A religious counterpart to Godwin's Law?

Name it after a rabbit? Why?

So, does anybody want to explain what "Megan's Law" is in this context? Or was it, as I suspected, just a rather unfunny joke?

I thought the joke was that posts that would invoke the law discussed in this thread would generally be the kind of posts that get thumped?

(Hint, Bible Thumpers)

Sex offender database.

Pykrete - Godwin's Law loses the debate when it's a gross to the point of offensively hyperbolic comparison of a minor problem or insigificant situation to the Nazis. Hitler Ate Sugar for example. "You do like dogs? You Nazi, Nazis like dogs!" etc. Not any reference or legitimate comparision to the deeds of the Reich.

Megan's Law is a sex offender database based around the idea that those who have committed sexual offences lose all right to privacy, meaning that people can specifically chose to avoid them if they so choose. The problem is that people may choose to be near them instead...vigilantes, for example. And the fact that the idea that certain offences cost you all freedom is a contested moral view.

So... it was just a joke, then? Because I can't see how that relates to Godwin's Law, or using religion in an argument, in the slightest.

Calvinists aren't the only ones to believe most humans will go to Hell (that Wikipedia article is pretty accurate, but I guess that by trying to cover for all tendencies at the same time they lost emotional consistency in the portrayal: the devil is in the details). I know of at least one more sect that has this explicity spelled out in their holy book. The cool thing about predestination is that, psychologically, it forces you into a lot of self-control: you watch every single one of your own steps in search for signs that you, yes you, might be among those saved. You don't take any chances. The downside, though, is that many of us think that after doing a few immoral things they are "damned" and just give up on the whole project, which is kinda sad. And yeah, it's pretty clear that if we want to keep the "Omnipotent" clause, it must include "can send you to hell/heaven even if you don't deserve it by any standard you may comprehend or govern yourself with". God saves who he wants and damns who he wants.

I know if you start digging for inconsistencies they start showing up all the time, but I've sorta given up on that part of religion, and just concentrate on the feelgood bits... There's no way to reason loving God, besides social, etc. etc. but I do it anyway because I think it makes me happy. Could I be happy being Godless? Maybe, but it's kinda irreversible, and I'm fine as I am right now.

Anyhoo, I don't think scripture is valid universal moral argument. You quote religious reasons at other religious people, preferably of your own branch. But on standard public debate, I think it's pointless to use arguments that won't compel anyone outside of your religion (or branch!). Of course, there are no universally compelling arguments, moral or otherwise: to persuade given people at a given time, you have to pull a specfic set of switches. So we should strive to pull the switches that are the most effective for the most people, rather than those that are (ideally) extremely effective for only a subset of those people.

What worries me is that when Christians are majority we can just argue among ourselves with religious arguments and force our choices on everyone else. I'm not sure I'm okay with that, even with the best intentions.