Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Religion on SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (468)	9/3/1998 10:02:00 PM
From: Chris land	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1542

Zebra, <<You would probably arrest me (by the power given by your zeal), and send me to the local inquisition chamber and put me to torture, until "I correct my errors of thinking". What would you use "EL Garrote Vil"?>> The Christians were not responsible for any inquisition. It was a state run program which condemned Christians and anyone else who didn't agree with them. All under the false pretence of doing it for God. Chris

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (468)	9/3/1998 10:29:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1542

This thread has accomplished one great thing: congregated all the lunatic zealots in one place and pulled them off the other threads. For this, many thanks. One issue sometimes neglected when we talk about freedom of speech is the idea of freedom FROM speech. There's a very real distinction. If you set up a soapbox in a public place, you can stand on it and howl all you want. But what if a family and some friends set up for a picnic in a quiet corner of a park, and an itinerant preacher walks up to them and starts berating them. This, in my view, is a totally different story, and I think the head of the family would be perfectly justified in first requesting the preacher to leave, then ordering the preacher to leave, then, if the order is refused, inserting the preacher's bible in his fundamental orifice and dumping him in the nearest body of water. Think of a coffee shop thread as a quiet corner of the park, and the analogy becomes clear. Religions which require their members to preach aggressively to the unbelievers raise an interesting question about religious freedom. Doesn't evangelism interfere with the right of others to peaceful practice of their own religions? When exercise of religious freedom becomes harassment, it is no longer a right. It is interesting to note that phrases like "in my view" and "I think" are conspicuously absent from posts authored by Chris, Emile, and their like. These people cannot seem to accept that their beliefs are simply their beliefs, not absolute truths. Believing that something is absolute truth does not make it so, and we all must consider the possibility that the other person is right. Steve