Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 3 2010, 8:47 PM GMTIt's been reported as an odd thing, anyway, a slightly scary religous thingy.
That's another thing I find a bit odd. Politics shouldn't be governed by religious motives. It should cater to them, but not be controled by them.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 3 2010, 8:49 PM GMTIt should cater to them
Would you like to rephrase that, before I go off on one?
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ November 3 2010, 8:55 PM GMTWould you like to rephrase that, before I go off on one?
They've got to eat, Kevin! (Cater, you see? See what I did?)
Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 3 2010, 8:57 PM GMTThey've got to eat, Kevin! (Cater, you see? See what I did?)
(image)Cameron feeding Williams a cocktail sausage(/image)
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ November 3 2010, 8:55 PM GMTWould you like to rephrase that, before I go off on one?
I meant it should support religion (any religion) but not be motivated or governed by it. I don't think I worded it particularly badly. Despite my own agnostic views, I'm not anti religion, but I am pro secular society.
Actually, it did read that I was saying politics should cater to religious motives. That's not what I meant.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 3 2010, 9:04 PM GMTI meant it should support religion (any religion) but not be motivated by them. I don't think I worded it particularly badly. Despite my own agnostic views, I'm not anti religion, but I am pro secular society.
(I'll take this as permission to go off on one)
Why, for Dawkins' sake?!? Why? Why should government support religion? What value do they provide? Why should tax payers help pay the salaries of these charlatans?
Why don't we just go the whole hog and put Derek Acorah on the civil list while we're at it?
Because I believe in peoples' right to religion and faith. For my views, organised religion is very silly, but I would not dream of telling people what to believe in. Unless it is harmfull to others, people can damn well believe what they like.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 3 2010, 9:06 PM GMTI meant it should support religion (any religion)
Even them mentalist new ones that are made up?
(Yes I know they're all 'made up', but you know what I mean.)
Generally they don't
Religious organisations do provide large scale charity and social services to society
Quote: zooo @ November 3 2010, 9:11 PM GMTEven them mentalist new ones that are made up?
(Yes I know they're all 'made up', but you know what I mean.)
Any this isn't harmful to or breaches the human rights of other people, yes.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ November 3 2010, 8:32 PM GMTI don't believe either of them had ever left the North America until they started having national-level political aspirations.
Isn't that the whole world to the average American. After all their World Series only involves them doesn't it?
Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 3 2010, 9:11 PM GMTBecause I believe in peoples' right to religion and faith. For my views, organised religion is very silly, but I would not dream of telling people what to believe in.
You're not addressing my point. I agree with everything I quote above.
I asked why government should support it.
Why should your tax money go to support, for example, faith schools?
If you can give me a good reason, I'll leave you alone.
Because the government should support schools
Faith schools perform well
People want them
Aetheist fascism isn't much of an alternative
Quote: sootyj @ November 3 2010, 9:21 PM GMTBecause the government should support schools
Yes.
Faith schools perform well
Debatable.
People want them
Um, no. Have you never watched Rev?
Aetheist fascism isn't much of an alternative
Probably not. What is it? Sounds nasty.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ November 3 2010, 9:17 PM GMTYou're not addressing my point. I agree with everything I quote above.
I asked why government should support it.
Why should your tax money go to support, for example, faith schools?
If you can give me a good reason, I'll leave you alone.
I don't think I ever said pay for, did I?
You don't have to leave me alone, I can just ignore you 