Re: Politics and morality

Marvin Edwards wrote:
> "Ron Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Technically correct, but your effort to force religious
> > attributes on humanists is misguided resulting in silly
> > side arguments to serious issues.
>
> The ability of the secular to communicate with the
> religious is serious business.

Then why don't the religious make an effort to communicate
instead of proselytize?

> If we presume there is no God, then what does religious
> language mean.

It means nothing since the presumption that a god exists is
baseless.

> We know it means something, because it is used by the
> religious in everyday speech.

Irrelevant.

> What they mean by "sacred" is something which they
> believe must be retained as valuable, and not spoiled or
> degraded.

Also related to a god. Humanism has no gods, no sacredness.

> Humanists hold certain values and principles sacred.

No god, no sacredness. Find another word with less religious
baggage and you'll get no argument.

> They experience similar emotional responses as do the
> religious. We can communicate that feeling with the word 
> "sacred", and we can understand that word when we hear it
> from the religious.

You will never understand the secular world if you keep
forcing religiously charged words upon it.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch

UDP for WebTV