Replies

None of that needs to be framed in a religious context and shouldn't be, because doing so conveniently equates ***simply being in one's right mind*** with being a religious zealot/bigot/hater who has the unmitigated gall to impose his religious beliefs upon others.

With religious people I argue from a religious basis. With non-religious people, I argue with objective reasoning and demonstrable evidence.

As the woman's belief in religion is guiding her opinion on the issue, it is worthwhile to understand her religious motivation to grasp how objectionable is participating in this desecration of natural law. It is germane to this topic.

Beast.gov is fast redefining truth and sane thinking as [subjective and intolerant] religious tenets that have no business existing in the enlightened, modern world.

Already we see how the mobs of impulsive, self-important, drama queen social media zombies rally around half-truth tales of woe (lies), falsely speaking evil of business owners or managers for racism or hate or for being intolerant of whatever we are supposed to tolerate according to the whiners and liars.

Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom. "Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html

No argument from me. This is exactly what I sense is coming. I'm going to ping someone to your message that needs to read it. Especially the "Beast.gov" comment. We have been having a ongoing dispute as to where and when "Beast.Gov" first opened it's eyes.

Sorry I missed your reply earlier.

I think it is important to keep natural law, reality, and reason at the front of the debate, because these concepts are less malleable than “religious convictions”. Moslems have deeply held religious convictions... that lead to beheadings and other murderous rampages.

When people are too ignorant or evil to discern between righteous and wicked attitudes and beliefs, demagogues can call truthful people “religious” in order to paint those opposed to brazen lies as wacko extremists. Often the quiet, unassuming, reasoned folks who are repulsed by these abominations *are* religious.

In these cases, though, their religious convictions are synonymous with the natural order of the created universe. The religion angle is a sitting duck. The reality angle is harder to demagogue.