Coyote
Well-Known Member
Actually much of this is dragged over from his posts on the Abortion thread and the Torture thread, where his posts have hewed to the religious line with amazing clarity for a person who denies religious influence. A point to remember here is that Pale has never come our and stated his religious underpinnings, he hasn't claimed agnosticism or atheism either. My position on him stands.
As the voume of scientific data continues to increase more and more religious people are beginning to accept it, but still doing exactly what Pale is by denying homosexual people rights on other pretenses.
Well...just in terms of PaleRider's arguments - and I'm thinking of the Abortion ones - I would disagree. I have to admit - when someone uses religion as a basis for argument, it totally negates the argument for me. I have no respect for it because usually it entails only a respect for some life.
Two other people who I debated with actually influenced my thinking:
One, an athiest, argued against abortion in much the same way PR did and one of his points, looked at from an ethical and athiest viewpoint was - we only have one life ever, and that's it. No after life, no second chances, etc.
The other, a Christian who was strong in his beliefs, believed that life was sacred and we did not have the right to take it. He was against abortion and he was also against the death penalty. So many people who argue against abortion for religious "life is sacred" reasons have no problem turning around and frying a condemned man. Interestingly this same person was also for civil unions for gays. He believed that God created this country for freedom for his people, the beauty of equality and free will (his words). He supported the government sponsored "civil union " but opposed to "gay marrage" because "marriage" is a religious function and religious freedom is a core American belief. The church should not be forced by the government to change their doctrine but the government is obligated to create equality in America for all.
I respected the points he made.
I actually respect PR's arguments much more not knowing his religious beliefs. Why? Because if I knew them, then I everything he said would be viewed through the lens of religion. His beliefs are actually irrelevent to the debate when you come right down to it because he is not using religion to make his point. (if that makes any sense )