Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?

Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.

So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?

I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...

The Boy is going steady with a vegan (I guess you expect that in Austin). It puts a cramp in the old barbeque. We're hoping he drops this one and dates a fine easy on the eyes Aggie, but don't tell anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.

I would happily call you a liar, to your face.

I think, if I know Frazzled, is that he would bust out laughing. He never strikes me as an internet tough guy. Only guys with small weiners act tough on the internet, and I have been told he's got a big one.

My wiener weighs 16 lbs!!!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.

Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?

You try passing a watermelon sized object. You'll learn real quick why women suffer!

This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.

If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.

Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.

 Kojiro wrote:
Concession accepted. Thanks!

Don't be a twit. There is no concession in me simply repeating my point.

I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply?

Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...

To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.

 sebster wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
Concession accepted. Thanks!

Don't be a twit. There is no concession in me simply repeating my point.

I mean if you know the difference almost makes me wonder what you issue was with my post initially that caused you to reply?

Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...

To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.

Very nicely put.

 sebster wrote:

Don't be a twit. There is no concession in me simply repeating my point.

Which version of your point exactly would that be? Would it be the religion=people you argued for or that there IS a difference between them you can see?

 sebster wrote:
Because when the conversation is about persecution, then people popping in to talk about how some kinds of attacks are okay are, or at least are likely to be seen as, attempts to minimise that persecution.

LOL! Now I'm a religious persecution apologist because I think ideas should be criticised? Riiiiight. You realise that my comment that spawned this exchange came before any mention of persecution right? I'll try harder to fit my replies to the context- even when it hasn't yet arisen.

 Kojiro wrote:
Which version of your point exactly would that be? Would it be the religion=people you argued for or that there IS a difference between them you can see?

Sigh. Of course there is a difference. A person and an abstract concept are not in fact the same thing. That's why one is called 'a religion' and the other is called 'a person'. And they have all sorts of differences - I've just looked it up and while a person can legally drive a car whereas a religion, being an intangible collection of philosophical, moral and spiritual beliefs, is at present prevented from attempting the driver's test.

But in terms of the point made about persecution... the two things are one in the same because, due to our now established point about a religion being an intangible collection of philosophical, moral and spiritual beliefs... you can't actually put it in prison, or shoot it with Mosin-Nagant. If you want to attack that religion, you must target the believers of that religion.

Do you understand the distinction now?

LOL! Now I'm a religious persecution apologist because I think ideas should be criticised? Riiiiight.

Oh come on. My response to you was a single sentence and you still managed to miss this part "or at least are likely to be seen as". Are you actively looking for opportunities to be silly?

You realise that my comment that spawned this exchange came before any mention of persecution right? I'll try harder to fit my replies to the context- even when it hasn't yet arisen.

Yeah, and when you started talking about that I was actually on your side. Then people mentioned persecution, and you went off on that weird tangent, and I thought I'd make a comment that clarified your point. That was a mistake, because you decided to be ridiculous.

I think the problem people have is that some people will point to the bible as their reason for why something is wrong but then ignore other things that the bible says are wrong because they want to belive that's ok.

When you persecute or judge another person based on what a book says is wrong at least have the integrity to either say it's your own perceived bias that you are using the bible to back up or go the whole hog and condem everything the bible condemns.

Saying this part that you do is wrong but this part that I do is just a methapor is either deliberately deceptive or accidentally deceptive.

 sebster wrote:

Sigh. Of course there is a difference. A person and an abstract concept are not in fact the same thing....If you want to attack that religion, you must target the believers of that religion.

In so much as education, discourse and debate are 'targeting the believers' I agree. No sense preaching to the choir. Where I disagree with you is that in order to combat religious dogma and ideas you must hurt or persecute people (which seems to be what you're implying). In the spirit of the topic and not getting any further off track, or personal, I'll leave this here.

 Kojiro wrote:
In so much as education, discourse and debate are 'targeting the believers' I agree. No sense preaching to the choir. Where I disagree with you is that in order to combat religious dogma and ideas you must hurt or persecute people (which seems to be what you're implying).

