On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:49:02 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   Of course it is. It's an implicit encouragement from the government
>> >   for
>> > people to follow a religious custom.
> 
>> IF THEY BELIEVE IN IT.  It's not saying "even if you don't believe in
>> it, give it a try, you might like it".
> 
>   Yeah, like there were only two types of people: Those who firmly
>   believe
> and those who firmly don't believe. There is nothing in between. Like, I
> don't know, impressionable children? Yeah, they don't exist.

Stop putting words in my mouth.  I never said there were only two types 
of people in this regard.

>   It's not the place for the government to tell people, even indirectly,
> that a religion has a sound basis. There *are* impressionable people out
> there who will believe something more easily if a high authority
> promotes it. There is already enough misinformation out there. The
> government shouldn't be encouraging it.

And it isn't advocating for it.  It's simply saying "if you believe, do 
something about it".  Seems to me that if a large number of people 
believe in a giant blue fish in the sky, and that belief is *supposed* to 
make them more compassionate, then encouraging compassion in your fellow 
citizens is beneficial to society.

The way I see it, NDP is a day for people to reflect on their beliefs.  
Here in the US, many people put themselves forth as some form of 
"Christian", but they sure don't act like it.  This is a chance to remind 
people like that that they say they have a certain belief set, and to get 
them to reflect on the things they do that are inconsistent with that 
belief set.

I see that as a GOOD thing, even though I don't believe myself.

>> >> "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" does
>> >> not mean that it prohibits people who work in government from ever
>> >> talking about religion.
>> > 
>> >   Of course they are free to do whatever they want, but not
>> >   officially
>> > on behalf of the government. The government has certain
>> > responsibilities and duties towards their citizens.
> 
>> Of course they do.  And encouraging people to practice their beliefs -
>> whatever those beliefs are - isn't advocating for a particular
>> religion.
> 
>   Ah, so you want to nitpick between "advocating for a *particular*
>   religion"
> vs. "advocating religion". The government can be as religious as they
> want as long as they don't advocate any particular religion.

Oh, FFS, it's not "nitpicking", it's a rather important distinction.  
Which you are failing to see.

>   No, and a thousand times no. It's not the place for the government to
> take any stance whatsoever on religion (or non-religion). It doesn't
> matter if they differentiate between religions or not. That's not the
> issue.
> 
>   If you ask a government official, in an official setting, "what's the
> government's position on religion?", the correct answer is "no comment".

Yes, absolutely.  But that's not what NDP is about, from all I've read.

>> It doesn't establish a state-sponsored religion at all.  It says "hey,
>> if you believe in this, practice it".  Simple.
> 
>   A "national day of prayer" is certainly not a neutral proclamation of
> religious freedom, "if you want to do something religious, just do it,
> we won't stop you".
> 
>   Just think about it like this: Why exactly do you need a "national day
> of prayer"? What's so special about that particular day? What purpose
> does it serve? Why does the government have to declare a special day for
> that?
> 
>   If you think about the answer, you'll see that the government is not
> being neutral and impartial in this matter, as they should.
> 
>>  Not advocating for Jesus,
>> not advocating for the Pope
> 
>   Advocating prayer. What's the difference, exactly?

If you don't see what the difference is, I'm not sure I can explain it to 
you.  You seem to be particularly closed-minded about it anyways, so even 
if I took the time to try to explain it, I'm sure you'd outright reject 
it without a second thought anyways.  One might say that your particular 
views on this subject are extremely *religious* (in that anything that 
contradicts it must be wrong or some sort of heresy.)

>> >   When the president speaks to the country on a televised official
>> >   ceremony,
>> > that's quite different from the president talking with a friend.
> 
>> Sure.  And saying "if you believe in this, here's an opportunity to
>> practice it" is different from saying "if you don't, we'll fine you or
>> lock your ass up in jail."
> 
>   You don't seem to understand the difference between promoting and
>   forcing.

I know the difference perfectly well.  You don't seem to want to 
understand what I'm saying.

>   You claim is "they are not promoting religion" and your argument for
>   that
> is "they are not forcing religion to be practiced". A fallacious
> argument if I ever saw one.

Nonsense.  That you aren't seeing the difference doesn't mean there isn't 
one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message