RoI rejects religion...

[EFLImpudence]

Well, you do not think foreigners coming over here with their strange beliefs (culture as you called it) should be allowed.

It could be said that IS are following their beliefs and I am certain you think these beliefs should be ignored and they should be punished.


Furthermore, as I also know you are an atheist, as am I, I do not understand why you think cake decorating beliefs should be given any credence - or - is it that you consider homosexuals worse than simpletons who think writing on a cake important?

 

[JBR]

Well, you do not think foreigners coming over here with their strange beliefs (culture as you called it) should be allowed.

It could be said that IS are following their beliefs and I am certain you think these beliefs should be ignored and they should be punished.


Furthermore, as I also know you are an atheist, as am I, I do not understand why you think cake decorating beliefs should be given any credence - or - is it that you consider homosexuals worse than simpletons who think writing on a cake important?

I'm not sure you're not just trying to be obstinate. To take your points in the order given:

I am not averse to foreigners coming to this country provided that they would be an asset to the country and they would be prepared to integrate and not try to change our society and laws.

I do believe that ISIS are evil - look at what they've done - and should be exterminated rather than 'punished'.

I couldn't care less about cake decorations. I am in complete disagreement with one person's beliefs (or sexual proclivities) taking precedence over those of another person. Yes, I am an atheist, but even atheists can defend people of faith if their faith (in this case Christianity) is being threatened.

Yes, I'm sure that some homosexuals are simpletons, as are some heterosexuals. Now twist that latter statement to suit your side of the argument!

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure you're not just trying to be obstinate.

Not sure what that means. I am being consistent.

To take your points in the order given:
I am not averse to foreigners coming to this country provided that they would be an asset to the country and they would be prepared to integrate and not try to change our society and laws.

I must have misread; I could have sworn you were averse to those with different beliefs.

I do believe that ISIS are evil - look at what they've done - and should be exterminated rather than 'punished'.

So, I was incorrect because you do not consider extermination to be punishment.
What about their beliefs?

I couldn't care less about cake decorations. I am in complete disagreement with one person's beliefs (or sexual proclivities) taking precedence over those of another person.

How would you have resolved the dispute given that one has been declared illegal and the other no longer is.

Yes, I am an atheist, but even atheists can defend people of faith if their faith (in this case Christianity) is being threatened.

Why?
As you do not believe in it, surely you must think it has no bearing on the matter.

Yes, I'm sure that some homosexuals are simpletons, as are some heterosexuals. Now twist that latter statement to suit your side of the argument!

Undoubtedly.
Presumably, in such a situation, a homosexual would refuse to decorate his own cake.

I think you have twisted well enough.

 

[JBR]

I'm not sure you're not just trying to be obstinate.

Not sure what that means. I am being consistent.

To take your points in the order given:

I am not averse to foreigners coming to this country provided that they would be an asset to the country and they would be prepared to integrate and not try to change our society and laws.

I must have misread; I could have sworn you were averse to those with different beliefs.

Why not read my earlier posts, then show me where I've said that.

I do believe that ISIS are evil - look at what they've done - and should be exterminated rather than 'punished'.

So, I was incorrect because you do not consider extermination to be punishment.
What about their beliefs?

Their beliefs revolve around killing both muslims and non-muslims, I presume. Yes, I consider that worthy of their extermination.

I couldn't care less about cake decorations. I am in complete disagreement with one person's beliefs (or sexual proclivities) taking precedence over those of another person.

How would you have resolved the dispute given that one has been declared illegal and the other no longer is.

I think you'll find that I object to the fact that it is apparently legal to deny Christians (but presumably not muslims) the right to live by their religious beliefs.

Yes, I am an atheist, but even atheists can defend people of faith if their faith (in this case Christianity) is being threatened.

Why?
As you do not believe in it, surely you must think it has no bearing on the matter.

I believe in the right for Christians to live by their religious beliefs, even though I don't believe in a god. I thought I'd made that quite clear.

Yes, I'm sure that some homosexuals are simpletons, as are some heterosexuals. Now twist that latter statement to suit your side of the argument!

Undoubtedly.
Presumably, in such a situation, a homosexual would refuse to decorate his own cake.

I think you have twisted well enough.

Your penultimate sentence sounds distinctly twisted.

One final question: you're not Joe in disguise, are you?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ah, I think you have misunderstood this sentence:

is it that you consider homosexuals worse than simpletons who think writing on a cake important?

I meant:
Is it that you consider "homosexuals" worse than "simpletons who think writing on a cake important"?
I.e. deserve fewer rights than religious believers.

So that when you said some homosexuals were simpletons, I took it that you meant some homosexuals were religious believers.

Hence my comment:
Presumably, in such a situation, a homosexual would refuse to decorate his own cake.

 

[JBR]

Ah, I think you have misunderstood this sentence:

is it that you consider homosexuals worse than simpletons who think writing on a cake important?

I meant:
Is it that you consider "homosexuals" worse than "simpletons who think writing on a cake important"?
I.e. deserve fewer rights than religious believers.

So that when you said some homosexuals were simpletons, I took it that you meant some homosexuals were religious believers.

Hence my comment:
Presumably, in such a situation, a homosexual would refuse to decorate his own cake.

Apology accepted.

Perhaps in future you could be more unambiguous.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What do you mean?

 

[JBR]

Unambiguous = not open to more than one interpretation.

 

[JohnD]

On the subject of freedom, religion and strange beliefs, I wonder if the Belz people of Hackney and Haringey will reject the rule that women are not allowed to drive their children to Haredi school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32935767



I wonder if these religious schools receive tax breaks and monetary contributions from the rest of us.

 

[Micilin]

On the subject of freedom, religion and strange beliefs, I wonder if the Belz people of Hackney and Haringey will reject the rule that women are not allowed to drive their children to Haredi school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32935767



I wonder if these religious schools receive tax breaks and monetary contributions from the rest of us.

Another example of faith schools warping society.

 

[JohnD]

Hurrah for secular democracies