Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Ursus

Plebes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,146

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Ursus

  7. GhostOfClayton

    Posted

    They are a booming industry where I live, and I am for them. I am all for Green Energy.

     

    But like in your neck of the woods, some of the locals find them unsightly. Or perhaps demonic.

     

    There are also some environmentalists opposed to them. Yes, environmentalists. Why? Because a few dozen birds every year get too close to the blades and get chopped up.

  9. GhostOfClayton

    Posted

    I never saw the old Torchwood series, so I wouldn't understand this series, even if it has been "Americanized."

     

    For the record, I have trouble getting into Dr. Who and its spin offs. I watched the David Tennant years because I liked him as an actor, but when he left it was all downhill. Even Amy Pond's legs can't redeem the series for me.

  12. docoflove1974

    Posted

    You're right, most of space exploration was simply another theater of national rivalries, and one of the principle nations doesn't even exist anymore.

    I feel if we are to continue space exploration, it should be funded jointly by the developed nations of the world. Share the costs and the benefits.

     

    On the whole, though, I think we need to spend the money down here on this planet.

  15. Viggen

    Posted

    Given the dearth of UNRV blogging, I recently bowed out myself. Didn't seem much of a point in taking time to keep a blog when only 5 or 6 people are going to read it.

     

    It would be different if some of the authors and scholars associated with UNRV would use them as a means of interaction with the wider UNRV membership. But everyone is using Facebook and Twitter these days.

    Primus Pilus

    Posted

    Most religious people in the country are decent people who, even if they privately feel their own faith is the only true faith, are willing to live by the rule of law and a secular constitution.

     

    However, there are those, and they seem to be increasing, who feel that all law and authority derives from the narrow interpretation of their religious texts. There are right-wing Christian political parties in the country dedicated to forming a government around what they perceive as Biblical Law. There are Wahabi Muslims who would do the same thing with Koranic law.

     

    The difference between these people and me (and all sensible religious people) is that I don't want all authority and laws and powers to be beholden to my particular set of invisible powers. Do you really see no difference between sensible religious people who can be good and decent citizens in a modern, secular country minding their own business, and extremists like Dominionists and the Taliban supporters whose beliefs preclude them from such? If not I really can't continue because I don't understand where you are coming from.

     

    Anyone who can't pay even lip service to an idea of separation of church and state and a secular rule of law shouldn't be allowed to operate within a democratic system they seek to subvert. A person's right to believe ends when they seek to thrust their relgiious beliefs on me. To put it another way, no, they do NOT have a right to act on theocratic beliefs.

     

    Really, I don't see why this should be such a debate, unless people want to live in an Iranian like society where clerics call the shots.

     

    I apologize to Chris as I didn't intend to have a debate on his journal.

    Primus Pilus

    Posted

    I wouldn't go that far, because that would essentially be denying basic citizens' rights to individuals based on their religious beliefs, which violates Separation of Church and State.

     

    How would it? Everyone has a private belief to religion. But they don't have a right to thrust those beliefs on others.

     

    Maybe I was misunderstood, or maybe I wasn't. But I am basically saying that if people can't swear an oath to the secular rule of law and constitutional democracy because they feel their faith is the only proper foundation for a society, then they shouldn't be allowed to operate within a secular and democratic system they don't respect.

     

    If that is infringing on someone's religion, so be it. Their religion sucks. It's dangerous, backwards, and has no place in the modern West.

    Primus Pilus

    Posted

    I'd have no problem at all with getting rid of the pledge of allegiance and instituting a secular "oath of citizenship" as a prerequisite to voting and other matters.

     

    In fact, I'd go so far to say that those that can't swear a secular oath because they belive in theocracy (whether its Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or whatever kind of theocracy), should be barred from voting altogether.

×
×
  • Create New...