Quote: Originally Posted by
Count_Lothian
You can't get upset with someone's understanding of God.
Sure you can, it depends what that understanding moves them to do.
Looking a little further down your post line in this thread you bring up an interesting point which I would like to address.
If you cherry pick my point and omit what else I said in that sentence, my post ends up serving you well.
But it is unfair to my initial point to cherry pick it for your view and agenda, in getting your point across in the thread, at the cost of my point entirely.
here is the full sentence
You can't get upset with someone's understanding of God for all the masters agree you cannot know God.
Now the point I wanted to make is that in all the origins of our major religions when it comes to defining God , they simply don't.
God the Father is little vague as to what this god is. Once you give any description to God it becomes a small g god.
Islam teaches to the point it is blasphemy ,to describe just what God is ,and descends into the concept of what god's intentions are in regards to creating Satan. Why "Descends to" ? Simply put it is just that ,which is bolstering my view that once you define or connote it turns God into a god.
Buddha just totally ignored any comment on God the creator in a society completely based on God the creator.
Even the caste system under which laws were made in India is to do with God.
So Dexter Sinister, omitting the latter part of my sentence might serve you well in the following post , but it deranges any view I was trying to make. Which seems to be lost on you , but maybe not. That would be jumping to conclusions as to why you just "glommed "over my post for your intentions.
That out of the way. I just realized that I do get touchy at being misquoted.
It's not that simple. I live in a society that consists mostly of believers of some degree, and appears to be governed by some pretty serious believers, and it DOES affect the nature of that society, the nature of public policy and debate, the kinds of issues people think are important, and the kinds of compromises people will accept. It's just wrong to think that the beliefs of the people around you can't affect you.
This is an excellent piece. Being new to this whole medium it's a joy for me to actually engage in something that I've considered important to me.
It's shocking that in this day and age we are governed by people who profess to be Evangelical Christians in order to get voted in in certain areas of our country.
They bring intellectual barbarism to the table of parliment and every descion they make has the underbelly of their belief system.
Is that intolerant of me? Is it wrong for me to watch as our governments decide to toss in a few people wearing headdresses sitting in parliament and then mock the traditions of our para military with the infusion of headdresses.
Hey look at me I sound like I'm intolerant !!!
Why should religion change the look to my iconic Mountie or Toronto police constable on patrol.
Where's that Marois broad when you need her. lol...
For years we had sodomy laws on the books due to barbaric antiquated religious belief .
have a look at this from Wikipedia
and i shall rest my case and thank Dexter sinister for bringing it up.
Canada
Main article:
LGBT rights in Canada
Before 1859, Canada relied on British law to prosecute sodomy. In 1859, Canada repatriated its
buggery law in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada as an offence punishable by death. Buggery remained punishable by death until 1869. A broader law targeting all homosexual male sexual activity ("gross indecency") was passed in 1892, as part of a larger update to the criminal law. Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences. Most famously,
George Klippert, a homosexual, was labelled a dangerous sexual offender and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. He was released in 1971.
Canadian law now permits **** sex by consenting parties above the age of 18, provided no more than two people are present.
[16] The bill repealing Canada's sodomy laws was the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), which received royal assent on June 27, 1969. The bill had been introduced in the House of Commons by
Pierre Trudeau,
[17] who famously stated that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".
[18] In the 1995
Court of Appeal for Ontario case
R. v. M. (C.), the judges ruled that the relevant section (section 159) of the
Criminal Code of Canada violated
section 15 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms when one or both of the partners are 16 to 18 years of age;
[19] this has not been tried in court again.
A similar decision was made by the
Quebec Court of Appeal in the 1998 case
R. v. Roy.
[20]