🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3528F452.7A098A57@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:

> Kelly T. Conlon wrote:

> > Which is precisely the point made by Norman Gall; you cannot fire someone
> > in this country because of their religious beliefs, but religious beliefs
> > are *behaviours*.

> What someone thinks, is now a behaviour? - religious beliefs are
> *behaviours*

Sure.  How can you possibly identify anyone's thought, let alne that they
think, without referecen totheir behaviour? Even speech acts are
behaviours.

> I agree with the 'walking backwards part', being a behaviour, but not
> the 'thoughts' part.

Well, we're getting far too sophisticated for this forum, but we can sort
this out by saying something like 'results of thoughts'. Hopefully no one
is advocating that we regulate that which people can and cannot think. 
But behaviours are the result of thought and those actions are inseparable
from the reasons which people act for.

It seems to me that most of the people with whom I disagree are not
interested in whether the homosexual thinke he or she is a homosexual but
whether the person participates in the 'homosexual lifestyle'. You'd have
to agree what what we are talking about is a set of behaviour - in exactly
the same way that I can talk about the 'christian lifestlye' that so
offends me, say.

Norm Gall

-- 
" On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty 
  to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure."      Oscar Wilde