Damoclese -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 12, 03:51:16am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Damoclese

Author:
eject.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11/11/03 7:25pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Not yet..." on 11/11/03 4:49pm

>
>So that I think Bush has done only a few things right
>is not surprising because we are of the same religion?

Not necessarily. Abortion is something religion directly addresses. Other policies are wishy washy.

>The origin of the belief has no bearing to this
>belief's veracity. The belief that human life has
>intrinsic worth and should not be murdered still does
>not sound barbaric to me.

But I'm not talking about whether the belief itself is right or wrong. I haven't, nor will I in this thread. I'm talking about whether or not his justification presenting soley religious remarks is a valid reason to sign something. Whether or not human life has intrinsic value is a separate topic.

>
>And that was not his only justification. The
>point your missing is that the main disputable point
>is where personhood begins, hence my saying
>it's practically irrelevant that he got the �murder is
>wrong� idea from religious ethics.

No, I'm not missing "any point". When he did his press release, he cited clearly religious reasons for this law being "right". He didn't start talking about personhood, he started talking about a "creator". It may be that personhood was addressed at some point or another, but it's rather impertinent to this thread as far as I'm concerned. Do you think laws should be justified soley on religion? YES or NO? That's the sort of response you should be giving, but aren't.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]