Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Let me ask a couple very dumb questions, "dumb" because I know how this is probably gonna go, but I hold out some hope that at least someone sees my point.
Let's say that religion informs a lot of the political opinions of a certain portion of the voting population.
First of all, why is it either insane or extreme for a political party to cater to that portion of the population? Wouldn't it be fair to reindex "extreme" as it relates to the actual population of the nation involved? For example, an American conservative who represents the Republican voter base is probably more permissive, on the whole, then a Saudi conservative , and probably less permissive n the whole than a Canadian conservative. If you try to use one world metric to describe all of those flavors of conservatism, it misses the point of local variation, and of Democracy as a whole.
Isn't indexing the middle of the political spectrum somewhere well to the left of the nation we're discussing a useless and unrepresentative way to approach the politics of that nation ltself?
Second -- let's say religion does strongly inform my views on how society should be run. That religious outlook is, first of all, within my rights to promote as a voting American, and therefore you can't legitimately call me any wronger than I can call you. Second, the religious outlook and the ideals and principles behind Judeo-Christian moral theory have the advantage of having successfully governed humans for the better part of four milennia, fostered the survival and prosperity of nations in time of war and peace, stood the test of time time and again. Not one Liberal theory on how the world should be governed has 1/100 that kind of time-tested durability to it.
If Christians like myself are not anxious to literally throw the baby out with the bathwater, pragmatically speaking there's something to the argument.
Unless you're trying to outright claim that at least 40% of the American population have no right to be involved in politics, calling the entire mainstream Republican position "extreme" is an unrepresentative attitude based on the American political tradition.
Surely you see the difference between having a viewpoint and enforcing that viewpoint onto others?
Woah, woah, woah, back the holy rant truck up here. Where the hell did I call you extreme? And where did I suggest that I wasn't trying "to understand where" you were coming from?
Perhaps I have unfairly lumped you in with the intolerant buffoons on this thread. I'll try to be a little wiser about that. But bear in mind, this is going to be an emotional issue for everyone, so there's going to be an overstatement or two.
I did follow that up by trying to explain my viewpoint in an edit. Unfortunately, I took too loong actually editing.
Quote:
Fair enough. I've already given you objective, medically and scientifically accepted ways to show how one does determine all this, and that it backs up the viewpoint that, prior to reasonably likely viability outside the womb (which is mostly agreed upon as 12-14 weeks), one cannot define a fetus as "alive". If you don't want to accept this, fair enough, but that doesn't mean you're right.
What I stick at is the very real question of what standard to even use. I'm not sure the science is settled enough to simply use external viability as a one-size-fits-all solution. I've heard a lot f proposed alternatives, such as viable brain wave activity, which can be found very early in the developing human life.
Also I'd like to know what definition of "alive" you're using in this instance, because there's a couple of them, and not all of them agree with the idea that independent viability is the sole standard of what is "alive."
Also, since the human dead have legal rights codified into law, such that several forms of abuse of a human corps are universally illegal, I'm not sure "alive" is good enough anyway. We're talking about human rights here, so humanity, not viability, is the question in my mind.
Quote:
Lets also keep in mind that about 75-90% of all legal abortions occur before the 12th week.
Let's also keep in mind that about 85-90% of all legal abortions are done not for medical reasons, but because a child is unwanted. That's a cringeworthy number. Especially if we turn out later to be forced to recognize the humanity of the unborn fetus -- whether by a higher power or by scientific revelations makes no nevermind to me.
Quote:
Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree, but when arguing about legal rights,
We're not arguing about legal rights. We're arguing about inalienable human rights. If it was about legal rights, Roe settled that question legally and I wouldn't be here. I worry that the fetus may be due human rights the courts can't actually remove, and that we may be called to answer for our abuse of those rights.
Quote:
I disagree. Most of what is positive in the Christian moral standard are simple. Let's define "moral", as it should be if rightfully viewed as objective instead of authoritative, as actions with the most net benefit for the group with the least negative to the individual as possible. With that being the case, murder, lying, raping, etc, are obvious, simple and straight forward. Even less intelligent species with societal groups follow these morals.
I disagree with your position on morality. And frankly, some of the assumptions you yourself are making, and a large swath of the basis of common morality, have its root in Biblical text. A lot of the things you mention as being objectively wrong, feel objectively wrong largely because our parents, their parents, and their parents before them, were taught to believe they were wrong. Consider it part of the nature and nurture debate. You seem of the opinion that there's such a thing as natural morality. I know that all morality is taught.
