May the Farce be with you
-
Michael Martin wrote: Also if they wanted real answers they should have had Atheist or Jesus Hater as a valid choice for me under religion If you were able to enter Jedi then you could easily have entered Atheist. :| Michael Martin wrote: Also if employers can't ask me for this information when they pay me why does some government agancy have the right? Well firstly it is used anonomously, but more importantly it is used to take a snapshot of what the populous is really like every ten years, and is used by the government in providing services such as social help, relavent services, community funded schemes, etc, and is used by businesses to provide the services you see in your local town or city. Employers would not need to know this information for the purposes of giving you a job.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: is used by businesses to provide the services you see in your local town or city So what's the problem? They'll build a Church of Yoda. :) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
-
Mark Otway wrote: Therefore, anyone who states a denomination is (in my opinion) talking rubbish. The first line of my previous reply was: But we are talking about people deliberately entering false information, which is not the same thing at all. That is your answer. Mark Otway wrote: who is to say whether anyone deliberately filled in the form with false information when they wrote 'Jedi'? You are. Mark Otway wrote: The fact of the matter is that if people are lying about their age, then that's one thing. Buy lying about religious denomination is trivial and irrelevant... How is it irrelevant? I would love to see religions done away with tomorrow, but it isn't going to happen for a good few years yet and until then I am certian that religious people take their denomination as very seriously indeed, just as you take yours and I take mine (both athiest). It is unlikely in this specific case ("Jedi") but over here in the UK we have a big problem of hundreds of thousands of people continually stating they are Christians when lest the truth be known they don't even know the first thing about Christianity. This means that more Christian services are made available to these people, which in turn are never used, costing both the state and religious/community organisations money. Locally we have only just had another Christian centre close down. And all of this is because people lied on their census form believing it wouldn't matter. The data collected from the census is the only data that provides an acurate measure of the country, and is used by those that govern us to govern us. Taxes can be altered according to the data those bits of paper hold, and more relavently religious services could well be offered or removed. Maybe I am just old fashioned in my way of thinking, but I see processes like the national census as very, very, very important ones, both two thousand years ago and today. People aren't helping themselves when they whine and bitch because they don't have adequate services relating to themselves; when they tried to fit in with the rest of the crowd.
David Wulff
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. If I'd started an email campaign to encourage people to falsley state their religion as Christians, nobody would have suggested that the number of Christians measured in the census is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, faith is something that people choose themselves, and therefore the state should not pay for it. I'm all for social services, but I don't see why some subjective belief should come under that umbrella. Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. If I'd started an email campaign to encourage people to falsley state their religion as Christians, nobody would have suggested that the number of Christians measured in the census is wrong. As far as I'm concerned, faith is something that people choose themselves, and therefore the state should not pay for it. I'm all for social services, but I don't see why some subjective belief should come under that umbrella. Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. That is not the issue at all. It is not for the National Census to decide what is or is not false information - they must by law treat everything included on a valid form as fact, hence the results, but is is up to you to make sure you do not lie. And for very good reasons which I feel I have already covered in this thread. Mark Otway wrote: Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The government has a duty to govern us, and that in turn requires them to provide (either directly or indirectly) the services we request. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they are Christian when in fact they are not, then as far as the government is concerned they have an obligation to provide religious services for these people. If you still don't buy it, think in terms of medicine instead. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they have a vision impairment then the government has an obligation to provide services accordingly. Public passages and services would need to be modified accordingly, and probably local planning authorities would adjust their conditions as well. These things *do* make a difference. Mark Otway wrote: The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. I disagree here - it is a very important piece of information to know. If not to cater for individual communities based on the people who actually live there, then from a national pov statistically. Race is another equally important piece of information to know for much the same reasons.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: True, they are both based upon fictional stories, it's just that "real" religions have the shroud of time to make them seem more believable. A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. I think Jediism is a lot older than Christianity or any of the other religions practiced here on earth. :-D Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
