> The problem comes when you generalize
> that _all people_ of a certain type /must/ behave in that way and therefore
> you oppose a group of people or their ideas, rather that a set of actions.
This I definately agree with, However, I specified the "right", not the entire
Christian community.
>
>
> Using your example, you oppose those who try to take away the rights of
> sexual minorites (a good cause which I adimently support). Your logic
> however goes astray when you generalize to say that Christians are in large
> part the ones trying to taking away rights, therefore Christianity is evil.
I never used the term or thought the term evil, I used the term oppressive.
they are not the same. I would suggest that Christianity is too narrow a scope
also, it is simply dominant here inthis country. I am opposed to the concept of
any group dictitaing such a broad scope moral law in a "free society"/
> The arguement looks a little like this:
>
> 1) Homophobia is bad.
> 2) Some Christians are homophobic
> 3) Therfore Christianity is bad.
No - you are oversimplifying and generalizing my statements beyond their
intended scope. Your filter is generalizing for you into a yes - no agrument.
Although for a host of other reasons, I do think that Christianity (and I dont
limit it to Christianity) is detrimental in immense scope to mankind.
>
>
> The logical error is in generalizing from specifics to universals. And not
> surprisingly the Christian agrument against homosexuals uses *EXACTLY* the
> same form! As follows:
>
> 1) Sexual permisivenss is bad.
> 2) Some homosexuals are sexually permisive.
> 3) Therefore homosexuals are bad.
>
As I stated earlier, I was much more specific than the generalizations you are
creating.
> If you employ this type of logic you are no better than them.
>
> Now you can oppose the behavoir of "discriminating against sexual
> minorities" all you want (and I encourge everyone to do just that!) and
> should fight to the death those who practice such behaviors. But once you
> start scapegoating the beliefs of a diverse class of people based on the
> behavoir of _some_ of the people in that group, you become the one
> exercising PREJUDICE.
I specified the group "Right" because the group name developed to describe the
the actions of this group of people whom nearly universally oppose
homosexuality - Argument 3 is incorrect for your logic.
>
>
> And that, my friend, is another behavoir I will also oppose to the death.
>
> >If this country was one that was Christian by law, than I would have to
> live
> >with what exists; however, I hold the view that "freedom of religion" also
> means
> >"freedom from religion". That is what I work towards.
>
> If you want to see something really scary do a seach for "Christian
> Reconstructionalists" on the web. Its interesting to note that some of
> these people are the same ones feeding the Y2K hysteria.
>
> -Prof. Tim
Ill look them up, sounds interesting
Sodom