PDA

View Full Version : The tolerant and compassionate North....



dancingqueen
09-11-2013, 10:50 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/09/10/pol-gov-mulcair-reax-pq-law-banning-reigious-symbols.html

This reeks of class segregation and minority discrimination...
not to mention how much consistency is lacked in the conceived idea...
I don't like religion, and I do not think it has any place in our society, it has created atrocities and provides few benefits, but silencing the religious freedom of some, but not others is wrong.

RWGR
09-11-2013, 01:21 PM
I don't like religion, and I do not think it has any place in our society,

How tolerant

it has created atrocities and provides few benefits

good point.

The university system. Keeping society together during the Dark Ages.

Bad stuff, that.

dancingqueen
09-11-2013, 02:17 PM
Was it religion that did that, or religious people?
and no, I am not tolerant of religion.

RWGR
09-11-2013, 03:54 PM
Was it religion that did that, or religious people?

Both: The Catholic Church

and no, I am not tolerant of religion

Yet you will cry to the highest heavens if you in any way feel slighted concerning your chosen lifestyle.

Hypocrisy springs to mind here, friend.

dancingqueen
09-11-2013, 04:49 PM
my chosen lifestyle does not dictate how others should live theirs.
I would be interested in you showing me how religion started the education system, and how it continues to support the education system as it stands. How did religion keep society alive during the dark ages, that secularism did not?

Bluesky
09-12-2013, 08:21 AM
You are not aware that almost every Western university was started by err.. umm, Christianity? Look it up.

RWGR
09-12-2013, 08:47 AM
my chosen lifestyle does not dictate how others should live theirs.
I would be interested in you showing me how religion started the education system, and how it continues to support the education system as it stands. How did religion keep society alive during the dark ages, that secularism did not?

The university system, for one. There have been few fundamental changes and events in history that have forever altered its course as the invention of a system of education, open to all people (though not all could access it at times for various reasons). That system was created by Christianity.

During the Dark Ages one thing kept the ancient knowledge passed on by the Greeks and Romans alive: Catholic monks in their scriptoriums, painstakingly writing down the greatest works of antiquity.

Gregor Mendel, the "Father of modern genetics", was a Catholic priest. Pasteur, a famous Catholic scientist, (germ theory and disease), Bacon, a monk, (founder of the "scientific method" which secularists still use today), and Nicholas of Cusa, whose theories pre-dated Copernicus's ( a staunch Catholic) heliocentric theory by a hundred years.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Catholic monks developed iron extraction hundreds of years before England's Industrial Revolution.

The lists and accomplishments would takes pages to list.

dancingqueen
09-13-2013, 01:36 AM
You seem to have a hard time differentiating between "religion" and "people who happen to be religious".
Typical.

RWGR
09-13-2013, 09:16 AM
You seem to have a hard time differentiating between "religion" and "people who happen to be religious".
Typical.

Remember when you used to not get angry when you were bested in an argument?







Nope, me neither :)

dancingqueen
09-13-2013, 03:34 PM
A) I have not been "bested"
B) I am certainly not angry.

You are the one having problems with semantics. Semantics that are important to identify.
If you cannot identify the difference between religion, and people that are or say that they are religious there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Circular logic does not make your argument indisputable, it makes it un-disputable. For example, you create your own convenient parameters in order to declare someone as "religious" or "not religious"

RWGR
09-13-2013, 04:47 PM
A) I have not been "bested"
B) I am certainly not angry.

You are the one having problems with semantics. Semantics that are important to identify.
If you cannot identify the difference between religion, and people that are or say that they are religious there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.
Circular logic does not make your argument indisputable, it makes it un-disputable. For example, you create your own convenient parameters in order to declare someone as "religious" or "not religious"

Religious people created those things I previously posted, through, most of the time, the auspices of the RCC. Call it "religious","religion",whatever;that isn't the issue now anyways.The issue now is this: you had no idea the RCC played such a key role in creating such things as the university system. You're a bit embarrassed you didn't know it (rightfully so). Now, you try to divert attention away from your woeful history education.

Carry on, I will always be here to educate you. :)

dancingqueen
09-13-2013, 10:08 PM
Religious people created those things I previously posted, through, most of the time, the auspices of the RCC. Call it "religious","religion",whatever;that isn't the issue now anyways.The issue now is this: you had no idea the RCC played such a key role in creating such things as the university system. You're a bit embarrassed you didn't know it (rightfully so). Now, you try to divert attention away from your woeful history education.

Carry on, I will always be here to educate you. :)

Translation:
I do not understand the difference between religion and religious people.

RWGR
09-14-2013, 09:02 AM
Translation:
I do not understand the difference between religion and religious people.

please, explain the difference...we'll all pretend you're not just trying to divert attention away from your lack of historical knowledge

dancingqueen
09-14-2013, 01:51 PM
Start a new thread, that's not what this thread is about.

RWGR
09-14-2013, 06:48 PM
Start a new thread, that's not what this thread is about.

your flag, the white one, it is accepted :)

The Left Sock
09-19-2013, 08:13 AM
The Quebec values law is a dumb idea, for one essential reason:

It will open the stage for martyrs of all stripes to get on their soapbox, protest, throw fits, and generally wreak havoc. If they pass this law, they will open a can of worms they won't ever get closed again.