Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Freedom of Religion?
| Freedom of Religion? [message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 07:25  |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
another of spoony's "had a thought..." moments; strap yourself in, because it might be a bumpy ride.
it should be fairly evident that i'm a secularist. now, the first thing secularists usually say when advancing their arguments is something along the lines of "of course have freedom of religion, but..."
here's a question. why is it freedom of religion? why isn't it opinion or belief? let's start from the assumption that in any society that wants to call itself modern and free, you can't have thoughtcrime. orwell put the name to what must be the most extreme form of totalitarianism and dictatorship; the idea that you can be convicted because of what you think, what you privately want. that must be inalienable. (i could digress and say that several religions do teach that thoughtcrime is indeed a crime, Islam and Christianity being the most obvious examples... once again one side of the chess game says you aren't allowed to move on his side of the board... but that's besides the point.
actually, no, it isn't)
but religion isn't just what you think; it's generally a combination of thoughts AND actions. sometimes those actions are clearly in violation of laws and what are generally considered to be morals... i'll just pluck the islamic commandment to kill homosexuals as an example, it's as good as any. well, if we have freedom of religion... don't we have to allow them to do so? oh dear...
so why isn't it freedom of opinion or of belief rather than freedom of religion? you cannot allow religious freedom without severely hampering a whole bunch of human rights and democratic principles...
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354137 is a reply to message #354136] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 07:36  |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
which of my beliefs do you disagree with?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354138 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 07:39 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Now I just think you're going off on a stupid tangent, Spoony.
Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right.
I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit.
Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion".
whoa.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 07:41] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354144 is a reply to message #354138] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 09:23 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 |
Now I just think you're going off on a stupid tangent, Spoony.
Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right.
|
that's just nonsense. The right to own a gun is not the same as the right to shoot somebody; in exactly the way as the right to personally believe whether there is a god is not the same as to use your beliefs to interfere with other peoples' lives.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 |
I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit.
|
secularism means you don't end up with a state religion...
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 |
Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion".
|
Just to take one example, would you not agree that circumcision is a clear impediment of another's rights? Shouldn't a person have the right to decide for yourself, once you've reached an age where you're capable of making and expressing an informed decision, whether you want a scalpel taken to your genitalia?
Why's it even allowed? Religion. Why do authorities turn a blind eye to the thousands of girls who are victims of the female version (and like I said before in other threads, if there is anything more disgusting and barbaric going on in this day and age than that, I'm unaware of it)? Putting a stop to that should be the absolute number one fucking priority in this country as far as I'm concerned, but nobody cares. Why? Religion.
Imagine for a second if a political party, not a religion, did this. Or imagine if a political party said that people who don't vote for them are in for an eternity of torture. (The only flaw is that children can't vote, otherwise I'd have said "children" rather than "people" since the appalling doctrine of telling people they'll be tortured for ever after they're dead is even worse when an adult 'authority figure' applies it to the innocent, unformed mind of a child).
It is not hard to imagine the outcry if it was a political party rather than a religion who did these despicable things religions do. When it's religion, there seems to be a get out of jail free card. Why?
Little exercise for my fellow Brits. Next time you read Islam doing something unpleasant, a Muslim suing somebody because they're "offended" or demanding Islamic values enforced onto other people etc... read the article and note the automatic deference to religion. Then read it again but mentally substitute "Islam" for "the BNP", and think about whether the outcome would be the same. I've started doing this myself recently. Since nobody has ever successfully explained why religion actually deserves the automatic respect it always seems to get, try mentally substituting religions for political parties. It isn't hard to see the elephant when you do.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 09:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354147 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 09:48 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
You're clearly not understanding what the fuck I'm talking about.
I'm not making an argument for religion. Like you, I hate religion. I am fully aware of the horrors that go about under the guise of religion. You don't have to convince me that religion is dangerous, but that's not the point I'm making.
As I said, the reason why it's freedom of "religion" instead of "beliefs" or "opinion" is simple. The founding fathers worded that intentionally.
