LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHe was brave to speak up for discredited institution but you guys aregradually destroying his own faith and turning him into an athiest.
Its 1 against 50!
He was brave to speak up for discredited institution but you guys aregradually destroying his own faith and turning him into an athiest.
Its 1 against 50!
Nah, it was 1950s, but it later never really happened . My point is that popular history relating to events such as Fethard-on-Sea, the '37 Constitution and the Mother & Child affair have been written with a fairly strong, and inaccurate, anti-clericalist tint.Originally Posted by DOD
No that was 1948. I think Fethard was the 50s.Wasn't that the same decade when the Bishops got a minister sacked because he wanted free health care for young children and mothers?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It would be like living in a country where we are not allowed farm people to provide organs and so on for the sick and needy.Actually, can you answer my 1st question. What if you lived in a country that only had 929 people that were not JW and every hosptial bar one was JW?So, would you say all killing is the same, no because a person is dead at the end of it, it's all the same. Come on, you've gotta be more nuanced...
My point is, isn't secularism better than if JW controlled the government and inserted JW into the constitution and made every hospital conform to the ethos of the state?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It would be an unjust law. People must have a right to follow their conscience so long as this does not offend against the common-good. Regardless of the religion of the majority, there must always be provision made for the non-religious. quote]
Hold on a sec. In a majority JW country JW hospitals would be for the common good.
Wouldn't that best be protected by complete seperation of church and state? People would be free to practice their religion but we would still be able to provide quality healthcare based on best medical practice, rather than JW, the majority religion, yes?Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion for those who choose this.
So we should just ignore it?Nah, it was 1950s, but it later never really happened . My point is that popular history relating to events such as Fethard-on-Sea, the '37 Constitution and the Mother & Child affair have been written with a fairly strong, and inaccurate, anti-clericalist tint.No that was 1948. I think Fethard was the 50s.Wasn't that the same decade when the Bishops got a minister sacked because he wanted free health care for young children and mothers?
"John Bull has got his hand down your pants and his fist around your bollox and you can't see it."
But what is best medical practice?People would be free to practice their religion but we would still be able to provide quality healthcare based on best medical practice, rather than JW, the majority religion, yes?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nah, just try and be a bit more critical in our reading of the events.So we should just ignore it?Nah, it was 1950s, but it later never really happened . My point is that popular history relating to events such as Fethard-on-Sea, the '37 Constitution and the Mother & Child affair have been written with a fairly strong, and inaccurate, anti-clericalist tint.No that was 1948. I think Fethard was the 50s.Wasn't that the same decade when the Bishops got a minister sacked because he wanted free health care for young children and mothers?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh you've got to love those wacky Jehovah's Witnesses. Read an article in one of their magazines asking how homosexuality can be 'avoided'. As if it was some sort of disease.
"John Bull has got his hand down your pants and his fist around your bollox and you can't see it."
You misunderstand the common good, the common good is not a formula to opress the minority and the weak, these must always be protected.It would be an unjust law. People must have a right to follow their conscience so long as this does not offend against the common-good. Regardless of the religion of the majority, there must always be provision made for the non-religious. quote]
Hold on a sec. In a majority JW country JW hospitals would be for the common good.
Wouldn't that best be protected by complete seperation of church and state? People would be free to practice their religion but we would still be able to provide quality healthcare based on best medical practice, rather than JW, the majority religion, yes?Freedom of religion must also mean freedom from religion for those who choose this.
I completly agree with separation of Church and State, but, I don't think this should make the State secular. It ough to make the State pluralist. Iwould be in favour of supporting many different models of medical care, religions, non-religious etc.
Well, I don't know, but wouldn't it best to let trained professionals decide rather than religious leaders?
Reply With Quote