|
zh1 posted:It's really easy, everyone. If you want to be religious, you do it on your own time. It doesn't go anywhere near your politics or your worldview or your ballot box. If it does, you are a fascist, even if your intentions are seemingly pure. That's the price you pay to belong to civilization: you can't justify your use of force on others via something that can't be explained or extrapolated. If this is unsatisfactory, you're welcome to live in the woods with other members of your coven. If your definition of racist includes MLK, you are a moron and need to use words better.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:How is Christianity 'uniquely vile'? The best thing about Christianity is that its theology was able to accommodate secularism. In today's world, the world in which we live, Christianity is a spent force, especially in a political sense. The one Christian theocracy in the world today has a population of 451. Europe, which is the traditional Christendom, is largely nonobservant. This is sort of but not entirely true in Western Europe and North America (Abortion) and really not true in Africa and South America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is dumb. Anyone who thinks actions are good is going to want more good actions and less other actions. People directly valuing good actions over other actions is a clearly more scalable mechanism over people valuing good actions only because they fear an outcome worse than performing the effort to do good actions. So people valuing good actions and spreading the value of valuing good actions is itself good. And that's without getting into whether having a bunch of people living under irrational fears is itself good regardless of whether it spurs them to perform good actions. Okay, but empirically religious people donate more of their time and money to charity than non-religious people, so religious belief in fact leads to more good actions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Empirically, religious people donate more of their time and money to churches, which are less efficient than secular charities and often use those resources to campaign against human rights. In the united states, people who also donate to religious charities also donate an average of $1,001 dollars to secular charities. People who only donate to secular charities donate an average of $651. Source This of course ignores all the good that individual churches do with regards to soup kitchens, addiction services, English language classes etc. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
You misunderstand. The numbers I quoted were of religious donations to secular charities. They are not counting church donations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, and that's all I think most leftists (like me) want: Just Church/State barriers and barriers against Religious Bigotry being legalized as Free Speech in regards to Buisinessses and Law. Don't kid yourself, this is hostile as gently caress. It may be justified, but it's hostile.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:In that case am I also being hostile against vegetarians when I don't care what you eat as long as you leave me and others to eat meat whenever we want? If you insist that vegetarian restaurants must cater for e.g. a hunting club or be sued out of business then you are being hostile to vegetarians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I think the point is that forcing them to cater to blacks or gays is also hostile, though I'm actually happy to be hostile towards racists and bigots so no problem there. I was trying to specifically address catering gay weddings rather than serving gay people generally, but yeah. Hostility isn't necessarily wrong, but I think it's important to be honest about these things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. It depends. I'm okay with the state allowing conservative Christians to act on their anti-gay beliefs in some ways but not others. It should be legal for them to kick a gay couple out of their church, but not out of their restaurant. How morally bankrupt am I?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Some of us aren't interested in arguing for a given "side" or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
RasperFat posted:Well not only were they strikingly alike in appearance, but also actions. Like Palpatine, he had his underlings use light sabers on children and protected them from legal consequences. Eh, Benedict was very conservative, but he was actually better on not coddling child rapists than either JPII or Francis. People just give those two a pass because they seem friendlier.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 16:14
|
|