In Reply to: Re: interesting point of view from the Australian newspaper posted by Emancipated on August 17, 2006 at 13:38:08:
How is that stifling your freedom of speech? You're still talking aren't you? My point was that I'm not bound and I don't appreciate you putting me in that box, telling me I'm bound. I'll decide that for myself.
So, what you are saying, then, is that you have no right or wrong? You can do whatever you want because you have no religion? Oh wait, there are laws that stop you from stealing from your neighbor, murdering your neighbor, taking money from a business, etc. Now where did those laws come from? Oh, they were from the 10 commandments. So, according to your logic, without religion, you wouldn't have to obey that because it's just "sin." I'm thinking that you would have laws anyway because no one would want you killing their mother or taking from their business. You're still not going to get away from not having any laws whether you want to call them sin or something else, that's just a matter of semantics. Unless of course, you are advocating total anarchy, is that it? I'm sorry, your argument is the weak one.