LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis whole discussion is designed to deflect attention from the forthcoming budget.
This whole discussion is designed to deflect attention from the forthcoming budget.
Originally Posted by Factorem
Define budget....
It is when the definition of the word is when the person uses it is made clear. It has been. Move on or have you been argued into a corner you can't get out of?
Okay, you didn't say majority: You said this:
Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003Obviously, whether the belief is held and practised by substantial members of society would be an important factor.
This is an American poll which says that 31% of Americans believe in Astrology. I'm sure the number would be over 10% at least in this country.
If you don't need majority opinion, then Astrology should be respected (I think 10% or over is substantial enough), and if the minister chooses to use Astrology to make a government decision that should be respected by everyone without comment, and without debate (because that would imply that we are not respecting the belief but questioning it).
The current administration seem to be using Arsetrology to work out the finances anyway.
The pair of you are like some student debating society with your focus on "winning" the argument. Its hilarious. You (or I) will never "win" this argument.... The answer is not to have a winner or a loser. That is my entore point. It is about mutual respect. Religon or the religous will not go away or suddenly realise their folly.
Of course, no Minister in a secular state would base a policy on a astrology oor christianity. That certainly would not be within the definition of secularism!!
But, the State could still respect it, for instance by allowing horoscopes to be printed in the paper and allowing "psychics live" to operate premium lines and allow mystic meg types to tell people their fortunes.
Whats the problem with that?
Yes, that's called "free speech". It doesn't imply "respect" for an idea, or endorse it, only that one is free to express the idea, and, of course, that others are free to say that the idea is not evidentially based and is silly.
The question here is what the state actually "respects" and how it decides so. You say it should respect everything, and yet you say that a minister cannot be an astrologist or Christian while they are taking part in State business? Why not: why can't they expect their religious, astrological or other beliefs to be respected?
I expect them to justify their folly if their folly is to be the basis of policy. I didn't focus on winning any argument I focussed on getting you to present one. Now it's clear. You don't have one. You seem to regard the mere existence of the religious as QED.
I'll just say that by doing that it's not insulting to me but to them. They are so useless that they cannot argue their position so they should get their way by merely existing. It's pitiful. In in all my assertions have never said anything as patronising as that to the religious
Oh dear God - why would they waste money on such a pathetic advertising campaign??
Why do you continue to mis-read my posts.....? Or is it by design?
I said "no Minister in a secular state would base a policy on a astrology oor christianity. That certainly would not be within the definition of secularism"
Reply With Quote