Michael Martin wrote: Jediism That sounds like a disease of the lower intestinal tract. :wtf:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. That is not the issue at all. It is not for the National Census to decide what is or is not false information - they must by law treat everything included on a valid form as fact, hence the results, but is is up to you to make sure you do not lie. And for very good reasons which I feel I have already covered in this thread. Mark Otway wrote: Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The government has a duty to govern us, and that in turn requires them to provide (either directly or indirectly) the services we request. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they are Christian when in fact they are not, then as far as the government is concerned they have an obligation to provide religious services for these people. If you still don't buy it, think in terms of medicine instead. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they have a vision impairment then the government has an obligation to provide services accordingly. Public passages and services would need to be modified accordingly, and probably local planning authorities would adjust their conditions as well. These things *do* make a difference. Mark Otway wrote: The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. I disagree here - it is a very important piece of information to know. If not to cater for individual communities based on the people who actually live there, then from a national pov statistically. Race is another equally important piece of information to know for much the same reasons.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
The flaw in all this is that I cannot change my race, therefore it is something factual which the government should act on. Similarly, if people have a vision defect, the services can verify that (99% of the time) before providing the services to those people (paid for with my taxes). However, I can decide to become a Christian tomorrow, and go along and use the facilities of the Christian church. The following day I can quite legitimately 'see the light' and become a muslim. Over the weekened I can become a bhuddist, and the following week I can try being a Jehova's Witness. After a couple of black eyes from people in their houses wanting to be left alone and not evangelised, I might then revert to Judaism. Should the government contribute to my numerous faith changes? In my opinion, no. Religion is something people choose. They can perfectly well live without it. So it has nothing to do with government. Do you think that the government should make special arrangements to cater for atheists like me? 'Cos it damned well doesn't.... ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
The flaw in all this is that I cannot change my race, therefore it is something factual which the government should act on. Similarly, if people have a vision defect, the services can verify that (99% of the time) before providing the services to those people (paid for with my taxes). However, I can decide to become a Christian tomorrow, and go along and use the facilities of the Christian church. The following day I can quite legitimately 'see the light' and become a muslim. Over the weekened I can become a bhuddist, and the following week I can try being a Jehova's Witness. After a couple of black eyes from people in their houses wanting to be left alone and not evangelised, I might then revert to Judaism. Should the government contribute to my numerous faith changes? In my opinion, no. Religion is something people choose. They can perfectly well live without it. So it has nothing to do with government. Do you think that the government should make special arrangements to cater for atheists like me? 'Cos it damned well doesn't.... ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: Similarly, if people have a vision defect, the services can verify that (99% of the time) before providing the services to those people (paid for with my taxes). The only reason the census is legal is because it collects information anonymously (by the time it is evaluated), and even then they have to pass a law specifically to allow it to take place. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to verify the data once it gets as far as actually being tested. Mark Otway wrote: Over the weekened I can become a bhuddist I think that would be your best bet - you get to wear dresses in public would being ridiculed. :laugh: Mark Otway wrote: and the following week I can try being a Jehova's Witness You poor sadistic soul. ;P Mark Otway wrote: Religion is something people choose. They can perfectly well live without it. So it has nothing to do with government. I have already covered this - this is simply not the case at all, at least not in this country. The government is ultimately responsible for ensuring the services requested by the public are avaialble, where this is public transport or a place to worship false idols. Mark Otway wrote: Do you think that the government should make special arrangements to cater for atheists like me? 'Cos it damned well doesn't.... In what way doesn't it? What could it provide?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: Similarly, if people have a vision defect, the services can verify that (99% of the time) before providing the services to those people (paid for with my taxes). The only reason the census is legal is because it collects information anonymously (by the time it is evaluated), and even then they have to pass a law specifically to allow it to take place. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to verify the data once it gets as far as actually being tested. Mark Otway wrote: Over the weekened I can become a bhuddist I think that would be your best bet - you get to wear dresses in public would being ridiculed. :laugh: Mark Otway wrote: and the following week I can try being a Jehova's Witness You poor sadistic soul. ;P Mark Otway wrote: Religion is something people choose. They can perfectly well live without it. So it has nothing to do with government. I have already covered this - this is simply not the case at all, at least not in this country. The government is ultimately responsible for ensuring the services requested by the public are avaialble, where this is public transport or a place to worship false idols. Mark Otway wrote: Do you think that the government should make special arrangements to cater for atheists like me? 'Cos it damned well doesn't.... In what way doesn't it? What could it provide?