 AM #1038
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
So how do you expect a society of traditionalist islamic men who want to live under islamic law not to apply the law with equality across the entirety of society? How can we expect them to evolve past this tribal, arcane law if we can't even expect them to value equality of law?
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:44 AM #1039
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
I expect a religion of peace to be peaceful, not cry for the killings of others who have done nothing more than say words.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 01:54 AM #1040
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I expect a religion of peace to be peaceful, not cry for the killings of others who have done nothing more than say words.
I expect a religion of peace that doesn't also act as the main institution of governance to have less bloodshed than one where it is the main institution of governance and history supports this. A religion like Islam in today's world isn't afforded the same luxuries. Is Islam more violent than any other society as ancient as theirs? I don't think so.

You said you have a problem with law based in unfounded beliefs that have no authority behind them. Can you not find anything that hits "closer to home" than what happens in ancient muslim societies?

Last edited by Vit Beeyer : 06-30-2012 at 01:57 AM.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:07 PM #1041
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
I expect a religion of peace that doesn't also act as the main institution of governance to have less bloodshed than one where it is the main institution of governance and history supports this.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense. Rewrite it, maybe?

Quote:
A religion like Islam in today's world isn't afforded the same luxuries. Is Islam more violent than any other society as ancient as theirs? I don't think so.
And that's justification to hold back critique?

Those who do have the luxuries and those that live in societies that have gone through those stages already have every right to attempt to tell them how to better themselves.

Quote:
You said you have a problem with law based in unfounded beliefs that have no authority behind them. Can you not find anything that hits "closer to home" than what happens in ancient muslim societies?
Explain this.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:27 PM #1042
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense. Rewrite it, maybe?
In the Middle East Islam is not only the primary religion but the primary institution of governance. This gives the religion more political responsibility which is highly likely to lead to more bloodshed being associated with the religious institutions and not as much with the political, especially with such a primitive culture.

Here the primary religion is Christianity but it is not the primary institution of governance. Our formal governments represent the primary institution of governance. Religion can take more of a back seat and harness less of the criticism for political decision-making.


Quote:
And that's justification to hold back critique?

Those who do have the luxuries and those that live in societies that have gone through those stages already have every right to attempt to tell them how to better themselves.
You aren't bettering them, you're only making them worse. Hundreds of years of foreign policy backs this up.

Quote:
Explain this.
When Prohibition started it required an amendment to criminalize alcohol. Compare that to today's war on drugs which kills far more people than Islam could hope to.

Immigration laws that are based on economic rhetoric about jobs and crime.

should I go on?
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 10:44 PM #1043
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I wouldn't say that, necessarily. You may be somewhat true and I am not without fault of contradicting myself from time to time. I am, after all, a developing human being

I do care that there are men who wish to live under Islamic law. If that's what they want, then all the power to them. I don't, however, believe that just because they want to live under such law means they should force others so, especially if those others are causing no harm. My stance on religion has been the same thing; you're fine to play with your toy as you see fit, just don't force your toy down my throat, nor the throats of anyone else who doesn't want to partake in the play of that toy.



Again, my problem lies within the fact that he didn't harm anyone. If Islamic law still deems a death penalty on him, then I find fault in that, as they would have absolutely no solid backing for their claims of "justice." I find problems with using nothing more than "belief" that has no evidential backing as the source for authority over others.
This has nothing to do with whether or not their religion.is correct and everything to do with them choosing to believe in and live under it.

If you want to have a chat about beliefs we can talk about the invasion of foreign nations to "liberate" the populace. When they say liberate they mean fight to instill our belief system to them. We assume we know what's best for everybody. We invade to bring or restore rights which are about as real as any god. Just a belief system and nothing more.

I know you have a problem with it because he didnt directly hurt anyone. Consider this. Say they allow people to freely blaspheme the prophet. Its not much of a stretch that others will begin to question and join in. People are social monkeys after all. After enough generations the culture might be long dead. What we see as absurd may be nothing more than a vanguard law to protect the culture and loyalty to its institutions.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 11:09 PM #1044
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Another point of consideration. The constitution is nothing more than a collection of political beliefs. Any citizen found undermining the constitution is committing treason punishable by death.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 09:51 PM #1045
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
I'll get to this when I'm not so damned hungover.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 12:29 PM #1046
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
In the Middle East Islam is not only the primary religion but the primary institution of governance. This gives the religion more political responsibility which is highly likely to lead to more bloodshed being associated with the religious institutions and not as much with the political, especially with such a primitive culture.