No, I'm absolutely not implying that, and someone can criticise the religion without it being an attack on its members, and certainly not an attack on its members. My point is simply that that distinction, while true, is empty as a rebuttal to instances of actual persecution.

 sebster wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Be that as it may, Christians do cherry-pick from the bible only the parts that suit them. They kind of need to...

To be fair, we all cherry-pick from our own personal standards... because we're just people. We're not perfect, and while we aspire to great moral standards, we regularly fall short, and one of the biggest ways we fall short is in our willingness to honestly assess ourselves by our own moral codes.

Thanks Sebster, I actually exalted this because it's such a good point. I'm sure there are lots of times when I don't personally live up to my own standards, or when I realise that I need to change something. But that's half of the point... Admitting that your standards are flawed and human makes it possible to challenge them honestly, and make them better. If you convince yourself that your own personal standards come from God, then you have painted yourself into a corner when they require changing. You are left in the awkward situation where you either have to admit that they are human and flawed (in which case adhering to them at all becomes incidental), or you go on dogmatically believing the wrong thing. Occasionally you get the "reinterpretation" BS, like when creationists suddenly find dinosaurs in the Bible.

The other half of the point is that it isn't just about personal belief for your own life. The "God hates fags" people were definitely trying to impose their views on others. Oops sorry! I meant God's views. We see this happening on a whole range of issues, like gay marriage, evolution, and abortion. These people are incredibly self righteous doing 'the lords work'. So yes, I think we are allowed to call BS when we see them just ignoring and disregarding other parts,not only from the same Bible, but from the same passages that they use to attack others. If it's okay for them to trim their beard, braid their hair, have a round haircut and wear polyester, then why is it definitely not okay to be gay? And most importantly who is deciding this stuff? Because it isn't God. According to the passage: none of these things are okay. If it is just the individual picking and choosing what they personally think is okay, then they should stop saying that it's god, and just admit that they personally hate gays because they're bigots.

 Frazzled wrote:
I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.

That's okay, I'm sorry if I came across unnecessarily confrontational. I wasn't trying to say it as "You are a liar and a scoundrel sir!" *throws down gauntlet*. I think I more misinterpreted what you said. You were talking about Christians not being bound by Mosaic law, and I thought you were saying that the Old Testament wasn't a part of the Christian belief system at all. Having attended a Church school, I recall that there was a lot of Old Testament.

We were probably at cross points anyway, because my main gripe would be with militant people who spout those laws at others, but don't follow or even believe in them themselves. Which is somewhat hypocritical. It might surprise you that I'm actually quite open to people believing in a higher power, or whatever they find helpful. But I take issue with the Bible often being used as a weapon, especially when it is such a tangled web of "interpretations".

Relapse wrote:

You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.

Only if you're on the same metaphorical page.

 Frazzled wrote:

My wiener weighs 16 lbs!!!

I weep for your pelvis.

 sebster wrote:
This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.

If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.

Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.

And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?

I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.

The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.

Result and cause may be mixed up in that.

It sounds like the Swiss law banning minarets on mosques because they would be taller than other buildings and look bad. (Ignoring the number of tall buildings such as church towers already seen in Swiss towns.)

The state can be secular without its employees having to be secular. In fact, to enforce any particular dress code that bans religious dress, is a non-secular act.

Relapse wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.

Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?

You try passing a watermelon sized object. You'll learn real quick why women suffer!

That is not the reason given by Christianity . It is supposed to be about a talking snake and a magical fruit and all that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It sounds like the Swiss law banning minarets on mosques because they would be taller than other buildings and look bad. (Ignoring the number of tall buildings such as church towers already seen in Swiss towns.)