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: The government is ultimately responsible for ensuring the services requested by the public are avaialble Does the government pay towards religions then? Out of taxpayers money? Surely that'd be very unfair? David Wulff wrote: In what way doesn't it? What could it provide? That's my whole point. Why should I contribute towards other peoples' fantasy faiths, when I get nothing contributed towards my atheism. In which case, why can't I specify that I'm a Jedi, and get a free copy of Star Wars from the Goverment? ;) ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: The government is ultimately responsible for ensuring the services requested by the public are avaialble Does the government pay towards religions then? Out of taxpayers money? Surely that'd be very unfair? David Wulff wrote: In what way doesn't it? What could it provide? That's my whole point. Why should I contribute towards other peoples' fantasy faiths, when I get nothing contributed towards my atheism. In which case, why can't I specify that I'm a Jedi, and get a free copy of Star Wars from the Goverment? ;) ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: Does the government pay towards religions then? Out of taxpayers money? Surely that'd be very unfair? Surely it is unfair that you are paying for other peoples healthcare, when ultimately (and god-willing) you will never need to have a penny spent on you? It is all about compromise in a way - but you do pay for community services that may not affect you. In all honestly, I wouldn't want to have it any other way. Mark Otway wrote: That's my whole point. Why should I contribute towards other peoples' fantasy faiths, when I get nothing contributed towards my atheism. Whilst I would love to be able to get a social welfare like allowance to spend at Blockbuster Video each week - no really, I would! :) - our society is based on people contributing to others in all sorts of ways, and religion is as important to those that have faith in it as anything else is to you. In fact, it is porbably more important as it is more than just a way of life - it is life; though speaking as a person who has never held faith in the minotaur or other mythical creatures such as gods and angels I cannot say how much.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: Does the government pay towards religions then? Out of taxpayers money? Surely that'd be very unfair? Surely it is unfair that you are paying for other peoples healthcare, when ultimately (and god-willing) you will never need to have a penny spent on you? It is all about compromise in a way - but you do pay for community services that may not affect you. In all honestly, I wouldn't want to have it any other way. Mark Otway wrote: That's my whole point. Why should I contribute towards other peoples' fantasy faiths, when I get nothing contributed towards my atheism. Whilst I would love to be able to get a social welfare like allowance to spend at Blockbuster Video each week - no really, I would! :) - our society is based on people contributing to others in all sorts of ways, and religion is as important to those that have faith in it as anything else is to you. In fact, it is porbably more important as it is more than just a way of life - it is life; though speaking as a person who has never held faith in the minotaur or other mythical creatures such as gods and angels I cannot say how much.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: Surely it is unfair that you are paying for other peoples healthcare, when ultimately (and god-willing) you will never need to have a penny spent on you? I knew you'd come up with that as a retort. ;) That argument doesn't work though, as it implies that people need religion to live normal lives. They don't. If somebody breaks a leg, I'm happy for some of my tax to relieve their pain and suffering. But why should I contribute to a religious faith which is totally self-inflicted (sorry, 'chosen' ;))? If I choose to worship money as my religion, is it fair for me to expect the government to contribute to that faith by giving me cash? ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: Surely it is unfair that you are paying for other peoples healthcare, when ultimately (and god-willing) you will never need to have a penny spent on you? I knew you'd come up with that as a retort. ;) That argument doesn't work though, as it implies that people need religion to live normal lives. They don't. If somebody breaks a leg, I'm happy for some of my tax to relieve their pain and suffering. But why should I contribute to a religious faith which is totally self-inflicted (sorry, 'chosen' ;))? If I choose to worship money as my religion, is it fair for me to expect the government to contribute to that faith by giving me cash? ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: I knew you'd come up with that as a retort. I used it right at the very begining too, my point being that to you or I it is a non-issue but to religious people there is nothing more important than their faith. I get the distinct impression that you are reading between the lines here rather than what I am writing? Mark Otway wrote: If I choose to worship money as my religion, is it fair for me to expect the government to contribute to that faith by giving me cash? No it would not be, and even though I can see the irony there that just ridicules the whole essence of religious faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: The biggest problem with all this is that the assumption is being made that people are lying on their census forms. Based on what? Nothing other than the fact that 'Jedi' is the name of a character in a well known movie. That is not the issue at all. It is not for the National Census to decide what is or is not false information - they must by law treat everything included on a valid form as fact, hence the results, but is is up to you to make sure you do not lie. And for very good reasons which I feel I have already covered in this thread. Mark Otway wrote: Why should my taxes pay for the fact that somebody else believes they're a yogic flyer, or whatever? It's not like unemployment or disability benefit. The government has a duty to govern us, and that in turn requires them to provide (either directly or indirectly) the services we request. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they are Christian when in fact they are not, then as far as the government is concerned they have an obligation to provide religious services for these people. If you still don't buy it, think in terms of medicine instead. If 1,000 people in a particular area state they have a vision impairment then the government has an obligation to provide services accordingly. Public passages and services would need to be modified accordingly, and probably local planning authorities would adjust their conditions as well. These things *do* make a difference. Mark Otway wrote: The fact of the matter is that religious denomination is a subjective decision made by people. So really it shouldn't be on the census at all. I disagree here - it is a very important piece of information to know. If not to cater for individual communities based on the people who actually live there, then from a national pov statistically. Race is another equally important piece of information to know for much the same reasons.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
