(July 1, 2010 at 11:03 am)Furiidomu Wrote: I would ask the same question to you as the previous responder. Are laws not to be changed?I wouldn't say laws are "to be" changed. They can change; some of them should, some of them shouldn't. If you want to change the law, you must have a very good reason for doing so. Let me now ask you a question:
Why do you think the law should be changed and churches banned? What reasons do you have for getting rid of them?
Quote:As for your second comment, if they were banned I don't see how they would spring up in the same form. And since it is clear some people still want them, is that a reason to say that they should exist?Firstly I didn't say they would spring up in the same form, I said they would spring up again, with new themes, new ideas, etc. Churches were once banned in communist China, so they all moved underground. They never disappeared completely.
Yes, I believe that if people want something, and it isn't harming anyone else, there should't be any reason why they cannot have it. A church is a building; it is given meaning by the people who use it. If enough people want a building in which they can worship, talk, meet friends, etc, why not let them have it?
Quote:I understand that my question may seem extreme and hateful, but all new ideas seem radical at first. Please refrain from belitting my question by attacking me personally. Maybe you should ask me why I feel the way I do before assuming my motive is selfish.I didn't belittle the question, nor did I attack you personally. You said quite clearly in your original post that you personally wanted churches to be banned:
"I think churches should be banned as they exist today."
I pointed out that you are clearly putting your own opinion above that of the society. Society clearly does not want churches banned (given that the large majority of society is religious), and it is grossly unfair to have something banned because a few people think like that.