Here the primary religion is Christianity but it is not the primary institution of governance. Our formal governments represent the primary institution of governance. Religion can take more of a back seat and harness less of the criticism for political decision-making.
I'm for separating church from state. State gives the chance of better objectivity when its actions can be fully critiqued, since they cannot come from a "higher power."

Quote:
You aren't bettering them, you're only making them worse. Hundreds of years of foreign policy backs this up.
Reshaping Japan and Germany show how effective such things can be. At the same time, we have had disastrous results as well. This is interesting though, because you're again leaving things very broad. I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make. Worse in what way? Which policies back those up?

Quote:
When Prohibition started it required an amendment to criminalize alcohol. Compare that to today's war on drugs which kills far more people than Islam could hope to.

Immigration laws that are based on economic rhetoric about jobs and crime.

should I go on?
Using those as a source doesn't exhaust my critique. I'm with you. I think the war on drugs is wasted time and money. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my viewpoint and strive for ideals are legitimate or not.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 12:29 PM #1047
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
This has nothing to do with whether or not their religion.is correct and everything to do with them choosing to believe in and live under it.
If other knowledge is not practiced or obtained, they are not given much of a choice, are they? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong with that statement, but I think your point would be rather hard to see as being concrete.

Quote:
If you want to have a chat about beliefs we can talk about the invasion of foreign nations to "liberate" the populace. When they say liberate they mean fight to instill our belief system to them. We assume we know what's best for everybody. We invade to bring or restore rights which are about as real as any god. Just a belief system and nothing more.
I don't sanction the "liberation" actions either. That's not what I'm for and I do believe our actions over there have been, for the most part, barbaric and primitive in nature. Killing people is far from the best means of bettering a society.

Try and understand that I don't agree with everything this country and its people do. Taking the negative aspects out of our modern society is selectively attributing only those aspects. We do a lot of good for bettering people's level of well being in areas happiness, health, and peace of mind.

Quote:
I know you have a problem with it because he didnt directly hurt anyone. Consider this. Say they allow people to freely blaspheme the prophet. Its not much of a stretch that others will begin to question and join in. People are social monkeys after all. After enough generations the culture might be long dead. What we see as absurd may be nothing more than a vanguard law to protect the culture and loyalty to its institutions.
You say the culture might be long dead, but it might also strengthen their culture. It may just simply change their culture over time. You're making a great assumption about something you have no idea would be better or worse for the culture. Then, to further that, we have to ask are the people better with an unchanged or changed culture as well. A lowering of their culture dominance may lead to women receiving more rights and being treated more fairly. So, that's half the population being better off.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 01:00 PM #1048
Vit Beeyer (Banned)
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I'm for separating church from state. State gives the chance of better objectivity when its actions can be fully critiqued, since they cannot come from a "higher power."
The separation of church and state originally was a means of persecuting Catholics but I'll digress. We're all for that. But this isn't merely a matter of religious interests within a secular government. The religion is the government.


Quote:
Reshaping Japan and Germany show how effective such things can be. At the same time, we have had disastrous results as well. This is interesting though, because you're again leaving things very broad. I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make. Worse in what way? Which policies back those up?
It's ironic you'd pick the only two objective foreign policy success stories. If you look at our foreign interventions and attempts at nation-building over the past century you'd see only Japan and West Germany experienced improvements in the quality of life and government. 2 successes out of many, many more. And those 2 successes were so unique it's useless to discuss them in the context of nation-building in the middle east.

My point is quite simple: Foreign policy should never be about political, economic, or military interventions as a means of nation-building. It is one of the few definite failures of our government that should be easily agreed upon.


Quote:
Using those as a source doesn't exhaust my critique. I'm with you. I think the war on drugs is wasted time and money. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my viewpoint and strive for ideals are legitimate or not.
You need to stop being so arrogant and read what I write then. I never said it exhausted your critique, merely that I highly doubt the sincerity of your claims. This is more about your personal bias against religion than any altruistic concern with human suffering. If you're actually for that, and you're in any way concerned with real practical change rather than idealized mythical social engineering, then why don't I ever see you talking about it? It's always something to do with organized religion.
Vit Beeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 02:54 PM #1049
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
If other knowledge is not practiced or obtained, they are not given much of a choice, are they? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong with that statement, but I think your point would be rather hard to see as being concrete.
People born into any country are in some manner limited to what they can and can't practice. Hell our educational system shoves our own brand of mysticism down our throats by glorifying our notion of freedom equality and liberty. The point is, we are all limited by our exposure to the environment we live in. I'm not given much of a choice but to support the republic form of government and the constitution.