Using the second amendment right as an example that you misinterpreted... just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you're forced to own a gun. You can choose to waive that right to own a gun. You, again, have the right to freedom of speech. You can shout to the high heavens, or you can censor yourself. You can choose to be a part of a religion, or you can choose to ignore religion completely.
If they had used the word opinion or beliefs, that still opens the doors widely for a state religion. Good luck trying to get everybody to believe in secularism, and good luck getting politicians to abandon their beliefs when their constituents are too fucking stupid to vote for a candidate that renounces religion. There's a reason why neo-cons have been trying to label Obama as a Muslim... because Christianity is held in high regard by both liberals and conservatives.
What if the founding fathers said you had a right to protect yourself instead of the right to bear arms? You'd see gun-hating liberals trying to get rid of guns because guns aren't the only thing that is needed to protect one's self. If they said the right to beliefs or opinion, they would still say that you have the right to believe what you want as long as you're a part of the state religion.
Don't think state religions are unusual or improbable because history would laugh in your face.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354164 is a reply to message #354151] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 11:54 |
 |
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 18:07 |
I'm talking about the "freedom of religion" in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers are the few men that pretty much led the charge against the British and signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the U.S. Constitution.
|
Yes, but by 'state' religion, spoony means the 'official' religion of a country, not a specific state in America...so how the founding fathers worded it dosn't affect the entire world.
I'm mostly against religion, as their idea of right and wrong can get so twisted it's unbelieveable. What's annoying is when Religion dictates media, or so to speak. By that, i mean TV can't show a specific thing just because it's against a certain religion...or any belief actually, not just religion.
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354172 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 12:12 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
*facepalm*
You've completely missed the point. Even if I DID mean individual states having religions, that's beside the fucking point.
My whole argument was about how "freedom of religion" makes more sense than "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of beliefs". Then I made a comment about how, at least for America, the wording was intentional and makes sense.
whoa.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 12:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354181 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 12:55 |
 |
jnz
Messages: 3396
Registered: July 2006
Location: 30th century
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
You're supporting "freedom to religion" implying that anyone can believe in any religion, but you're also saying they can't practice it. Big contradiction there, and since they can't practice it, there is no freedom to religion.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 12:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354191 is a reply to message #354138] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:24 |
|
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
Alright, you asked for it:
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 15:39 |
Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right.
|
You start that paragraph off like you might be going someone then don't.
| Quote: |
I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit.
|
How would that work out? I mean, you say changing it to 'freedom of opinion' would make it a state religion where, essentially, people would be forced to believe whatever the highest authority believes....i see contradiction there mate.
| Quote: |
Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion".
|
Nobody here said that was right.
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354193 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:30 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Holy shit, you're an idiot. I really didn't want to have to result to insults, but holy shit.
The first thing you quoted is all that really needed to be said. Changing it from freedom of "religion" to freedom of "opinion" or "beliefs" opens up the law for the government to establish a state religion.
Trust me, if you give the government an inch of power, they'll take a mile. It's just how government is. It's evil, and it will always be evil. It's power-hungry, and if you give it a chance to seize power and control the people, it will.
You don't seem to get it, at all. Having the freedom to think differently is not the same as having the freedom to practice differently. If the government controls your actions, having the ability to think differently really doesn't mean shit.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354195 is a reply to message #354193] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:37 |
|
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:30 |
Holy shit, you're an idiot. I really didn't want to have to result to insults, but holy shit.
|
I notice you do that alot anyway.
| Quote: |
The first thing you quoted is all that really needed to be said. Changing it from freedom of "religion" to freedom of "opinion" or "beliefs" opens up the law for the government to establish a state religion.
Trust me, if you give the government an inch of power, they'll take a mile. It's just how government is. It's evil, and it will always be evil. It's power-hungry, and if you give it a chance to seize power and control the people, it will.
You don't seem to get it, at all. Having the freedom to think differently is not the same as having the freedom to practice differently. If the government controls your actions, having the ability to think differently really doesn't mean shit.
|
You could say they control us now anyway. I mean, i'm 17 so can't legally drink yet if i wanted too, which is the government controlling me.
