<the progressive sectarian believes all religions are bad since the adherents fight and quarrel. Also the more homosexuals we have the better since they don’t procreate and equally embraced is that abortion and euthanasia are needed for efficient population management.>
Bruce, religions are bad not just because they fight, but because false beliefs are always bad. False religious belief mistakes are like any other mistake we make based on ignorance. Unfortunately, ignorance is what we all have to deal with ever day because our brains are too pathetic to have a clue about more than a tiny sphere of existence.
But like scouts, religion is a good club to join for people who want a club to join so they get the cuddly herd feeling. Then, when they peek out at the cosmos, they don't get a shiver down their spine. They are suffused with a warm glow, thinking the universe is looking back at them with love rather than indifference, or worse, hunger, or even worse, malevolence. Get a great white shark or tiger in the vicinity and you find out how much love there is in the cosmos for we the sheeple.
It's a shame religionists have such a propensity for surreal self-belief and murderous actions against infidels, heretics, apostates, and other blasphemers. They are in good company though. Any megalomaniac soon finds a reason to knock off, or at least use and abuse, anyone who doesn't kneel in adulation and provide cash flow [or goods in kind]. Look at Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler - heck, the non-religious megalomaniacs make the religious look like pussies [though the heart-hacking Aztecs were no pussies].
I think you are stretching an argument on the homosexuals. I've never heard of anybody thinking that the more the better because they won't breed. Actually, plenty of them do [because they marry women as cover or because they fancy anything that moves].
Abortion is not [in free countries] anything other than a woman's right to decide what happens to her. Why should she have a parasite grow if she doesn't want it and somebody else's DNA growing in your is parasitic? Having somebody else's DNA only makes sense because her DNA uses that parasite's DNA to its own benefit. It's the ultimate symbiotic relationship - both totally dependent on each other, wrapped around each other in the DNA spiral and manifest in one body. If her DNA is contaminated with somebody else's DNA and she doesn't want it, then it's like a virus or any other DNA hijacking her body for its own purposes.
Males have to spread their sperm, hoping to hijack lots of other DNA to carry their DNA. That's what any DNA does - spreads as far and wide as possible. Hence the tendency for human males to have several wives [or just go sowing wild oats].
It seems weird to force a woman to have her DNA hijacked by somebody else's DNA. Still, that's religious crankery for you. Personally, I think women should be more selective about what they let inside their body, but that's up to them - they are the ones who live with the consequences.
Euthanasia is a matter of individual control of their self. It seems absurd that somebody else presumes to dictate whether somebody lives or dies. I don't know of anyone in favour of compulsory euthanasia [though there is always the small criminal element who will murder for their own ends, to steal property and so on]. Euthanasia isn't any use for population control. Euthanasia is only relevant to the terminally sick, helpless and suffering who are usually old. There are few in the community in that situation.
Mqurice |