Quote:
On the other hand, a lot of morals set in the bible clearly violate this standard. Homosexuality, stoning of children, eye-for-an-eye justice, the condoning of slavery are all in there, and all fail the "best for group without hurting the individual" standard.
Well, we're going to disagree about homosexuality, but I don't make an issue of my opinions on that subject or try to force it on anyone else, so I'll leave it at that. Beyond that, much of the other stuff you brought up has its basis in Mosaic law, and if you read the Bible you'd know that Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ, and he replaced that law with another -- superseding the Ten Commandments with the two Greatest commandments -- love God, love your neighbor. From the mouth of Christ, those two commandments were supposed to be the core of all the law and the prophets. That was the basis of everything the Jews were supposed to be doing, and everything we're supposed to be doing now.
Amazing how philosophy can take very simple, obvious points of morality and common sense and just blow them to hell, isn't it? Be it Christian philosophy or secular, it all leads to the same crippling effect on things that are supposed to be absurdly simple.
Quote:
Lets then point out that the moral standard of Christianity is based on authority, and not on an objective system.
Let's point out that that's not necessarily a bad thing. Authority gives us a common frame of reference. A starting point for legitimate discussion that we don't have to spend hours wrangling over.
Let's also point out that accepting that authority blindly is no part of Christianity. Someone who believes without examination does not believe.
Quote:
I can objectively show that many of the principles in the Christian moral standpoint are objectively wrong, and most of the positive morals can be arrived at without Christianity.
This I've got to see.
Quote:
And then he goes off the deep end.
Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Basically, if something cannot be show true, it must be viewed as false until it is shown as true. It's a foundational part of the scientific method, which has brought us practically all of our advancements over the last 3-5 hundred years.
If you cannot prove a God exists, the rational and logical response to that question is disbelieve.
Not really. Frankly, when it comes to God, neither the statement "God exists" nor the statement "God does not exit" can disprove the null hypothesis. Both statements should be regarded with equal skepticism.
No offense dude you seem like a well written and well read guy but in this thread you have:
- claimed Obama is the most left US pres ever
- claimed FDR wasn't a really a true liberal
- made that hyperbolic statement about christian morals being the greatest thing ever in mankinds history or whatever - argued for the merit of religion in modern politics
- played the "you can't prove it's not true" card
HFBoard Achievement unlocked: Making the most extreme statements in a thread about extremes and politics
I'm sorry, a major facet of my life has been compared to Batman by a man who called me an idiot the post prior. I think I can be excused for being a little testy.
And the fact that you think the bolded point is an extreme view is all I need to showcase the intolerance I'm experiencing here. Not all religion is religious extremism. If you can't tell the difference, you need to study religion and the religious a lot more before sounding off on what they are, or what they are not.
Surely you see the difference between voting policy based on a religious viewpoint, and theocracy.
When those lines are blurred, no.
Again, I point you to the current state of affairs in the GOP. Where religious issues like creationism and gay marriage are hot topics. Abortion as well, but primarily based on how the position is supported.
Perhaps I have unfairly lumped you in with the intolerant buffoons on this thread. I'll try to be a little wiser about that. But bear in mind, this is going to be an emotional issue for everyone, so there's going to be an overstatement or two.
I did follow that up by trying to explain my viewpoint in an edit. Unfortunately, I took too loong actually editing.
Don't mistake overstating with emotional responses. There is a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
What I stick at is the very real question of what standard to even use. I'm not sure the science is settled enough to simply use external viability as a one-size-fits-all solution. I've heard a lot f proposed alternatives, such as viable brain wave activity, which can be found very early in the developing human life.
"The science isn't settled". You do know that's the war-cry of the Creationist, Global Warming denialist and pretty much anyone else religious arguing their point against science when they don't actually have an argument, right?
The fact is, the science is never fucking settled. 100% certainty is impossible in science. The fact is, though, that in this situation, as in Creationism and Global Warming, that the evidence that the science uses is strong enough to call it true as far as we reasonably can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Also I'd like to know what definition of "alive" you're using in this instance, because there's a couple of them, and not all of them agree with the idea that independent viability is the sole standard of what is "alive."
I posted it in post 65.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Also, since the human dead have legal rights codified into law, such that several forms of abuse of a human corps are universally illegal, I'm not sure "alive" is good enough anyway. We're talking about human rights here, so humanity, not viability, is the question in my mind.
