On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:02:29 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 24.01.2014 07:03, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> 
>> I think what clipka is saying is that his rules apply to things
>> relating to religious faith (or lack thereof), but that's not the only
>> factor. Not wanting to be shot isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter
>> of personal preference, so it's not covered by those rules.
>>
>> It seems to be constrained by the idea that if someone else's religious
>> beliefs/faith aren't affecting me, it doesn't matter.  If it does, then
>> it's not a matter of faith any more, then it's a matter of "effects in
>> the real world that impact one personally" and a different set of
>> guidelines apply.
>>
>> Have I understood you correctly, clipka?  I find it interesting.
> 
> Well, no - not exactly. See my other post.

I saw it, thanks, that does clarify a bit.  Not sure I entirely agree, 
but it is an interesting perspective.

I've generally tended towards "your right to believe something ends at my 
nose" - ie, as long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way, we're 
fine.  If it starts to affect me in a negative way, then we're going to 
have a problem.

In the end, also, I'm the final arbiter of whether or not it's affecting 
me negatively or not.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message