Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
The point of discussion is against the very precise template laid out by Joe.
Which is, he has no issues with what people do per their faith, as long as they do it within the laws of the land.
My point is equally simple.
We have laws of the land that are built around a faith. Not vice versa. Because the faith believes it is the law. Everything else either does not exist, or comes a distant second.
We have an issue there. And it is not going to be solved by being diplomatic by saying all faiths do the same.
They do not.
Precisely the point that I am trying to make, with precision. We should stop worrying about any faith believing that it is the law. Not in this constitutionally-sovereign non-theistic state, they cannot.
I have not seen that choice ever offered to them.
Nor do I feel you would be very happy with the results were the issue ever to be enforced.
Again, I'm not looking to be happy or unhappy. It's about the law, and adhering to the rule of law. To the Constitution. To stopping being arseholes on both sides of this totally phony discussion between two sets of bigots. If the law is observed, and tempered with mercy from time to time, to allow obviously harsh decisions to be ameliorated by human intervention, as a matter of the greatest rarity, I'm NOT UNHAPPY, and I have a reasonable crack at being happy with my books, with my booze and with Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Mozart and Paganini, if I can spare time from listening to opera.
Seeing the laws applied or not being applied should not make anyone of balanced mind and disposition either happy or unhappy. That they are is a pointer to the fundamental flaws in our thinking about our state and why it exists.
I cannot carry on until Joe (or anyone else) rebuts the point I have made.
Sometime it makes life more interesting when you try and defend a shaky premise. Than one that is a no-brainer and requires no special grey-effort.
LOL.
Brave mannikin.