At least the part about no call to prayer was an awesome decision, I just wish they would extend it to christian bell-ringing. In la Chaux de Fond, it is a real pain in the ass ! It is both extremely loud (and I mean “You need to increase the volume of your TV even if all you windows are completely closed, else you will not be able to hear anything that is being said” level), and very long (more than 20 minutes !).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In fact, to enforce any particular dress code that bans religious dress, is a non-secular act.

It is. If you enforce any dress code, you are in practice banning one kind of religious dress or another. So, not caring about banning religious dress is just a necessity.

I wonder what the Canadian armed forces chaplains will wear.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder what the Canadian armed forces chaplains will wear.

At weekends I imagine it will be some kind of frilly number...

"cut down trees, I skip and jump,
I like to press wild flowers,
I put on women's clothing,
And hang around in bars."

 Frazzled wrote:

My wiener weighs 16 lbs!!!

I weep for your pelvis.

In Stalinist Russia, pelvis weeps for YOU!

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.

If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.

Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.

And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?

I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.

The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.

The general consensus out west is this is an attack on hijabs etc, disguised as secularism. It's institutionalised racism.

Back OT, surely the idea of highly advanced extra-terrestrials is more plausible then a supernatural omnipotent god. Surely?

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.

Only if you're on the same metaphorical page.

 Frazzled wrote:

My wiener weighs 16 lbs!!!

I weep for your pelvis.

I weep for his wifes' pelvis

Bullockist wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.

Only if you're on the same metaphorical page.

 Frazzled wrote:

My wiener weighs 16 lbs!!!

I weep for your pelvis.

I weep for his wifes' pelvis

Bow chicka wow wow


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.

Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?

You try passing a watermelon sized object. You'll learn real quick why women suffer!

That is not the reason given by Christianity . It is supposed to be about a talking snake and a magical fruit and all that.

.

It was neccesary for Adam and Eve to take the forbidden fruit. If they hadn't, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no children. God was not cursing Eve, but letting her know what was to come.

feeder wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

Spoiler:

 sebster wrote:
This thing where people try to criticize other people's moral codes by calling it 'making up rules' or 'picking what parts of your religion you like' is basically a waste of time. Because here's the thing - either you assume other people are honestly engaged in trying to find a set of ethics, or you assume they're engaged in a deceitful attempt to create a personal moral code that lets them do whatever they want.

If it's the former, then dismissing their efforts or trying to trap them by how you personally interpret their morals is a dickish thing to do. If it's the latter then they'll just weasel their way out with some more invented bs. So either way it's a waste of time.

Don't take this as me thinking that there's no point talking about ethics and morality - because I don't believe that at all. But that conversation is interesting and constructive when it's an honest attempt to learn about others, that starts with an assumption that other people are just as earnest in trying to be a good person as you are.

And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?

I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.

The day the sight of a veil is enough to convert someone to islam... oï vey. And as a result, there has been a wave of islamophobia in the province. Not even directed at healthcare workers, just random muslim women.

The general consensus out west is this is an attack on hijabs etc, disguised as secularism. It's institutionalised racism.

Back OT, surely the idea of highly advanced extra-terrestrials is more plausible then a supernatural omnipotent god. Surely?

Good on you for realizing this. Now please explain this to the great majority of us.

Back OT as well. I dunno, I would think so, because you can somehow throw numbers about and work out vague probabilities.

Did anyone see the Comedy Central announcement?
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/comedy-central-offers-creationists-answers-genesis-weekly-time-slot-present-scientific-facts/

 Smacks wrote:
Thanks Sebster, I actually exalted this because it's such a good point. I'm sure there are lots of times when I don't personally live up to my own standards, or when I realise that I need to change something. But that's half of the point... Admitting that your standards are flawed and human makes it possible to challenge them honestly, and make them better. If you convince yourself that your own personal standards come from God, then you have painted yourself into a corner when they require changing. You are left in the awkward situation where you either have to admit that they are human and flawed (in which case adhering to them at all becomes incidental), or you go on dogmatically believing the wrong thing. Occasionally you get the "reinterpretation" BS, like when creationists suddenly find dinosaurs in the Bible.

