(June 3, 2014 at 2:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(June 2, 2014 at 11:54 pm)Godschild Wrote: So you want to see politics sanitized, what would you call it and what good would it be?

GC

Having a belief does not grant anyone privileged status.

Christians 400 years worked that out, GC. Neutrality is the best way to protect freedom for and of religion.

You have the wrong idea, you assume I was trying to defend Christianity in politics. Why because I'm a Christian and you think my only concern is for Christian rights, all peoples have rights in this country and have the right to be heard in our political system. If you remove one from the system then all are vulnerable, it's just a matter of time. That's why I asked do you think you can sanitize the political system and still have one.

GC

(June 3, 2014 at 10:19 am)Godschild Wrote:

(June 3, 2014 at 2:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Having a belief does not grant anyone privileged status.

Christians 400 years worked that out, GC. Neutrality is the best way to protect freedom for and of religion.

You have the wrong idea, you assume I was trying to defend Christianity in politics. Why because I'm a Christian and you think my only concern is for Christian rights, all peoples have rights in this country and have the right to be heard in our political system. If you remove one from the system then all are vulnerable, it's just a matter of time. That's why I asked do you think you can sanitize the political system and still have one.

GC

I made no reference to Christianity per se, rather the advent of secularism and the Christians who made the leap in advocating it.

And I agree with you; all people have the right to be heard, and I would fight to defend that right.

What I would also fight for is the rights of people to criticise a religion and a religious belief, to de-convert or change their religion.

Equally, however, The state cannot endorse a religion or a religious belief. In your country (the US) that would directly contravene the 1st amendment as the state would be seen to be giving precedence, even if in name or by association, to one 'belief' over another.

There is a difference. To be clear, neither secularism, nor the 1st amendment (I presume), removes the right of those who (don't) espouse a religious belief to voice their opinions or indeed their religious beliefs. What it does stop is someone's opinion or their views from being discounted because of their (lack of) of belief.

You may have a different view to me, but I don't think pluralism when it comes to religious beliefs (or indeed the lack thereof) is sanitising anything.

(June 3, 2014 at 2:26 am)vodkafan Wrote: I think the problem is that in Christianity and Islam there is no conception of "Live and let live" .

1 Peter 4:15-16

15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.


One of my favorite Bible verses

(June 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm)alpha male Wrote: It's only the ones like Christianity and Islam, which judge people, that you really care about.

Let me fix that for you:
It's only the ones like Christianity and Islam, with people who judge other people, that you really care about.

Much better, and more accurate.

(June 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I rather doubt it's one side or the other being asinine as it is just the natural tendency to stereotype and demonize those who think and feel differently than you do. That's human nature, and it crops up in politics, race, gender issues, wherever there's a drastic difference of opinion, our ordinary psychological biases will lead us to demonize the other side.

Hmm, Rasetsu, you're good at this. Brains and beauty, that's all I really want. Is that too much for a guy to ask?