Dear OzSpen,

Is there any reason I should not state my opinion as to Christianity and Islam being both nonsense. Israel Folau, you and I should be free to state our opinions.

Dear davidf,

I agree that absolutist in the fullest extent was probably a stretch however placing freedom of speech above virtually all other considerations is a particularly American bent I think we can both recognise.

Another example would be the second amendment which was primarily to ensure "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Until 2008 it was assumed by both the supreme and federal courts to apply to militia not to individual rights. A court case in that year opposing a ban on handguns in Washington DC overturn the precedent. Absolutism at its finest.

A commitment to and a revering of laissez faire capitalism would also rank here.

Not attempting to pass judgement of course, there are many American values I am lock step with, it is just that I prefer our way of doing things on some issues, right or wrong as they may be.

You rightly state; “The right of a person to employment is a cloudy issue.” but in this case the reasons given by the Rugby Australia chiefs were primarily about damage to the brand, not specifically passing judgement of Folau's meme. There is however an extra question here, how much should corporate influence extend to selection the national rugby side?

In a way this should be a wake up call to those blithely accept the commodification of our sporting codes. This to me is a big issue worth exploring as a result of what has happened.

Steele,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In that famous statement 'A well regulated militia' is dependent upon 'the right of the people being able to keep and bear arms', not the other way around.

Basic English.

OzSpen wrote: “You are outspoken about Christianity being nonsense. Should your views be rubbished like Israel Folau's have been?”

Dear OzSpen,

If I were so delicate that I could not stand having my views rubbished I would not post on olo. If someone thinks Israel Folau’s or my views are rubbish they have a right to say so.

I am interested in the history of religions. I am reading A History of Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch. MacCulloch is a Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University. Although he was brought up in the church he no longer believes, but he has a great knowledge of church history. One quote from the book is relevant to our discussion.

“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.” P. 11

I also find Christianity crazy - virgin birth, God divided in three parts, a person dying for another’s sin, a man god etc. MacCulloch tells of the spread of this craziness.

The history of Christianity in the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust inspired by Christian hatred, the massacres of heretics and Jews, the Wars of the Reformation, the murder of scientists such as Hypatia, Servetus and Bruno and the enslavement and massacre of native peoples is a tale of violence. Hospitals and schools do not compensate for the appalling violence.

The secular state and separation of state and religion have tamed the sheer beastliness of Christianity. I am glad to live in a time where I have the freedom to say that Christianity is nonsense without being burned at the stake.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The influence of sport in our society should be discussed. I oppose public funds subsidising the Olympics and professional sports. Australian politicians state which team they support as though that has to do with public policy

Dear Is Mise,

In diffidence to o sung wu I will refrain from my initial response.

However let us be very clear, until the 2008 ruling no court in the US had ever found that individuals had the right to a firearm. This was judicial activism and it blocked attempts by Washington DC to prevent the horrendous cost of handguns in their city.

Judge Stevens rightly made the point in his dissent that "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Now I can either take your interpretation of the wording or I can take that of the learned judge.

Guess.

Dear OzSpen,

What on earth are you on about?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with davidf saying “In my opinion both Christianity and Islam are nonsense. However, people have the right to believe in nonsense.”

“Ad hominem is Latin for "to the person” short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
Wikipedia.

Christianity and Islam are not people, they are belief systems which davidf was perfectly within his right to furnish an opinion on.

From your link on Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association); “When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.”

But that isn't the case here is it. From my reading davidf didn't assert that Christianity and Islam are nonsense because people believe in nonsense but rather they were objectively so. Again he was very clear it was his opinion.

I am of course asserting you have made a fallacious use of a fallacy and am asking you to refrain.