Dally wrote:
What about the OPs right to legally follow his religious beliefs?
Nobody has stated that the OP is not entitled to his religious beliefs (with the possible exception of Standee), people have however critisized these beliefs especially those which were bigoted and showed intolerance to other most namely homosexuals.
A persona has the right to hold whatever beleifs they desire however other people are entitled to critisize those same religious beliefs expecially when those beliefs are homophobic and are being used in an attempt to deny rights to other individuals such as the OP's beliefs were.
As I said, whether or not you agree with his views he has not been foul-mouthed. That cannot be said for others.
So, I would say he holds the higher (relatively speaking) moral ground.
The use of foul language says nothing about the morality of an individual, whilst I personally have avoided the use of profanity I see no problem with other people using words such as F***, afterall they are merely words. The only reason such words are considered to be profane is because as subjective human beings we have decided in our particular society that such words are profane. I however don't see why such words should be regarded as taboo especially when in some instances we have words with the exact same meanings which are considered to be absolutely fine.
Much of this profanity also appears to stem from a feeling that individuals are banging their heads against a brick wall, which is quite a common feeling when dealing with religious fundamentalists who hold an uncritical adherence to their particular version of religious scripture.
The fact that you consider a person who has demonstrated the level of bigotry that Kirkstaller has to be holding the moral ground in relation to individuals who have used merely used profanities says more about your own misguided view of morality than it does about the morality of anyone else in this thread.
