Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Don't see where that addresses the issue that there are religious people for which none of that fits. Church is surely about institution as opposed to what an individual is?

It addresses it because, as I said, “synonymous” is wrong in certain cases but for the purpose of the point he was attempting (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with “equating church with the religious”. Why? Because that’s what “church” entails.

If you have a church that isn’t religious, then it’s not a church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

You mean this - that doesn't say that


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15210.675

One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.

[Nearly Sane]

One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.

No, he isn't - he raises that there are questions, some of which I disagree with,  but it doesn't make that categorical statement that religious people should be excluded from office

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It addresses it because, as I said, “synonymous” is wrong in certain cases but for the purpose of the point he was attempting (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with “equating church with the religious”. Why? Because that’s what “church” entails.

If you have a church that isn’t religious, then it’s not a church.

No, that's nonsensical if two things are not synonymous, and in this case it isn't, you are merely falling into Vlad's incorrect definition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, he isn't - he raises that there are questions, some of which I disagree with,  but it doesn't make that categorical statement that religious people should be excluded from office

I'm sorry but he does say this and I quote

''OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.

So where in Reply 693 do I say that?

Are you trying to say that I think there are some roles in public office that people with some some religious views shouldn't hold?

Damn right I do - the end of times enthusiast nuclear button officer being one of them. And so I presume do you.
 
At no time though have I even suggested that religious people in general should be barred from public office in general, as you well know.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but he does say this and I quote

''OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs.''

Which doesn't make the statement that religious people should be prevented from holding office as a blanket statement. nor that it is a ban on religion but on beliefs. If was your religious belief that you should be able to have sex with a 6 year old child, I would want you banned from being a teacher, just the same as if someone had a non religious belief on that

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

So where in Reply 693 do I say that?

Are you trying to say that I think there are some roles in public office that people with some some religious views shouldn't hold?

Damn right I do - the end of times enthusiast nuclear button officer being one of them. And so I presume do you.
 
At no time though have I even suggested that religious people in general should be barred from public office in general, as you well know.

Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, that's nonsensical if two things are not synonymous, and in this case it isn't, you are merely falling into Vlad's incorrect definition.

I've already pulled back from "synonymous" (ie, interchangeable) but the point remains that his effort was idiotic - you can't have a church that isn't "equated with the religious".

[ProfessorDavey]

One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.

He doesn't - even if he thought in those specific circumstance that those individual religious people were not suited to hold public office, that doesn't mean that he thinks all religious people should be excluded from public office.

Just accept it, you are wrong - apologise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?

Why not apologise for your misrepresentation first and then we can address that question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which doesn't make the statement that religious people should be prevented from holding office as a blanket statement. nor that it is a ban on religion but on beliefs. If was your religious belief that you should be able to have sex with a 6 year old child, I would want you banned from being a teacher, just the same as if someone had a non religious belief on that

Hillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.

You see this is what secularism is these days....a council of atheists deciding what's acceptible and what isn't.

You are getting horribly confused,you are making a pigs ear of your argument. I represent the status quo and it's up to you guys to pursuade me that change works.

Susan Doris has expressed concern at partly thought through arguments and the unintended consequences of change.

I've said all I want to on this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.

You see this is what secularism is these days....a council of atheists deciding what's acceptible and what isn't.

You are getting horribly confused,you are making a pigs ear of your argument. I represent the status quo and it's up to you guys to pursuade me that change works.

Susan Doris has expressed concern at partly thought through arguments and the unintended consequences of change.

I've said all I want to on this.

And the lies keep on coming. I actually suggested "banees" only from certain jobs (pressing the nuclear button for example), not from public office in general.

So about that apology?

[Nearly Sane]

Hillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.

You see this is what secularism is these days....a council of atheists deciding what's acceptible and what isn't.

You are getting horribly confused,you are making a pigs ear of your argument. I represent the status quo and it's up to you guys to pursuade me that change works.

Susan Doris has expressed concern at partly thought through arguments and the unintended consequences of change.

I've said all I want to on this.

And yet again this seems to answer some different point to what was made,, and ignore the one that was made. I note that you represent privilege and want to support it, and to enshrine the homophobia of the bishops. The status quo argument doesn't work because it's a position that needs to be justified as ell, As pointed out to SusanDoris, it would have worked to keep slavery - and unless you would have voted for the status quo there ypur use of the argument here is logically inconsistent

[Nearly Sane]

And the lies keep on coming. I actually suggested "banees" only from certain jobs (pressing the nuclear button for example), not from public office in general.

So about that apology?

Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office  and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the lies keep on coming. I actually suggested "banees" only from certain jobs (pressing the nuclear button for example), not from public office in general.

So about that apology?

I apologise if I gave the impression that you would not consider redeploying people to lower more menial roles in public office as you made clear in your original essay.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office  and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.

First, the statement was made that I’d said something I hadn’t said at all. That was the initial misrepresentation part (something he does a lot by the way, along with quote doctoring, straw man knitting etc). That's a stand alone issue.

Second, if the question then becomes: “OK so that’s not what you said at all but what do you think anyway?” then I’d be happy to answer. The answer is, "no of course I don’t support the banning of religious people in general from public office in general. What I actually support is the banning of people with certain religious beliefs from certain public sector jobs.

If Vlad actually thought about it (yeah I know, but hey) so does he. He wouldn’t for example permit the Mullah who heads up ISIS to be a fighter pilot in the RAF and nor, to take your example, would he permit the person who thinks sex with a children is a religious obligation to be a teacher. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I apologise if I gave the impression that you would not consider redeploying people to lower more menial roles in public office as you made clear in your original essay.

Doesn’t wash. What you should be apologising for is implying that I’d said that religious people in general should be banned from public sector jobs in general.

What I actually think has nothing do with how menial the job is, but rather everything to do with the content of the belief and the harm it could do if acted on in public office.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office  and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.

He was responding to me - the question being:

Do you think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office?

That is clearly an overarching question on principle to which the answer 'no' (or ON) is perfectly appropriate. That there might be some religious people who might be unsuitable for some public office positions isn't really relevant to the question I asked. We are talking about the principle here, not specific examples.

[Walter]

Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?

certainly not . No

[Walt Zingmatilder]

certainly not . No

What public jobs should the religious be allowed?

[Walter]

What public jobs should the religious be allowed?

can't think of one . I'll get back to you .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

can't think of one . I'll get back to you .

That's Jolly D of you.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

First, the statement was made that I’d said something I hadn’t said at all. That was the initial misrepresentation part (something he does a lot by the way, along with quote doctoring, straw man knitting etc). That's a stand alone issue.

Second, if the question then becomes: “OK so that’s not what you said at all but what do you think anyway?” then I’d be happy to answer. The answer is, "no of course I don’t support the banning of religious people in general from public office in general. What I actually support is the banning of people with certain religious beliefs from certain public sector jobs.

If Vlad actually thought about it (yeah I know, but hey) so does he. He wouldn’t for example permit the Mullah who heads up ISIS to be a fighter pilot in the RAF and nor, to take your example, would he permit the person who thinks sex with a children is a religious obligation to be a teacher.

The problem is that you seem t be making it about the religious belief rather just the belief, i.e the second part of my example of paedophilia is not about religion,

[bluehillside Retd.]

What public jobs should the religious be allowed?

In which Vladdo attempts a, “have you stop beating your wife yet?” question. Who says that “the religious” should or shouldn’t be allowed “public jobs”?

The actual question is, “which religious beliefs and which public office job combinations should be kept apart?”

Mind you, let’s cut him some slack - perhaps he’s been a bit distracted what with composing that fulsome apology he owes me?