Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Katherine Deves shouldn’t be ‘muzzled’ by Liberal Party" video.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@It's time – 2022
"Any particular reason/s why? "
Because she makes sense and understands reality.
"For example, why do we need more bigots?"
We don't. Just like we don't need people who name-call for no valid reason.
"Are there not enough LNP party members in government already?"
Not good ones, no.
"Bigot – a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group (Oxford)."
Appears to fit you perfectly, with your completely unreasonable view that a so-called transgender woman, i.e. a man, should compete in women's sports. But not to Katherine, whose views on this are quite reasonable.
"In reality, I'm just an average Australian voter who doe not like to see people marginalised based purely on their sexuality and/or gender."
Nobody's marginalising them. They are quite free to compete in the sport of their (actual) sex.
On the other hand, I do not like to see people marginalised based on their completely reasonable views that there are two sexes and that one cannot change their sex.
"...the following is quite informative: Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams - There is no scientific case for excluding them"
"Informative" is not the word I'd use. "Biased" would be much more accurate. For one, its argument completely ignores—or even implicitly denies—the reason that there are separate sports for men and women in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"All he is saying is that people who identify as trans at the very least should be respected."
Yes, that is what he is saying, but they should be respected because they are humans. What he means is that their delusions should also be respected, and that they should have rights that others don't have, such as competing on the sport of the other sex.
"if a trans women who is closer to women than men physically and biologically there is no reason to exclude them if they can't fairly compete with their birth gender."
I'm a bloke, and don't pretend that I'm not. But I'm not as strong and fit as an athlete, so I guess I should be able to compete in the women's sports too? I mean, if it's on the basis of ability, not sex, then why not? But then we'd need to rename the sports so that they don't refer to sex, I guess. And all this would mean, of course, that we'd be completely changing the point of them!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"Ok well I thought the bigotry was clear...opposing same sex marriage."
Which was one of the problems with the entire debate: Many people supporting it refused to recognise that there could possibly be a valid reason for opposing it, and therefore vilified them for doing so.
"Marriage isn't a religious thing..."
I didn't say it was, because "religious" is a word that (like most words) has a range of meanings that people typically don't clarify as to which they are using. Those meanings can include any core belief system (i.e. including atheistic views) to a system involving rites and rituals (i.e. excluding evangelical Christianity).
"I get the whole religious side of there reasoning..."
Yet your subsequent comment suggests that you don't get it at all.
"...the only reason those religions (people of the good book) is because centuries old traditions of homophobia."
No, it's not. It's because God created us heterosexual, and homosexuality is a defiance of what God has created and decreed to be good. In other words, homosexuality is, objectively, wrong. And marriage is, by definition of the One who created it, a union of a man and a woman. Ergo, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, like a married bachelor.
"There isn't any "morally right" reason to oppose allowing two people to married."
God says otherwise. And He, not you, is the authority in such matters.
Note that the above is not an argument from "religion", but an argument from history and design.
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"Right well firstly my understand of faith is just that my understanding."
Okay, that's fair enough. And thanks for the detailed reply. But...
"I am not wrong nor am I right nor are you right or wrong as we are all entitled to our own beliefs in this great nation."
That is incoherent self-contradictory nonsense. One cannot be both not wrong and not right. Nothing can be both A and not-A. There is such a thing as truth, and you are either right or wrong, and I am either right or wrong. We are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own truth.
"I simply disagree with your view that god did this and that."
Okay, you disagree. But why? That is, what reasons or evidence do you have. The point here is that you are calling people homophobes on the basis of an understanding that you apparently have no basis for. That is, you are maligning other people on the basis of your understanding, which implies that you think you are right and they are wrong. And yet you claim that both of us are not right and not wrong!
"the only thing about religion I know is that it is something that is personal and that it should have no role in politics."
What do you mean by saying that you "know" that? What if your understanding of that is wrong? Because I have a completely opposite understanding—that it is not merely personal, and that politics has no basis without it. In fact it is historical fact that Western Civilisation and all the innovation, success, and benefits that it has brought has been because people believed the Bible and put that belief into public action. Keeping it personal and out of politics would lead the the decline and eventual demise of Western Civilisation.
1
-
@cont7628
"Mate you have earned my respects with your detailed response..."
I'll probably blow that respect with the amount of detail in this response! But thanks for that. I also appreciate your civil interaction with me, which is a rare thing.
"I do not see or know any scientific or modern evidence of a god"
Why limit it to just those two forms of evidence? What about ancient eye-witness evidence?
