Comments on: blind

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:39:26 +0000

lordrandom: don’t worry about your “grammar”– I did get enough of it right. You write a helluva lot more clearly than Jean Paul Sartre.

As Alway-Broke-Dick says, “Just keep it simple and it will be clear.”

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:57:05 +0000

Oh I think I know what has happened. Correct me if I’m wrong but the barmaid said laws should come from all views while I thought she meant religous belief should not be considered when making laws. Basically I made assumptions on a misinterpreted argument. My apologies.

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:07:48 +0000

I can’t say what Poor Richard was referring to, but speaking for myself, ‘The Barmaid said she disagreed with legalising on the basis of religion‘ seemed incongrous. I took it as a reference to the Euthanasia question a month or two ago, but re-reading it now I’m guessing you meant ‘legislating’. I think PR answered as much of your original question as he thought he understood, whilst stating that that wasn’t all of it. Either way, you seem to answer your question yourself in your latest post: ‘different religions… can result in different viewpoints on any issue…’. Obviously, unless you have a mono-religious state, you will have different religiously-originated viewpoints or positions on particular issues – or even issues themselves which are only issues in the eyes of a particular religious sect. For exactly that reason in any state other than a religious totalitarian one, law-making must be separate from religious edicts. It cannot primarily be based on any one religion’s view (even if any religion could agree amongst itself what it’s view was, eg most catholics – fortunately – ignore Ratzinger’s position on birth-control).

By: Matt Oxley

Matt Oxley — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:14 +0000

enjoyed again Author, keep it up.

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:10:03 +0000

Well he answered my question then two lines later he asked what my question meant, surely if you can answer a question you understand its meaning?

What I meant by my question is that different religions or lines of thoughts regarding religion can result in different viewpoints on any certain issue being raised. My question was how can you remove religion entirely from law when it is about view points as well as specific laws and customs?

Interesting argument Daoloth

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:29:39 +0000

lordrandom- My twopenneth would be to say that laws replace religion insofar as modern ones recognise the right to self-ownership. There are obvious grey areas of mental competance, age etc in deciding your own fate, but in general modern (ie post-enlightenment) law recognises that you own yourself and law regulates conduct between autonomous adults. This has implications, for example about slavery, forcing women to have children against their will, euthanasia etc. Religious law, and again their may be grey areas that I have no knowledge of such as Budhism, but certainly Judeo-Christian-Muslim (the differences are cosmetic to atheists) law does not recognise self-ownership. You are God’s property, through the august (self-serving usually) offices of His ministers. You cannot voluntarily withdraw labour. If female you are a baby machine. You cant even legally end it all when you choose-although others might impell you to do so! You had to pay for your own torture to extract a confession from yourself as a witch (I am not making this up).
Post enlightenment thinkers reject this picture and tend to emphasise liberalism for consenting competent adults within rational limits- “Your freedom to wave your arms ends where my nose begins”. That’s where I, and I suspect most other enlightenment-types would draw the line- self-ownership. Comments welcome!

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:21:29 +0000

Why do you ’see someone’s religion as a way to encompass all their beliefs under one label’? Do you think that every member of any particular religion has identical beliefs? Even if that were the case, as we live in a pluralistic society, not a theocratic state (unless there’s anyone from any muslim dictatorships or the vatican reading) why would any lines need to be drawn specifically in accordance with any religious beliefs?

And in what way does asking exactly what your original comment mean ‘not help [Poor Richard's] argument’? Which parts of what he said do you think are not correct? And how do those parts – if there are any – support your position?

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:44:13 +0000

I know I have grammar issues but it doesn’t help your argument when you asked what I meant soon after giving an answer to my question.

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:57:06 +0000

Lord, random indeed. I cannot think of any decent law that represents “belief.” Law is supposed to represent and support the contracts we make with one another in order to get safely through our communal lives. There are, of course, laws based on beliefs, most of them dangerous or at least silly (i.e., not “decent”). One of my favorite categories is blue laws that prohibit fishing or buying beer on Sundays. Yes, fishing. And just when out economy needs every little boost it can get . . .

And don’t kid yourselves out there: capital punishment IS rooted in religion.

By the way, lordrandom, your prose is sort of random. What the hell did you just say, anyway?

By: Grindlay

Grindlay — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:59:31 +0000

Have looked at three consecutive strips of “Day by Day”.
Conclusion : (a) it is working on a much higher intellectual level than J&M therefore I don’t “get it”
…or (b) it’s shit.

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:37:40 +0000

I’ve got a question for the Barmaid, not sure if you take questions but I’ll ask anyway.
The Barmaid said she disagreed with legalising on the basis of religion.
But if you see someone’s religion as a way to encompas all of thier beliefs under one label where do you draw the line at which beliefs should be acted upon from a legal sense and which should not?

By: Urmensch

Urmensch — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:26:46 +0000

Perhaps the church paedophile cadre are worried there won’t be enough pre-pubescents to go around?

By: Teleprompter

Teleprompter — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:39:16 +0000

Hey, if we can’t get Jesus and Mo over the top, I’m sure Pharyngula could use the help. It’s currently in second for best Science blogs, and I’m a little biased…but I think it’s a good cause.

And yes, I’ve voted for Jesus and Mo several times – not at once.

By: Anthony Mercer

Anthony Mercer — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:07:04 +0000

I’m too tired to comment, but I am anyway.

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:53:05 +0000

Johnnie: quite so; also, in even older cultures, to provide plenty of young boys and girls for sacrifice to the gods of … uh…fertility.

I hope everyone recognizes that the Pope, however kindly and leaderlike he might appear, is absolutely public enemy number one, second not even to Hitler. The only person who ever agreed with me on this was a devout Catholic woman who, duh, had aout eight or nine kids.

What say you, Ophelia?

By: JohnnieCanuck

JohnnieCanuck — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:51:12 +0000

Maybe we’ll get a plan B christian this year, since we’ve all been so good. The first one didn’t seem to last very long at all, especially after the stuffing fell out.

On topic, can anyone think of any other reason those ancient priest-kings were so attentive to the sexual behaviour of their subjects, beyond the obvious need to keep all the wombs full of future warriors?

One of my deepest disappointments with the modern Catholic church is its failure to put the needs of the whole planet ahead of their selfish reasons for maximising Catholic fecundity.

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:05:55 +0000

Love it! The boys get to grips with the extra-strong anthropic principle- the one described by Terry Pratchett as the theory that the reason the universe exists is to revolve around me. Much beloved of adolsecent naifs and religious types. But I repeat myself. You out there “A Christian”? We miss your perspective.

By: John The Geologist

John The Geologist — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:40:30 +0000

As they say in Ireland at election time “vote early and vote often”.

I have just been seriously abusing my democratic rights.

Unfortunately I need to do so another 4,578 times this evening to get the Author into pole posiition.

I feel that this might be construed as taking the piss.

I have never seen Day By Day before. Actully it is pretty good but seems a bit rightwing to me. The women all look like Betty and Wilma from the Flintstones (which is no bad thing as they were my first crushes – I was never very good at this reality thing).

I hope the democratic process gets fucked to death over the next few days and the Author reigns triumphant. As someone once said “for good to triumph evil bastards need only do bastard things to the voting system” (although I might have misrememberised that (c) G Bush, soon to be unemployed, and one can only pray, unemployable).

By: Ish

Ish — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:59:21 +0000

Well have any of you ever met any sort of theist with the slightest idea of what the word evidence means?

Or even theory!

Good to have you back J&M

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:26:03 +0000

Ah, the blind leading the blind again.

TRiG.