Unaffiliated doesn’t mean atheist. In North Korea, for example, they worship their leader and his father and especially his grandfather as gods. That is not atheism.

A foetus isn’t a person.

You completely either mischaracterize, misrepresent, or lie about my position. I’m sick of you constantly attempts doing this. We just end up going around in circles. Therefore this discussion is over.

They were allowed to register a school without proving any ability to run one. That is a gap in the law. We find now that, as most of us suspected all along, these people were motivated by their beliefs in God.

Yeah, that’s a pretty common human foible. A famous example is the lefty film reviewer Pauline Kael. When President Nixon carried 49 states to win re-election in a landslide, she said, “That can’t be — nobody voted for him!”

(The actual quote was creepier: “I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”)

Let’s not pathologize differences of opinion. Attacking character and personality, rather than debating the substance of an issue, is a sure sign of a weak case.

@HH: “However, in general, the more atheist a country, the more likely same-sex marriage is to be legal.”

I’m afraid the facts don’t bear that out.

[A] Per Pew, the countries with the largest *proportion* of unaffiliated persons are Czech Republic, North Korea, Estonia, Japan, Hong Kong, China, South Korea, Latvia, Netherlands, and Uruguay.

[B] Per Pew, the countries with the largest *numbers* of unaffiliated persons are China, Japan, USA, Vietnam, Russia, South Korea, Germany, France, North Korea, and Brazil.

China, Japan and the Koreas are on both the [A] and [B] lists, so it’s fair to call them big atheist countries.

[C] Per Wikipedia, the following countries recognize unisex “marriage”: Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA, Uruguay.

Now, we’re rigorous empiricists here at Homilies, so immediately we notice a pattern. The eight least religious countries from the [A] list are not on the [C] list. People of color are hugely underrepresented on the [C] list, and no country whose population is predominately Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, unaffiliated or non-Christian is on the list. The [C] list, then, is comprised of Western or Westernized countries whose culture has been shaped primarily by the Western Judeo-Greco-Christian tradition, and whose largest religious grouping is Christian.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/table-religious-composition-by-country-in-percentages/

Hey, don’t tell me, tell your lefty comrade Nicky, who says rampant voter fraud is responsible for MAGA.

@HH: Your description of my views is completely inaccurate. On the other hand, it strikes me that there would be little daylight between us if you really believe as you profess.

You profess to have a very strong belief in the freedom to live one’s life as one chooses. (I certainly do hold that belief.) The key phrase is “live one’s life”. Unfortunately, you would deny a lot of people the right to live a life at all, because they have a disability, or they’re the wrong sex, or just because they’re perceived to be unwanted.

You say, “The rules I approve of are about responsibility towards the happiness of our fellow human beings.” But that’s just it: By setting yourself up as the philosopher-king who decrees what constitutes happiness — rather than letting people make their own choices, including bad ones — you’re either restricting everyone’s freedom, or you are at least restricting it for those who don’t share your particular values.

“You only care about the happiness of you and yours… You want YOUR rules to be followed, and don’t care if others believe the same as you. You still think they should follow YOUR rules whether they share your beliefs or not, such as when it comes to abortion and God.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, one area where I don’t take the strict libertarian line is the duty of a civilized society (even the most libertarian one) to prevent the direct, intentional and avoidable killing of innocent persons. (Otherwise what is the point in even having a state?) Similarly, a civilized society has a duty to protect vulnerable sick and elderly persons from euthanasia and suicide. There is nothing sectarian about the right to life. It is a universally recognized human right.

The point, as previously stated, is that there are plenty of laws on the books — child protection laws, laws covering private schools, gun laws. If there is factual evidence of some gap, whether of law enforcement or of statutory authority, then let’s have a rational and specific discussion about how to narrowly address the specific problem in a rational way that does not infringe anyone’s rights and freedoms.

It’s not wrong, but it is inadequate, and has given you a wrong understanding of what is a complex personality trait.

As well as the test on pages 11-12, there’s one at the beginning of chapter 5 for religious fundamentalism. (c. page 166 iirc).

The tests are short and take very little time. What are you afraid of?