But there is plenty of evidence. Just one example is the evidence of (genetic) information in living things. The only source we know of for information is an intelligence, and given that the information in living things predates humans, that's strong evidence for God.
"...they where all written by scholars and theologians who often did not live during the time of Jesus or any major events in Abrahamic religions..."
Except that they were. The gospels were written by those that bear their names, and two knew Jesus personally, and the other two knew people who knew Jesus personally. Internal evidence in the first three gospels indicates that they were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Virtually all historians concerned with the period accept that at least some of Paul's letters were in fact written by Paul, who lived in the first century.
Similar arguments could be made for much of the Old Testament too.
"But we are debating religion and ideologies which often don't have many facts or truths like science or measurements does."
Actually, I'm debating Christianity in particular, not other religions. And Christianity does have many facts. Or perhaps I should phrase that as the Bible does have many facts. It has often been criticised for getting things wrong (e.g. the existence of the Hittites, the titles of certain officials) only for further archaeological discoveries to show that it was actually right on those things.
"... but politics and those early innovation did not emerge because of the teaching of the bible..."
It depends on which particular innovations you are talking about, and when, but often the case is the opposite of what you say. For example, it's well documented that science itself emerged because of the Christian worldview. And while politics itself may not have, the Christian worldview has had a significant effect on it. To quote from one researcher on the topic, Vishal Mangalwadi (talking about translations of the Bible into English):
"Almost every alehouse and tavern turned into a debating society. People started questioning and judging every tradition of the church and every decision of the king. People could question religious and political authorities because they now had in their hands the very Word of God. The Word of God was an authority higher than the authority of the church and the state combined. ...
"Alehouses became debating clubs as people interpreted and applied the Bible differently to the intellectual and social issues of the day. Some were content to let the church settle their disputes. Others realized that the only way to determine which interpretation was correct was to read the Bible with valid rules of interpretation. This was a bottom-up intellectual revolution. It infused the minds of all literate Englishmen—not just those in the universities—with a new logical bent. It took no time for that revolution to spread into other aspects of people's lives. Until that time, England was only a middling power. But once the English people began using logic to interpret the Bible, they acquired a skill that propelled their nation to the forefront of world politics, economics, and thought."
Also, if you're interested, find the paper "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy" by Robert Woodberry, which shows how Protestant missionaries fostered democracy and more involvement in politics simply by providing education, literacy, examples of running organisations, printing, and newspapers.
"... if the bible mentioned freedom of speech and democracy then it would've implemented centuries ago not in the past 250 years ago."
The Bible's influence has not so much been by direct endorsement of particular things such as democracy, but rather by more fundamental principles, such as the right of individuals to think for themselves, that then led to the spread of democracy and the principle of freedom of speech. For example, it does not condemn slavery, but does say that slaves and non-slaves are equal. That led to Christianity doing away with slavery once it became widespread enough. Slavery later came back, but again, Christianity fought against it on the basis that we are all made in the image of God.
Also, democracy is older than 250 years, and Christianity has been influencing it for more than that. When the Roman emperor Theodosius slaughtered 7000 people attending a chariot race in revenge for some people rebelling against him, the Bishop of Milan confronted him and forced him to repent and to institute a new rule preventing any executions within 30 days of their sentence, to allow for a cooling-off period. That was in 390 AD.
The church was instrumental in getting the then king of England to sign the Magna Carta restricting the rule of the king on the grounds that even the king was subject to God's laws. That led to England having a parliament, and that was about 800 years ago.
"When religion isn't separated by the state we end looking like Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E or milder versions of them."
Not all religions are the same. The problem there is the particular religion concerned. Not the simple fact of a "religion" being involved.
"Separation of religion is essential to maintain equality between those with different faiths and without faith."
First, the Bible describes God instituting a church-state separation a thousand years before Christ. King David was the civil leader, and the prophets Samuel then Nathan were the religious leaders. But even then, the civil leader was still subject to God's standards.
Second, nobody is "without faith". We all believe in something. At a couple of extremes, Christians (and others) believe in God, while atheists believe in no God. (The Christian faith is based on evidence, while the atheist faith is contrary to the evidence; a 'blind' faith.)
"In the western world religion is slowly fading anyway from relevance..."
Yes, it's fading in the West, but not from (lack of) relevance; rather from sustained attack from anti-Christian ideologies that have gained a lot of positions of influence.
"...the value of all religions not just Christianity is huge..."
No, just Christianity, or Judeo-Christian thought. I'm not saying other religions have contributed nothing, but their contributions are not "huge".
"at least in the west religion is becoming a thing of the past and less relevant with each new generation."
On the contrary, it's becoming more relevant as people move away from it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1