So is the government obliged to provide lightsabers to the jedi? :-D From what I can tell, the people who'd put down a fake religion on the form are the people who don't consider themselves religious anyway (and would've probably have just put down "none" otherwise) I can't see how that would effect any statistics really -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Mark Otway wrote: I knew you'd come up with that as a retort. I used it right at the very begining too, my point being that to you or I it is a non-issue but to religious people there is nothing more important than their faith. I get the distinct impression that you are reading between the lines here rather than what I am writing? Mark Otway wrote: If I choose to worship money as my religion, is it fair for me to expect the government to contribute to that faith by giving me cash? No it would not be, and even though I can see the irony there that just ridicules the whole essence of religious faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: to religious people there is nothing more important than their faith To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith. So what the hell do I care as to whether I put 'Jedi' in a dumb census form? And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? Your health service analogy doesn't stack up for the simple reason that whilst I may never need health treatment, I can't guarantee it. I might get knocked down by a bus on the way home tonight. So I'm prepared to fund others' requirements on the offchance that I might need them to return the favour in future. That's how society works. However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? David Wulff wrote: No it would not be, and even though I can see the irony there that just ridicules the whole essence of religious faith. I think you've got my point right there. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: Surely it is unfair that you are paying for other peoples healthcare, when ultimately (and god-willing) you will never need to have a penny spent on you? I knew you'd come up with that as a retort. ;) That argument doesn't work though, as it implies that people need religion to live normal lives. They don't. If somebody breaks a leg, I'm happy for some of my tax to relieve their pain and suffering. But why should I contribute to a religious faith which is totally self-inflicted (sorry, 'chosen' ;))? If I choose to worship money as my religion, is it fair for me to expect the government to contribute to that faith by giving me cash? ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
I wanted to write this as a seperate reply as it is not really related to the other thread of conversation: Mark Otway wrote: ...it implies that people need religion to live normal lives It is my firm belief that religions' roots were very much in this territory, regardless of who or why individual groups picked up on it and ran with it. So much of every major religion's core is based around the promise of a better life after this one, and how to cope with what this life will throw at you (pain, suffering, death, discipline, etc). Whilst I, like you, don't see the need for this in the civilisations we live in today, many many people are not in a similar position and religion plays as important a role in their lives as it did, say, to the workers during Egyptian times. Some people can't handle a cut finger, let alone accepting death and suffering for what it is, and religion offers them a way around it; a way to have a purpose. In every civilisation there are those that like to be told what to do, to have a plan to follow, and I would expect the idea of not having one scares the hell out of them. Your religion is very important if you have faith. I would never understimate that.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
So is the government obliged to provide lightsabers to the jedi? :-D From what I can tell, the people who'd put down a fake religion on the form are the people who don't consider themselves religious anyway (and would've probably have just put down "none" otherwise) I can't see how that would effect any statistics really -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: I can't see how that would effect any statistics really But as Mark righlty said, there is no way to determine what is or is not a "fake" religion, and as the data is there for all to see then it obviously has affected the statistics. benjymous wrote: So is the government obliged to provide lightsabers to the jedi? I'd prefer the state provided video allowance. ;P
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
I wanted to write this as a seperate reply as it is not really related to the other thread of conversation: Mark Otway wrote: ...it implies that people need religion to live normal lives It is my firm belief that religions' roots were very much in this territory, regardless of who or why individual groups picked up on it and ran with it. So much of every major religion's core is based around the promise of a better life after this one, and how to cope with what this life will throw at you (pain, suffering, death, discipline, etc). Whilst I, like you, don't see the need for this in the civilisations we live in today, many many people are not in a similar position and religion plays as important a role in their lives as it did, say, to the workers during Egyptian times. Some people can't handle a cut finger, let alone accepting death and suffering for what it is, and religion offers them a way around it; a way to have a purpose. In every civilisation there are those that like to be told what to do, to have a plan to follow, and I would expect the idea of not having one scares the hell out of them. Your religion is very important if you have faith. I would never understimate that.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
