Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The reason I put the legal bit in paranthesis is that I think you are all discussing different things.

I think Katrin and vbo primarily is discussing religious sentiments, while you are primarily discussing policy.

This is kind of how I read the last days discussion:

print "vbo: new diary, religious sentiment"
While (n<500)
     Jake: religious sentiment? law!
     Katrin: law? religious sentiment!
     If(n is evenly divided by twenty)
     TBG: Hierarchial organisation!
     If(n is evenly divided by thirty)
     Migeru: PN

(In an attempt to divert the discussion this is intentionally inconsequent coding. Also: attempt at humor. May backfire if temperaments are still heated, hence disclaimer.)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 01:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that Katrin and vbo repeatedly insist that their particular religious sentiments must be protected by the force of law.

That makes it a discussion about policy, not whether their sentiments are justified as sentiments (a much lower standard).

I personally reserve judgment on the merits of their outrage because I have not seen the performance, and am not particularly interested in the performance. I just note that outrage, no matter how sincere, is not a valid basis for policymaking.

Bluntly put, legislating based on momentary outrage gives you shit laws. Religious outrage might make those laws God's shit, but they'll still be shit.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 3rd, 2012 at 07:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series