-
“So democracy works by everyone having a say and then anyone who doesn't like the final outcome ignoring the concensus that was reached?”
Simon,
Because a particular decision has been made a governmental authority does not mean the right decision was made under that government’s laws. In this case Costner thought the wrong decision was made and for the wrong reasons. So he committed an act of non-violent civil disobedience.
“There are times when civil disobediance makes sense. This isn't it. This is petty, lame, childish, selfish, dogmatic idiocy and nothing for the greater good or for any 'point' other than some brat who doesn't like being told to abide by some simple rules that aren't onerous or limiting at all.”
You keep saying that but I have yet to see you provide qualitative or quantitative evidence proving what Costner did was exercising a liberty the United States government should protect its citizenry from. (See more below on this point of evidence)
“Have you learnt anything yet Marvin? Did you learn anything from the Lords Prayer that you didn't know already? When will you learn that your done.”
I’ve learned lots of things in this discussion, and have shared quite a bit of it. But iterating most of what I’ve learned in this discussion would be taking the subject off-topic. I see others keep doing that. But I try hard to refrain.
And, learning anything about the Lord’s Prayer is not the subject. Perhaps noteworthy is that the way Costner used the Lord’s Prayer material during his graduation speech provides no basis to say what religion he prefers. So far this is something that not a single participant in this discussion has bothered to discuss. Frankly, based strictly on what Costner did during his speech I’d not be surprised were it to come out that he had help to craft his form precisely for that very reason, and in order to make a more pure political statement rather than a religious one.
“Yes, because that is NOT what the issue is. The issue is whether religious prayers have a place or not and are appropriate or not in this setting and when it's been determined that they are NOT, whether it's right for someone to then take it on themseves to overrule the will of the people.”
If this discussion is not about whether it’s governmental overreach to prohibit what Costner did during his speech then I’ve wasted my time.
If this discussion is about whether it’s governmental overreach to prohibit what Costner did during his speech then asking for qualitative or quantitative evidence demonstrating that reading the lords prayer and expressing agreement with it represents a danger to anyone is very relevant to the issue.
So does this discussion include the issue of whether it’s governmental overreach to prohibit what Costner did during his speech, or not? You tell me.
“Stop your lame attempts to keep twisting it into something it isn't. How about you prove to us that religion never harms anyone? Good luck with that ...”
I’ve not attempted to twist anything. I’ve been very straightforward about issues of concern to me in this discussion, and have addressed those concern. Along the way I’ve answered every question you and others asked of me, which is less than I can say of you and others here in response to me.
Evidence that a belief system can be harmless is as easy as pointing out that believing there is no god is insofar as I can tell, harmless. Yet atheism is a belief system.
Otherwise, there are lots of religious beliefs that have helped humankind immensely, and accordingly were helpful to humanity. In fact I dare say much of modern medicine has it’s roots in ancient religious notions. Modern hematological medicine is much indebted to “witch doctors” of yesteryear who wooed locals with “magical” uses of, for example, blood by using fresh blood to nearly instantly stop bleeding from the wound of what was formerly known as a “free-bleeder”.
“The prayers are insulting and uncomfortable for those who don't want religion pushed on them, those who hold different religious beliefs or those who the prayers target.”
Why does listening to something you disagree with insult you or make you uncomfortable? I do it all the time, and in each case take the opportunity to learn what I can. In most cases what I learn is not what the individual thinks I’m learning. But I’m learning nevertheless.
“Marvin: I'm rapidly reaching the point where I'm going to class you as a troll because despite your cliaims I do not believe you are here to learn or discuss or debate, just to annoy and frustrate and ruin topics.”
I don’t understand that at all. At all! I’ve spent considerable time on this subject because it’s important to me. I take time to answer your questions, and many others. This is not what a troll does. What you posit on that point is practically infantile. Why don’t you constructively engage what I’ve said rather than paint my character?
Marvin Shilmer
... OUTLAW