True, but I don't think that kind of self-satisfaction is common among all Christians or religious people, and nor is it exclusive to them - spend some time among the atheist left wing and you'll meet all kinds of people who are horribly self-satisfied about their own personal morals.

The other half of the point is that it isn't just about personal belief for your own life. The "God hates fags" people were definitely trying to impose their views on others. Oops sorry! I meant God's views. We see this happening on a whole range of issues, like gay marriage, evolution, and abortion. These people are incredibly self righteous doing 'the lords work'. So yes, I think we are allowed to call BS when we see them just ignoring and disregarding other parts,not only from the same Bible, but from the same passages that they use to attack others. If it's okay for them to trim their beard, braid their hair, have a round haircut and wear polyester, then why is it definitely not okay to be gay?

In my opinion even if they personally lived a 100% biblically pure life, they still wouldn't get to tell other people how they get to live. That's really the issue.

Not that opposition to homosexuality has any real, meaningful basis in the bible. Like hell, Christmas and lots of other stuff, its real place has been kind of added as part of the overall Christian zeitgeist over centuries, raised up in importance by the work of Christian leaders. At the same time, lots of other rules were dropped or forgotten about as culture changed. There was a time when slavery was believed by many Christians to have a strong biblical foundation - other Christians took up that fight and won, and in time the biblical basis for slavery has been quietly dropped to the point where few Christians will remember it anymore.

It's why trying to debate Christianity with specific verses from the Bible just doesn't work. The religion doesn't work that way. No religion does, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.

Much, much kudos to Frazzled for posting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?

Acceptable... but not just acceptable - desirable. I have a fair bit of contempt for people who take their religion as a requirement to remain pure, that they have to avoid the dirty, ugly real world. Even if they are mistaken on a moral position, I have a lot more time for someone who's beliefs get them to engage in the world, try to make it a better place.

I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.

It's a good example and a good example of the way people try and dress up Islamaphobia as something else, in this case secularism. Probably worth it's own thread.

But it isn't really what I was talking about. To clarify - in fighting on that issue, do you think there is anything to be gained in telling people that your reading of their religion means they shouldn't be supporting the bill?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Back OT as well. I dunno, I would think so, because you can somehow throw numbers about and work out vague probabilities.

Actually, you cannot work out any probabilities there. At least none with a sensible definition. Because the whole definition of probability relies on an event being reproducible, and we only have one earth.
So all we can get is actually how much we think one hypothesis is likely.
I am totally nitpicking here, but realizing this fact probability only work for reproducible event gave me a new outlook on some stuff, and it is something worth remembering when discussing religion because all this “What were the probabilities of precisely that happening ?” argument we sometime get from religious people.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber.

They are doing this wrong. We are doing it right. Here all employees of the state must dress neutrally, and we forbid giant crucifix in assembly chambers a long time ago !

 sebster wrote:


Snip

It's why trying to debate Christianity with specific verses from the Bible just doesn't work. The religion doesn't work that way. No religion does, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.

Much, much kudos to Frazzled for posting this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And most people I know would happily let everyone live happily according to their own "cherry-picked", personalized code of ethics. As long as it was theirs, and applied only to their own conducts. If you feel like justifying harming yourself or restricting yourself or rewarding yourself any way you see fit, as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else, then go nuts. I think it becomes objectionable once those ideas are forcefully imposed on others. Hence my bit about marching for others' religious freedoms. And some form their moral code with a component that is outward driven, either as a judgement of others or as proselytization. Is that acceptable, or objectionable?

Acceptable... but not just acceptable - desirable. I have a fair bit of contempt for people who take their religion as a requirement to remain pure, that they have to avoid the dirty, ugly real world. Even if they are mistaken on a moral position, I have a lot more time for someone who's beliefs get them to engage in the world, try to make it a better place.

