Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[a completely inoffensive name]

It isn't guilt by association.

Wrong try again.

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country). The religious right Christians in countries do make almost all social laws based upon what their religion dictates. Gay marriage= Jesus doesn't like it. Ground Zero Mosque= Intolerance towards religion that's not Christianity.

Also, don't tell me the UK didn't have "draconian" measures. You only decriminalized homosexual male intercourse in 1967. Up until then you cracked down on those gays including Alan Turing, who then killed himself. But I guess ruining the life of one of the most brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists because he was gay isn't "draconian" to Christians, it's just keeping the country "clean" for God.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country).

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

That isn't a charitable assumption.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That isn't a charitable assumption.

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

[Beskar]

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

Ok well I already knew that draconian laws don't solely come from Christians, I'm not that unreasonable. I just didn't take that meaning from your statement since I had not seen anyone directly attempt to propagate the statement that only Christians make draconian laws. So I figured that that was not the reasoning behind the statement since I (and from what Sasaki told me) figured that you were making a direct counterpoint to someone.

I also understand and recognize your draco point, I only had a problem with the statement "Soviet gov was atheist, it was draconian. What about that?"

As for the first two items on the list, I would need to read these "strong sociological arguments" towards stopping same sex couples from strengthening society by forming life long bonds towards each other in the form of marriage and towards preventing abusive couples from ending their perpetual dysfunctional relationship.

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.