Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that the OP is addressing the people that want to ban something because it goes against their religious beliefs but then ignore other morals prescribed by their religion or the religious beliefs of others. You can see this in cases like that of Kim Davis. She's perfectly fine denying gays marriage licenses because her religious beliefs say homosexuality is immoral but then completely ignores other things like adultery or how other religions say eating meat is immoral. While these types of theists will prattle on how x should be banned because their religion says it's wrong, the truth is that they're just picking and choosing laws based on what works for them. Using their religious beliefs is really just an accuse so they can feel they're better than everyone else. It's hypocrisy and these type of theists are just sanctimonious narcissists.
If Shirina, who is consistently sharp and rarely lets anything get by her, missed the point.... I suggest you re-write the OP.
Im not going to bother. If I were to come across a thread OP like this, my reaction would be " well, lets see how the fundamentalist Christians feel about other religions try to force their beliefs onto society at large".
It seems that the OP is addressing the people that want to ban something because it goes against their religious beliefs but then ignore other morals prescribed by their religion or the religious beliefs of others. You can see this in cases like that of Kim Davis. She's perfectly fine denying gays marriage licenses because her religious beliefs say homosexuality is immoral but then completely ignores other things like adultery or how other religions say eating meat is immoral. While these types of theists will prattle on how x should be banned because their religion says it's wrong, the truth is that they're just picking and choosing laws based on what works for them. Using their religious beliefs is really just an accuse so they can feel they're better than everyone else. It's hypocrisy and these type of theists are just sanctimonious narcissists.
Except that the OP reasoning seems to be seeking the logic of passing a law based on a superficial commonality of belief between religions, rather than the imposition of one religious belief on all others.
Im not going to bother. If I were to come across a thread OP like this, my reaction would be " well, lets see how the fundamentalist Christians feel about other religions try to force their beliefs onto society at large".
I am amazed that this went over everyone's head .
Wow.
So..... this wasn't about bacon....... aahahahahahaha
It seems that the OP is addressing the people that want to ban something because it goes against their religious beliefs but then ignore other morals prescribed by their religion or the religious beliefs of others. You can see this in cases like that of Kim Davis. She's perfectly fine denying gays marriage licenses because her religious beliefs say homosexuality is immoral but then completely ignores other things like adultery or how other religions say eating meat is immoral. While these types of theists will prattle on how x should be banned because their religion says it's wrong, the truth is that they're just picking and choosing laws based on what works for them. Using their religious beliefs is really just an accuse so they can feel they're better than everyone else. It's hypocrisy and these type of theists are just sanctimonious narcissists.
More to the point, it was to see how fundamentalist Christians would react to other religions trying to impose their religious morals on them.
More to the point, it was to see how fundamentalist Christians would react to other religions trying to impose their religious morals on them.
But again,
Wow.
I know you're trying to target fundamentalist Christians. You may get a better response if you move this thread into the Christianity forum however you don't really need to ask this question to know how fundamentalist Christians will react. Fundamentalists always react to these sorts of questions the same way. They'll say that it's wrong to ban meat because it's imposing someone else's religious beliefs onto them. They'll also say that you're comparing apples to oranges. They'll say something along the lines of the fact that banning meat is different than banning gay marriage because god said that marriage was only between a man and a woman even though someone else's god or religion says that eating meat is immoral. If you try to imply that they're imposing their religious morals onto others or that banning meat is no different than them imposing their religious morals, they'll just start babbling about how it's different because they aren't imposing their morals onto others, they're just practicing their religion. These are the reactions you're going to get from fundamentalist Christians.
You want fundamentalists to respond? You have to get their attention. Use a thread title like: Fundies and Sex.
They can't resist those. If you want a really big response use Fundies and Homosexual Sex. Guaranteed mega response.
Except that you have given the punchline away before the joke , or set the hook before the fish bites , as it were.
But I just really didn't anticipate the OP not being grasped by the non fundie crowd here. That still makes me shake my head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.