I'll step away from hypotheticals and focus on a concrete, if tepid, example that is going on right now, in my province. The government wants to enforce a charter of values that states that all employees of the state must dress neutrally, in order to promote a secular state. Never you mind the giant crucifix in the assembly chamber. Couldn't a statement establishing the secularity of the state (engrave it in stone if you must) have been enough? This comes with a unique set of circumstances because an increasing number of healthcare and pre-school workers are muslim women, a majority of which wear one form or another of the veil.

It's a good example and a good example of the way people try and dress up Islamaphobia as something else, in this case secularism. Probably worth it's own thread.

But it isn't really what I was talking about. To clarify - in fighting on that issue, do you think there is anything to be gained in telling people that your reading of their religion means they shouldn't be supporting the bill?

Regarding the specific verses argumentation, it is often what I see used to justify intervening in other people's lives, unfortunately. This is what I meant by proselytization, sorry if I used the wrong word. In French we'd say ingérence. Their standard of purity gets applied not only to their selves (and we don't usually fault germophobes for their actions, as long as they control only their own behaviour) but they want to make sure everyone else lives by them. This, in turn, fuels a lot of the islamaphobia in my example, by the way.

To answer you (and this very reply took me all day to write at work...) directly, no, I don't think adding another interpretation does anything to further the debate. Even for people who clearly interpret but insist they don't. As an aside, though, whenever this comes up, interpretation, the stock answer I often get is that "well those people are fundies, I'm clearly not like that." As if, and again this is purely a local anecdotal experience, only the bloody 'muricans did crazy things.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Regarding the specific verses argumentation, it is often what I see used to justify intervening in other people's lives, unfortunately. This is what I meant by proselytization, sorry if I used the wrong word. In French we'd say ingérence. Their standard of purity gets applied not only to their selves (and we don't usually fault germophobes for their actions, as long as they control only their own behaviour) but they want to make sure everyone else lives by them. This, in turn, fuels a lot of the islamaphobia in my example, by the way.

Yeah, that's a good distinction and one I tried to get at with my comment about purity. But yeah, people who set up a rigid set of rules and not only live by themselves but try and put them on others are a problem. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, it isn't even the part about trying to get others to live by them that is the issue, but the part where they think that living by a series of 'thou shall not' rules that is the real issue.

As if, to use your example of the germophobe, a person thinks that if they wash their hands ten times a day and never use public toilets then they are a good person who should go to bed happy each night... despite the fact they've not helped anyone else get through their own days.

The portion of the religious community that thinks that just following the list of stupid, random rules like 'no sex before marriage' and 'don't take the Lord's name in vain' are what matters are the problem, they might be more of a problem when they try to enforce those rules on the rest of us, but that doesn't mean the ones who just keep those laws to their own family aren't a problem.

Religious people who go out, work in a soup kitchen or anything like that... well I give those people a fair bit of leeway when it comes to spreading their faith.

They can talk about it at the soup kitchen all the want, I agree. Actually, by talking less and acting more, they'd be in a better position to spread the faith, imho.

I agree with your comment about "the list of dos and don'ts," but I'm not into thinking I should be the one forcing them to abandon the list or looking only at their own selves.

I've always been more of a pluralist, and I refuse to rank my moral principles in advance. Sure, it makes snap judgements harder, but I find that engaging with the situation tends to make for less optimal decisions for me, but much better for all involved.

Except that gakker who stole 100$ from my store last week. Religion or not, he's a gakker.*

*Not related to religion at all, just needed to vent.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
They can talk about it at the soup kitchen all the want, I agree. Actually, by talking less and acting more, they'd be in a better position to spread the faith, imho.

I've always like that line that the best way to spread the faith is not to talk about being Christian, but to be Christian. Do good works and embrace people on the margins, for its own sake. When some people see the example and convert to the faith, then that's a good thing, but it shouldn't be the reason to do that good work.

I've always been more of a pluralist, and I refuse to rank my moral principles in advance. Sure, it makes snap judgements harder, but I find that engaging with the situation tends to make for less optimal decisions for me, but much better for all involved.

I think that's probably the only practical way of doing things.