Comments on: Grayling on religious believers http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/ suffering under the sun Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:46:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: John Lynch http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1610 Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:25:06 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1610 This what you were looking for? Assuming definition #2
su·per·nu·mer·ary
1 a : exceeding the usual, stated, or prescribed number b : not enumerated among the regular components of a group and especially of a military organization
2 : exceeding what is necessary, required, or desired
3 : more numerous

]]> By: Friend Fruit http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1609 Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:04:15 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1609 Hmm, supernumary is not even listed at dictionary.com.

]]> By: Friend Fruit http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1608 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:52:07 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1608 That AC Grayling is a supernumary fellow, if I do say so myself.

]]> By: Orac http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1607 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:41:37 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1607

But I don’t think that religious groups of individuals have any inherent right to use public property as a vehical for proselytization, as would be the case with mandating ten commandments statues in courthouses, schools, etc.

Not exactly. They should have no more or no less right to use public property than anyone else. As far as mandating religious views on courthouses, for example, that is a very different beast. That is the putting the imprimatur of the state on specific religious views.

]]> By: Orac http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1606 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:39:29 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1606

You don’t have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.

True. Unless you’re going to stomp on freedom of speech, the religious have every right to proselytize. That does not, of course, mean that anyone has to listen to them.
I certainly agree with Grayling on a lot of other of his points, though.

]]> By: Tyler DiPietro http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1605 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:35:50 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1605 You don’t have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.
It depends on the context. If I’m on private property owned by those who proselytize it is there right to do so and I will gladly leave when they start. But I don’t think that religious groups of individuals have any inherent right to use public property as a vehical for proselytization, as would be the case with mandating ten commandments statues in courthouses, schools, etc.

]]> By: Aerik http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1604 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:19:49 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1604 I posted (with very precise citation) the entire article on my blog for my forum friends to read.

]]> By: crf http://blog.jmlynch.org/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/comment-page-1/#comment-1603 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:10:02 +0000 http://jmlynch.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/grayling_on_religious_believer/#comment-1603 You don’t have a right to be free of proselytisation. Ridiculous.

]]>