Quote:
Originally Posted by calyman
FFS!
I think you're missing the argument I'm making. Generally it'sL:
1) The church is well practised at changing the spiritual and athical goalposts when it suits.
2) Marrauge is NOT just a union blessed by some geezer in a frock
3)Spiritual organisations should be given no special dsipensations by the state to enforce it's prejudices upon the rest of us
4) No spiritual organisation should be involved in the Government of this country.
5)If spiritual organisations take it upon themselves to pontifcate to the rest of us about morals, ethics etc. Then as a Humanist, I see no inherent respect should be given to them for real or unintended offence given to others. basically, if they can give it out, they can damn well receive it back.
I would further argue that any special privileges they receive from the state should also be withdrawn. Let their message of superstition rely on it's own merits, not through avoidance of paying taxes etc, not through special provisions enshrined in Law which privilege's them against other worthier organisations.
|
In answer to some of your points
1)You say "The Church", which church do you refer to?
2) So why is it so important for gay people to have their union blessed by some geezer in a frock
3) They arent, they do not enforce anything on anyone, people arent kept tethered to a particular religion, if you dont like one particualr religion go and find another one that suits you, if you need a religion.
4) Thats a traditional role in the Upper House, they dont actually carry a lot of power and have to abstain in certain debates and votes.
5) I hope as a humanist you hold the same values for everyone, does that include someone who believes in a particular religion and lives his life by those rules but hasnt forced his beliefs on anyone, nor criticised others for their lifestyles or beliefs?