10 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not sure exactly what your point is.
We accept life within the womb can be done away with, we accept in
some states that people can just end their own lives for whatever
reason they have, we accept a lot of things and reject many too.
You have the perfect balance in mind on where humanity can and
cannot make up its own mind on what is and is not important? If you
can tell me why your view ...[text shortened]... nothers
because it does not suit your personal tastes I'd like to read your
arguments.
Kelly
Do you agree with the prosecution of the couple in the article I posted for example?
10 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't quite get your post but I suspect you have misunderstood the argument being presented.
We accept life within the womb can be done away with, we accept in
some states that people can just end their own lives for whatever
reason they have, we accept a lot of things and reject many too.
You have the perfect balance in mind on where humanity can and
cannot make up its own mind on what is and is not important? If you
can tell me why your view ...[text shortened]... nothers
because it does not suit your personal tastes I'd like to read your
arguments.
Kelly
The claim was: If a religious person does something that the rest of society considers wrong, he is less likely to be stopped/sued/ridiculed than when a non-religious person does the same thing.
However Bosse de Nage has successfully convinced me that in South Africa and probably other countries, people claiming to be 'scientists' or to be using science often get similar unreasonable leeway, and there may be other categories especially in the area of treatment of disease. For example in most of Africa, if someone claims to be a 'traditional healer' he is more likely to be allowed to sell useless medicine than if he simply says he came up with the idea himself.