Blind patriotism comes to mind. Cue the country music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I don't sanction the "liberation" actions either. That's not what I'm for and I do believe our actions over there have been, for the most part, barbaric and primitive in nature. Killing people is far from the best means of bettering a society.

Try and understand that I don't agree with everything this country and its people do. Taking the negative aspects out of our modern society is selectively attributing only those aspects. We do a lot of good for bettering people's level of well being in areas happiness, health, and peace of mind.
The overarching point is that free from the shackles of abrahamic faith, we still do no better. Hell we are no less fixated on spreading our dogma worldwide than any faith might be.

I'm not entirely convinced that people are happy or experience a peace of mind here. Especially generations younger than the boomers. Look at our behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
You say the culture might be long dead, but it might also strengthen their culture. It may just simply change their culture over time. You're making a great assumption about something you have no idea would be better or worse for the culture. Then, to further that, we have to ask are the people better with an unchanged or changed culture as well. A lowering of their culture dominance may lead to women receiving more rights and being treated more fairly. So, that's half the population being better off.
No I said it would contribute to the death of the culture. You can't strengthen a culture based on a religion by removing belief in the religion. The two are inexorably linked. Besides the west is a good indication of what happens. The millennial generation are the most secular. The bulk of the remaining religious are vultures and weekenders.

It is more likely that they will simply embrace western consumerism with the aesthetic appearance of their heritage. Probably nothing more. Turkey was going that direction until the tables turned.

To hell with equal rights. People should only have the rights required for them to fulfill their roles. Code of Manu.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2012, 03:10 PM #1050
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer View Post
The separation of church and state originally was a means of persecuting Catholics but I'll digress. We're all for that. But this isn't merely a matter of religious interests within a secular government. The religion is the government.
Regardless of initial intent, we have seen the repercussions of separating church from the exclusive ability to govern. It's been astronomically better in all instances thus far, hasn't it?

Quote:
It's ironic you'd pick the only two objective foreign policy success stories. If you look at our foreign interventions and attempts at nation-building over the past century you'd see only Japan and West Germany experienced improvements in the quality of life and government. 2 successes out of many, many more. And those 2 successes were so unique it's useless to discuss them in the context of nation-building in the middle east.

My point is quite simple: Foreign policy should never be about political, economic, or military interventions as a means of nation-building. It is one of the few definite failures of our government that should be easily agreed upon.
I knew you would pick that out of my response. I should have expanded upon it further than "At the same time, we have had disastrous results as well." I do know that Japan and Germany are the minority in this case. But I also am not approving of military action for such idea spreading. I never have agreed with it and I never will. I completely agree with you in the second part of the quoted text above. I don't want to involve nation-building as much as I want an idealistic method for governance that is critiqued and based off real world evidence for a society's evolution.


Quote:
You need to stop being so arrogant and read what I write then. I never said it exhausted your critique, merely that I highly doubt the sincerity of your claims. This is more about your personal bias against religion than any altruistic concern with human suffering. If you're actually for that, and you're in any way concerned with real practical change rather than idealized mythical social engineering, then why don't I ever see you talking about it? It's always something to do with organized religion.
My personal bias isn't against religion itself. It's against the ease of control religion has on so many people. When religion is claimed as a justifiable cause for physical action, it crosses boundaries. It's claims are of the supernatural and it is too easily used to persuade those that don't understand the natural. It's the individual people that do this, but individuals can sum up to a larger whole, such as the countries in the Middle East that want to control their population to prevent free thought.

I do not believe using explanations of the supernatural to explain the purpose of the natural is a logical clause. When anyone is asked "what do you know of the supernatural?" we all get the same reply; we all have the same amount of knowledge and that is "I know nothing of it." Because of this, religion should hold no place in the governance of others. People who attempt to use it as a form of governance are attempting totalitarian rule, whether they realize it or not.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump