Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:26:28 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/16/20 1:05 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 8:04 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 12:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: https://ibb.co/bXyng01 So, is okay if you rank on a Christian religion, but I bet you support Muslims rioting and killing over a cartoon. I don't support any religions behaving badly or intruding on those who believe differently or not at all. In this country, the offenders typically are christians. I don’t see Christians trying to implement their version of Sharia laws. You're not looking. The Christian’s are not trying to force their laws on us. Unlike the Shariat. I have to agree with Harry on this one. There are plenty of "morality" laws that are based on religion not any real danger to the public. Examples would be bigamy, laws about drugs and alcohol, obscenity, blue laws and until recently adultery, cohabitation and various sex acts among consenting adults. I bet they still exist in some bible belt states. I bet Harry even supports some of them, left over from his abandoned Judeo/Christian upbringing. I object to religious symbolism being displayed on public property and on currency. I have no objection to public Christmas trees or lights, as I don't consider them religious. I object to religious organizations pushing to end availability of abortion. I think responsible use of alcohol and drugs by adults should be decriminalized, along with possession of small, personal amounts of drugs. Adultery, cohabitation and "various sex acts" between consenting adults are none of my business and shouldn't be the state's business, either. I don't think there should be billboards along the highways and byways showing sex acts, but otherwise, not my business. My dad was deeply involved in efforts in Connecticut to repeal "blue laws" as they pertained to forced Sunday closing. Oh, in high school, I presented reports on Joyce's Ulysses and Donleavy's The Ginger Man in my junior year English lit class. I believe both books were "banned" by some groups for a while for "obscenities." ![]() See you are a Libertarian after all. ;-) I don't even have a problem with religious displays on public property as long as the tax payer is not paying and it is open to all beliefs or even the lack of belief. In High School I did a book report on "The Tropic of Cancer" when that was scandalous and illegal (bootleg copies were around tho) but in the end my report was pretty negative. I really didn't care about these people's miserable lives. Henry Miller failed to make it any more interesting to me by dropping a few F bombs and calling women ****s. |
#13
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 8:04 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 12:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: https://ibb.co/bXyng01 So, is okay if you rank on a Christian religion, but I bet you support Muslims rioting and killing over a cartoon. I don't support any religions behaving badly or intruding on those who believe differently or not at all. In this country, the offenders typically are christians. I don’t see Christians trying to implement their version of Sharia laws. You're not looking. The Christian’s are not trying to force their laws on us. Unlike the Shariat. I have to agree with Harry on this one. There are plenty of "morality" laws that are based on religion not any real danger to the public. Examples would be bigamy, laws about drugs and alcohol, obscenity, blue laws and until recently adultery, cohabitation and various sex acts among consenting adults. I bet they still exist in some bible belt states. I bet Harry even supports some of them, left over from his abandoned Judeo/Christian upbringing. I am not saying there are present laws, but does not seem to be a punch for new laws. |
#14
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/16/20 1:05 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 8:04 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/15/20 12:34 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: https://ibb.co/bXyng01 So, is okay if you rank on a Christian religion, but I bet you support Muslims rioting and killing over a cartoon. I don't support any religions behaving badly or intruding on those who believe differently or not at all. In this country, the offenders typically are christians. I don’t see Christians trying to implement their version of Sharia laws. You're not looking. The Christian’s are not trying to force their laws on us. Unlike the Shariat. I have to agree with Harry on this one. There are plenty of "morality" laws that are based on religion not any real danger to the public. Examples would be bigamy, laws about drugs and alcohol, obscenity, blue laws and until recently adultery, cohabitation and various sex acts among consenting adults. I bet they still exist in some bible belt states. I bet Harry even supports some of them, left over from his abandoned Judeo/Christian upbringing. I object to religious symbolism being displayed on public property and on currency. I have no objection to public Christmas trees or lights, as I don't consider them religious. I object to religious organizations pushing to end availability of abortion. I think responsible use of alcohol and drugs by adults should be decriminalized, along with possession of small, personal amounts of drugs. Adultery, cohabitation and "various sex acts" between consenting adults are none of my business and shouldn't be the state's business, either. I don't think there should be billboards along the highways and byways showing sex acts, but otherwise, not my business. My dad was deeply involved in efforts in Connecticut to repeal "blue laws" as they pertained to forced Sunday closing. Oh, in high school, I presented reports on Joyce's Ulysses and Donleavy's The Ginger Man in my junior year English lit class. I believe both books were "banned" by some groups for a while for "obscenities." ![]() As long as the government is not paying for the display, have no problem with them. The founding fathers even acknowledged a supreme being. There just was not to be a state sponsored being. Church of England was a very recent memory. And those public lands also belong to the Christians, the Muslims, the agnostic, the atheists. |