Do you believe in freedom of speech, Paul? If so, then you should agree that language like that is appropriate, at least from the listening end.
So maybe you question whether it is moral/ethical to use such language?
Well, if it were true, would it be appropriate?
If it were true of a point-of-view that was illustrated, would it be appropriate?
If there were circumstances that might alter the way the phrase was understood, such as within an understanding of Christian theology where God does no will that anyone should experience hell, but that state would be necessary because of a rejection of Jesus, would that be appropriate?
Are you a moral relativist, Paul? If so, it should be staggeringly easy for you to imagine appropriate times to utter something equivalent.
I'd like to see additional transcripts made available.
I tend not to trust partial accounts.
Sure it can. Make secular education mandatory for all, leave little time for deeper theological instruction, and religions other than the secular religion will be marginalized. Dewey had it figured out long ago, I think. It never occurred to you at all?
Destructive of the social fabric? You credit Luther with nothing of raising the status of peasants during the Reformation?
Have you give any thought to the future of the social fabric taking multiculturalism to its logical extreme (accepting all cultures into one despite contradictions)?
It's not at all clear without the entire context, Paul.
Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to have respected his audience, at least in transcripts I've read, by gaining their assent before discussing the specifics of religion. Granted, there may be a great deal of material that I'm not familiar with at this point.
That would be politically unwise, especially if an election were coming up.
It almost looks like you're running off on a tangent, though. How would such a comment by the president relate to his job?
They might have a tough time getting elected.
If they got elected, however, you could console yourself with the fact that majority rule had prevailed (and that might be important if you were a certain type of moral relativist).
Maybe you should cut off free speech for some in order to preserve equal treatment for all.
The United States had a long history of having its government filled with religious folks. How did we end up a "commitment to equal treatment" despite that? Could it be that the belief in a literal hell and literal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't as destructive to the social fabric as Paul thinks?
Not at all, so far as I can tell. The people responsible for the commitment to equal treatment in the first place largely held such beliefs.
Can you make an affirmative case, Paul, or have you decided to place the burden of proof far away from yourself?
As far as the east is from the west, your insinuation notwithstanding.
Religious folk have begun to notice that minorities are using the courts to use the "living constitution" to alter the social fabric.
Is it right for the courts to trump the legislature at every turn, Paul? What happened to Congress' check on the judicial branch? Part of the "social contract" apparently stipulates that they should pretend they don't have that power.
Oops. The religious right is chipping away at that social contract, too.
Apparently there are at least two visions of the social contract. Which one is right, Paul? It's not easy to answer if you're a consistent moral relativist, is it? If you can answer, then you're probably not a moral relativist. I look forward to your answer, whatever it is (information is good!).
See, here you are all full of respect, claiming that the other guy's beliefs destroy the social fabric, based on your own belief ("my personal view is that it is destructive of the social fabric in any context").
In what circumstances would it be appropriate to call the beliefs of others "destructive of the social fabric in any context," Paul?
Cheers.
