Phony Religious Fuckwits Lose In Court

[A Theist]

It's hilarious how levelling the playing field is seen as persecution.

 The age of reason is coming and it has no problem throwing Jesus into the same pile as all other versions of nonsense.

The age of reason and enlightenment. It influenced the French revolution and ushered in the Reign of Terror. The enlightened  authority didn't take well to being disagreed with. So they persecuted and put to death thousands of citizens they took issue with, and many, merely on just suspicion. Better than 16,000 of those were put to death by the guillotine, and another 25,000 were executed by other means across France. Yeah, funny how we see this as the first steps to a wider elimination of religious liberty and free speech by you so-called enlightened ones.

[robvalue]

What utter irrelevance and false equivocation. You're the first person to mention guillotines.

So you think it's OK to break the law if you cite any old religious reason, yes? Is that your stance?

[abaris]

What utter irrelevance and false equivocation. You're the first person to mention guillotines.

So you think it's OK to break the law if you cite any old religious reason, yes? Is that your stance?

Just ignore him. He's found a wiki page and copied it nearly word for word from there. And I mean word for word. He's probably not opened a real history book in his whole life.

[robvalue]

I've been trying to. He's been wibbling on like this all over the place and I thought it was time he took responsibility for what he is saying. I'll be impressed if he does.

[A Theist]

What utter irrelevance and false equivocation. You're the first person to mention guillotines.

So you think it's OK to break the law if you cite any old religious reason, yes? Is that your stance?

I merely mentioned a historical fact, that so called enlightened ones don't tolerate disagreement. Even to the point of persecution in many forms. I think where this particular law is concerned, gay marriage being contrary to the moral conscience of people of faith, Christians and other religions who are also opposed to this should be exempt from participation to preserve the right of protection under the Constitution to free speech and religious liberty.

[robvalue]

Here's another historical fact: Steve Davis won a bunch of snooker tournaments.

So-called Christians once did something bad, probably.

Well, that was fun. Back to reality.

[abaris]

I merely mentioned a historical fact, that so called enlightened ones don't tolerate disagreement.

Yeah, you know how it is with historical facts. They're only part of the bigger jigsaw called history. They don't happen in a vacuum and if you read just a little bit further on that wiki page you copied, you would have actually started to scratch the surface.

It's obvious that you don't know the first thing about the age of enlightenment. Otherwise you might have noticed that your constitution is heavily influenced by that line of thought. But for that you would have to look at the biographies of the so called founding fathers, which of course I don't expect you to do. The Prussian king Frederick II was a big fan of enlightenment and surrounded himself with the most prominent proponents of the movement. And so was the Russian queen Catherine the Great. That might hint at enlightenment not meaning what you think it means and that things are never as simple as looking at a single wiki page and copying the one part that seems to confirm your preconceived notion.

[A Theist]

What utter irrelevance and false equivocation. You're the first person to mention guillotines.

So you think it's OK to break the law if you cite any old religious reason, yes? Is that your stance?

Just ignore him.

You couldn't if you tried.

[robvalue]

A guy gets rushed into ER with a gunshot wound.

The doctor says, "Sorry, my religion forbids me from treating this guy. He is patient number 246 this year, and it clearly says in my holy book that I can't treat patient 246."

"That's OK doctor, we'll change the law so that it's OK not to treat patient 246. You're free of all responsibility. I'll amend your oath accordingly, and I'll fetch another doctor."

"Ah sorry, we're all of the same weird religion here. I guess he's going to die."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What utter irrelevance and false equivocation. You're the first person to mention guillotines.

So you think it's OK to break the law if you cite any old religious reason, yes? Is that your stance?

I merely mentioned a historical fact, that so called enlightened ones don't tolerate disagreement. Even to the point  of persecution in many forms. I think where this particular law is concerned, gay marriage being contrary to the moral conscience of people of faith, Christians and other religions who are also opposed to this should be exempt from participation to preserve the right of protection under the Constitution to free speech and religious liberty.

As I understand it, your own courts have decided that same sex marriage is now one of those Constitutionally protected rights you seem so concerned with. But no one is asking Christians to participate in gay marriage, though, just as no one is asking atheists to attend religious services. You're merely being asked to not get in the way of other people exercising their rights.

As for 'contrary to the moral conscience of people of faith', so what? In secular societies law trumps faith, every time (in fact, this is what makes them secular societies in the first place). If you object to gay people being married, then simply make sure you don't marry a gay person. I object to baptisms, so I never attend one.

See how easy it can be?

Boru