There are some 'religious practises' people would find inhumane, and i still don't see how your reductio ad absurdum is right...
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354197 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:41 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct.
When did I ever imply that the government doesn't already control us? I'd argue to the contrary. Which is why freedom of religion was established in the first place to help keep the government from controlling every aspect of one's life. Besides, one of the main reasons why America was colonized in the first place, besides fur trade, was to get away from state religion.
whoa.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 14:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354198 is a reply to message #354197] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:46 |
|
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 |
How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct.
|
Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think.
We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition.
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354201 is a reply to message #354198] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:49 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| insert_name_here wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 17:46 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 |
How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct.
|
Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think.
We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition.
|
You're assuming this because we're already living in a society with these precautions as law. What if freedom of religion was never given?
---------------
The whole idea that we allow inhumane activities because of religion is a little absurd. In fact, allowing freedom of religion actually helps to protect people from this. Ignoring the subject of circumcision, you're not allowed to sacrifice your neighbor for the sake of your religion because that would be forcing him to adhere to your religion's practices. That wouldn't be allowed under freedom of religion.
As for circumcision, it's no longer a practice of religion, for the most part. It's so common that it would still exist even as Christianity dwindles. It's a prime example of tradition of religion becoming a societal norm without the religion having any influence over the act.
whoa.
[Updated on: Sun, 12 October 2008 15:03] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354202 is a reply to message #354201] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 14:58 |
|
futura83
Messages: 1285
Registered: July 2006
Location: England
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Viva la Resistance! |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:49 |
| insert_name_here wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 17:46 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 |
How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct.
|
Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think.
We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition.
|
You're assuming this because we're already living in a society with these precautions as law. What if freedom of religion was never given?
|
That's a good question.
What could have happened is:
Religion was very strict, and people lived in fear, which would cause more country rivalries as they have different beliefs and there could be wars....so basiclly how it was before freedom of speech.
But saying that, i'll admit i don't know what truly came first; freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
I'd say that (in America) it was freedom of speech, as i know in the 1800s Mormons were prosecuted for their beliefs (namely marrying multiple women...the term of which slips my mind) whereas freedom of speech was done by the founding fathers years before.
This is a signature. Reading this is wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354203 is a reply to message #354134] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 15:06 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
One thing you have to realize is that the government doesn't always listen to law, too. Unfortunately, you can only put things in law, regulating government in hopes that government officials adhere to the laws. In America, we've seen the Constitution become less and less important.
Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, in America, came hand-in-hand with the Constitution. However, as I said above, that doesn't mean the government obeys the restrictions it's given... as you referenced with the persecution of Mormons, and as we see with the persecution/prejudice of Islam.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Freedom of Religion? [message #354265 is a reply to message #354147] |
Mon, 13 October 2008 04:27 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
Using the second amendment right as an example that you misinterpreted... just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you're forced to own a gun. You can choose to waive that right to own a gun. You, again, have the right to freedom of speech. You can shout to the high heavens, or you can censor yourself. You can choose to be a part of a religion, or you can choose to ignore religion completely.
|
your complete lack of understanding of this entire thread is very nicely illustrated by this paragraph. Read each post from me again until you get it. I am talking about the automatic deference we seem to give to religion to interfere in other people's lives, when no secular excuse would be allowed. I am talking about the fact that while letting someone believe there is a God is okay because the Bible says so, letting someone kill homosexuals because the Bible says that too is not okay. What's the difference? Not religion, clearly.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
If they had used the word opinion or beliefs, that still opens the doors widely for a state religion. Good luck trying to get everybody to believe in secularism, and good luck getting politicians to abandon their beliefs when their constituents are too fucking stupid to vote for a candidate that renounces religion. There's a reason why neo-cons have been trying to label Obama as a Muslim... because Christianity is held in high regard by both liberals and conservatives.
|
The first sentence in this paragraph is the really puzzling one. Freedom from religion would open the door to a state religion... okiedokie. Freedom from religion is the POLAR OPPOSITE.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
If they said the right to beliefs or opinion, they would still say that you have the right to believe what you want as long as you're a part of the state religion.