You're absolutely right. I don't disrespect people who have a religious faith. However, they should finance it themselves. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: to religious people there is nothing more important than their faith To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith. So what the hell do I care as to whether I put 'Jedi' in a dumb census form? And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? Your health service analogy doesn't stack up for the simple reason that whilst I may never need health treatment, I can't guarantee it. I might get knocked down by a bus on the way home tonight. So I'm prepared to fund others' requirements on the offchance that I might need them to return the favour in future. That's how society works. However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? David Wulff wrote: No it would not be, and even though I can see the irony there that just ridicules the whole essence of religious faith. I think you've got my point right there. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith Yes there is, there is prejudice which is the source of most of the evil in our world today. Faith never hurt anyone unless it was misplaced by prejudice. Even so, there is this thing called "respect". I respect a persons right to free speech, and that entails they can hold whatever beliefs they choose to -- and just because I hold opposing beliefs does not make theirs any less valid. Mark Otway wrote: dumb census form Census forms are not dumb. :mad: Mark Otway wrote: And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. And if people didn't lie, their would be less money spent on other people's make-believe worlds. Mark Otway wrote: Your health service analogy doesn't stack up It wasn't an analogy - it is the same thing. Mark Otway wrote: That's how society works Society works, both on a national and on a community based level, by the people telling others how they would like to live, and the community in turn provides the means. Any other way and it would not be a society; it would be an individualist state. Mark Otway wrote: However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? Two things here: a) You may never need to use a church, but you are not everyone. This falls back to compromise and respect for other people. If you don't offer it don't epxect others to give it back to you. b) Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
You're absolutely right. I don't disrespect people who have a religious faith. However, they should finance it themselves. :D ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: However, they should finance it themselves. I agree up till that part. As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
-
Mark Otway wrote: To atheist people there is nothing less important than faith Yes there is, there is prejudice which is the source of most of the evil in our world today. Faith never hurt anyone unless it was misplaced by prejudice. Even so, there is this thing called "respect". I respect a persons right to free speech, and that entails they can hold whatever beliefs they choose to -- and just because I hold opposing beliefs does not make theirs any less valid. Mark Otway wrote: dumb census form Census forms are not dumb. :mad: Mark Otway wrote: And why should my tax go to somehow fund somebody else's make-believe world? You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. And if people didn't lie, their would be less money spent on other people's make-believe worlds. Mark Otway wrote: Your health service analogy doesn't stack up It wasn't an analogy - it is the same thing. Mark Otway wrote: That's how society works Society works, both on a national and on a community based level, by the people telling others how they would like to live, and the community in turn provides the means. Any other way and it would not be a society; it would be an individualist state. Mark Otway wrote: However, I will never need to use a church, or a mosque. So why the hell should I have to contribute towards somebody else who - by their own free will and choice - creates that requirement in their own life? Two things here: a) You may never need to use a church, but you are not everyone. This falls back to compromise and respect for other people. If you don't offer it don't epxect others to give it back to you. b) Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: Census forms are not dumb. Are too. :p David Wulff wrote: You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? David Wulff wrote: Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith. Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
Mark Otway wrote: However, they should finance it themselves. I agree up till that part. As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.
David Wulff wrote: As a society we should provide for the needs our fellow people, and if thier needs dictate a religious belief then it is our place to abide by that and provide accordingly. *That* is where the respect comes in. It can't work like that. As mentioned before, if I decide to worship money and prostitution, should I expect that society respect my beliefs and provide those things for me? Of course not. Respect has to go both ways. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
-
David Wulff wrote: Census forms are not dumb. Are too. :p David Wulff wrote: You should hold a British passport, therefore you are allowed immigration rights to a large part of the former Empire - pick a country with a policy you like and live their. Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? David Wulff wrote: Very few people actually make the choice to hold faith - the majority of times it is their way of life that introduces them to faith. Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. ________________________ http://www.webreaper.net
Mark Otway wrote: Are too. :p The census is certinaly not dumb - whether you are sticking out your tounge or not! ;P Mark Otway wrote: Why should I move?!? Hardly fair, is it? You don't have to move, but when you live in a community you should damn well expect to live by their rules. If I go to Texas and murder someone "ala passion" (or whatever the French call it) I would not expect to be tried in France and get off scot free. This again is where compromise and respect are needed. Mark Otway wrote: Religion is personal choice, whatever the circumstances. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ there. Rubbish! If a person has true faith in a religion then they will find it just as difficult to even conceive the possibility that they are wrong as you or I do to even conceive there could be a god.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
I'm not schizophrenic, are we.