There's a big difference between the legal right to believe something and the worthiness of that belief.jazzy_doll said:
jwm
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Awesome Statement By Ben Stein
- Thread starter wadsab
- Start date
jwm
Worthy beliefs square with established facts and logic. Otherwise, anything goes, e.g. the moon is made of green cheese.jazzy_doll said:However, your opinion of the worthiness of my belief, is just that, your opinion.
jwm
jazzy_doll said:LOL Sounds like you are trying to stump me, and it is not working.
Fact:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion
AMEN!
Two points:
1) That does not mean that religion is above criticism ... it means that you are free to believe what you want, and I am free to criticize that belief.
2) Freedom of conscience means that I am free to believe in Atheism or Agnosticism (or the devil if I wish,) and am just as protected in those beliefs as you are in your religious beliefs.
It's time
Lordy Doctor Jesus, look at the damnable, irrational horsefeathers this thread has unleashed. Shouldn't we just get up off our hind legs, and ban Christianity altogether? The Christians would cream themselves with delight, as they would, at last, be genuinely inconvenienced--and could finally tell the truth, at least on that score.
Down with Hogwash!
MW
Lordy Doctor Jesus, look at the damnable, irrational horsefeathers this thread has unleashed. Shouldn't we just get up off our hind legs, and ban Christianity altogether? The Christians would cream themselves with delight, as they would, at last, be genuinely inconvenienced--and could finally tell the truth, at least on that score.
Down with Hogwash!
MW
Jazzy
Maxi is happy thinking his mom was a chmp. He never questions that and well aside from the sky is falling thing, he insists his mom is a chimp.
Ya never know maybe he can be converted.
Maxi is happy thinking his mom was a chmp. He never questions that and well aside from the sky is falling thing, he insists his mom is a chimp.
Ya never know maybe he can be converted.
jazzy_doll said:You have a right to your opinion, however, minus the criticism, as really, that is violating my rights, even if it's in the least.
No, criticism is a right as well. Read the Charter again, seems to me I recall something about "free speech" in there.
maxweber said:Lordy Doctor Jesus, look at the damnable, irrational horsefeathers this thread has unleashed. Shouldn't we just get up off our hind legs, and ban Christianity altogether? The Christians would cream themselves with delight, as they would, at last, be genuinely inconvenienced--and could finally tell the truth, at least on that score.
Down with Hogwash!
MW
I don't see any legal problem in at least having someone make a motion in parliament opening up a debate on changing the definition of religion to redefine it to mean something other than the nonsense it means now.
After all, this "freedom of religion thing" isn't really that old a tradition ... I mean, the argument from the religious nitwits is that we have this long tradition of marriage being between a man and a women, and that the "new definition" flies in the face of thousands of years of tradition ... well, freedom of religion isn't that much older than equal marriage in the larger scheme of things. Why break thousands of years of tradition of being forced to spout the beliefs of the state as your official religion?
If the religious creeps can make this argument, then why not use the same argument against them?
jazzy_doll said:Freedom of speech does include opinions but in "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest.
So, while there is no law against walking past someone and telling them they're ugly, society does expect a certain sense of morality and conduct, in our treatment of others.
If a religious anti-choice person can pass by a woman on her way to the clinic and call her a murder; If a "good Christian" can walk by a homosexual and call them evil and demand that they do not have the same rights as straights; If a "good Christian" can condemn all Muslims as terrorists and murders, then I see no problem in criticizing a "good Christian" and their beliefs.
I see that in your most recent posts you imply that I am evil and going to hell ... are you not criticizing my beliefs, even prescribing punishment for my beliefs? What give you the right to do this then turn around and say that your beliefs are above the same type of criticism?
P.S. If you're right, pass the message on that I wouldn't want to live in a place run by a being that favoured such a hateful group of religious freaks.
If I'm right, that most organized Christian religions, their lack of concern for the poor, their wanton disrespect for others beliefs, their ignorance of what Jesus taught in favour of what right wing charlatans teach, and their bigotry is not what God accepts as a path to salvation, then what message would you like me to pass on?
jazzy_doll said:See, you are now excusing all of your name-calling (religious nitwits, etc.), not necessarily to me but to others, in this thread. You implied some are crazy, etc., and that's okay, right? So, we're crazy and you're evil, what's your point? Hypocrite.
I didn't claimed I never "name called" ... I claimed that I have a right to do so equivalent to your right to do so, and that your "religion" doesn't give you any special protection against criticism, nor any special right to criticize others.
But, I never even implied such a thing, as what part of "in case you're wrong", do you not understand? Meaning, you could be right. Read the details. Had I said, "Hey woolf, any messages for the guy upstairs?", or something along that line, then your implications would be correct. But, I was fair in my statement.
Look up the meaning of the word "implied" ... it doesn't mean that you explicitly made a claim .. your "examples" of "implied" are actually not "implications" at all, they would be direct claims that I am wrong.