|
When you pay taxes and extraordinary amounts of money go to undeserved religious causes, when religions are allowed to get away in court with the kind of crimes no secular organisation would... you are part of the state religion. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
Don't think state religions are unusual or improbable because history would laugh in your face.
|
you're really, really confused. I never said state religions are unusual and improbable. I am arguing against them, dumbass. Secular democracies, they're the unusual and improbable ones; there's only one country's constitution in the history of the world (AFAIK) which says anything about church and state, and it clearly isn't being followed.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
My whole argument was about how "freedom of religion" makes more sense than "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of beliefs". Then I made a comment about how, at least for America, the wording was intentional and makes sense.
|
Then you allow anyone to carry out any immoral action as long as they remember to say it's part of their religion?
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
Changing it from freedom of "religion" to freedom of "opinion" or "beliefs" opens up the law for the government to establish a state religion.
|
You already have several state religions. You just can't see them.
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
You don't seem to get it, at all. Having the freedom to think differently is not the same as having the freedom to practice differently.
|
that's the point I've been unsuccessfully trying to get through to you, einstein...
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 |
The whole idea that we allow inhumane activities because of religion is a little absurd. In fact, allowing freedom of religion actually helps to protect people from this. Ignoring the subject of circumcision, you're not allowed to sacrifice your neighbor for the sake of your religion because that would be forcing him to adhere to your religion's practices. That wouldn't be allowed under freedom of religion.
As for circumcision, it's no longer a practice of religion, for the most part. It's so common that it would still exist even as Christianity dwindles. It's a prime example of tradition of religion becoming a societal norm without the religion having any influence over the act.
|
sigh...
read this again. Spoony said, regarding circumcision:
Why's it even allowed? Religion. Why do authorities turn a blind eye to the thousands of girls who are victims of the female version (and like I said before in other threads, if there is anything more disgusting and barbaric going on in this day and age than that, I'm unaware of it)? Putting a stop to that should be the absolute number one fucking priority in this country as far as I'm concerned, but nobody cares. Why? Religion.
Imagine for a second if a political party, not a religion, did this. Or imagine if a political party said that people who don't vote for them are in for an eternity of torture. (The only flaw is that children can't vote, otherwise I'd have said "children" rather than "people" since the appalling doctrine of telling people they'll be tortured for ever after they're dead is even worse when an adult 'authority figure' applies it to the innocent, unformed mind of a child).
It is not hard to imagine the outcry if it was a political party rather than a religion who did these despicable things religions do. When it's religion, there seems to be a get out of jail free card. Why?
clearly you've actually read my posts, otherwise you surely wouldn't have the amazing nerve to say things like "Holy shit, you're an idiot. I really didn't want to have to result to insults, but holy shit", "You don't seem to get it, at all", and "You're clearly not understanding what the fuck I'm talking about.". I can only, therefore, assume you have read the post about female circumcision and are unmoved by it.
Firstly, here are some of your responses to that very post whose absurdity I could barely add to if I tried:
"The whole idea that we allow inhumane activities because of religion is a little absurd."
I would be very surprised to find a single case of female genital mutilation, out of the thousands that have been inflicted in this country and are still being inflicted today (in the 21st century in one of the most advanced nations in the world...) that was done for a reason other than Islam.
"In fact, allowing freedom of religion actually helps to protect people from this."
Uh no, the only reason our authorities do nothing about it is because we mustn't offend the religious. Freedom of religion? Children are allowed to be indoctrinated before they're old enough to really decide for themselves what's what, and you think there is such a thing as freedom of religion?
"As for circumcision, it's no longer a practice of religion, for the most part. It's so common that it would still exist even as Christianity dwindles. It's a prime example of tradition of religion becoming a societal norm without the religion having any influence over the act."
Again, the complete lack of response to the really horrific version (where the victims are female) puzzles me. And yet if a law was passed saying you can't take a scalpel to a child's genitalia, and you need informed, adult consent of the person to do anything of the sort, it's not hard to picture the rage it would generate from Christians.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Sep 27 07:51:05 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01433 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