None of the rights of the dead violates or is even relevant to any rights any living person has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Let's also keep in mind that about 85-90% of all legal abortions are done not for medical reasons, but because a child is unwanted. That's a cringeworthy number. Especially if we turn out later to be forced to recognize the humanity of the unborn fetus -- whether by a higher power or by scientific revelations makes no nevermind to me.
Perhaps, but again, if the fetus isn't alive, its rights are subjugate to that of the mother. Whether morally right or not, it's simply the way the system is set up.
Besides, as has been shown, the fact is making it illegal doesn't stop it. Making it legal makes it safer for the woman involved and makes it easier to regulate. Sort of like drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
We're not arguing about legal rights. We're arguing about inalienable human rights. If it was about legal rights, Roe settled that question legally and I wouldn't be here. I worry that the fetus may be due human rights the courts can't actually remove, and that we may be called to answer for our abuse of those rights.
Well, then I've already told you that i agree it is morally wrong. Doesn't change my mind that, legally, it should be the right of the mother to choose over the right of the potential baby to live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
I disagree with your position on morality. And frankly, some of the assumptions you yourself are making, and a large swath of the basis of common morality, have its root in Biblical text.
Based on what? I've already explained that most of the positive morals that are in the bible that we still ascribe to today are present in animals that are less socially developed than us (chimps, dogs, even piranhas). The bible is absolutely not the root of these systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
A lot of the things you mention as being objectively wrong, feel objectively wrong largely because our parents, their parents, and their parents before them, were taught to believe they were wrong.
No, they aren't. My mother feels that capital punishment is right, homosexuality is wrong and abortion should be illegal. She is also Christian, I am an agnostic atheist.
As I've said, the objective moral system is based on the most good for the society without restricting the individual. This is not based on feeling, but based on observation and understanding of a particular situation followed by a logical deduction of how well it met up with the societal good and the individual's good.
Let's also quickly define "good" as that which keeps people as healthy, happy and emotionally stable as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Consider it part of the nature and nurture debate. You seem of the opinion that there's such a thing as natural morality. I know that all morality is taught.
This has nothing to do with nature vs nurture. It has everything to do with a basic understanding of behaviors and animal emotions.
And how do you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Well, we're going to disagree about homosexuality, but I don't make an issue of my opinions on that subject or try to force it on anyone else, so I'll leave it at that.
Figures that you'd be against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Beyond that, much of the other stuff you brought up has its basis in Mosaic law, and if you read the Bible you'd know that Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ, and he replaced that law with another -- superseding the Ten Commandments with the two Greatest commandments -- love God, love your neighbor.
Let me ask you this: do you believe that, without the bible, we wouldn't have murder laws, rape laws, robbery laws, assault laws, etc? Or would we have understood that having people do that in a society is bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Amazing how philosophy can take very simple, obvious points of morality and common sense and just blow them to hell, isn't it? Be it Christian philosophy or secular, it all leads to the same crippling effect on things that are supposed to be absurdly simple.
For the record, I'd just like to state that commanding people to love you is as immoral as you can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Let's point out that that's not necessarily a bad thing. Authority gives us a common frame of reference. A starting point for legitimate discussion that we don't have to spend hours wrangling over.
But authority is not limited and is not reasoned. If an authority decides on what is good and what is bad, then suddenly anything could be good and anything could be bad. Having an objective, reasoned system limits possibilities much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Let's also point out that accepting that authority blindly is no part of Christianity. Someone who believes without examination does not believe.
I can prove that a belief in Christianity is based solely on blind faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
This I've got to see.
I've already pointed out that slavery and stoning of homosexuals are condoned in the bible. No one reasonable would argue that those are immoral acts.
Also, once again, murder is detrimental to a societal health, and also detrimental to the individuals health. There's no arguing either of these, too. By an objective, common good system of determining morals, this would make murder wrong. Same with ****. Robbery is only morally wrong because we put a value on goods and money. Most other laws we "get" from the bible are flexible and not easy to define. Some aren't even still laws today, and a lot of laws today aren't from the bible (eg. copyright laws and other laws protecting intellectual property).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Not really. Frankly, when it comes to God, neither the statement "God exists" nor the statement "God does not exit" can disprove the null hypothesis. Both statements should be regarded with equal skepticism.
Sure, no argument there.
Atheism is still the proper logical position, not theism, as it states that "God exists" is not true. Most atheists, though less actively against those that say it, disagree with the statement that "God does not exist", myself included, as there is no positive evidence to support that claim. It still is rational to state that "God exist" is not true, and irrational to state that "God exists" is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
I'm sorry, a major facet of my life has been compared to Batman by a man who called me an idiot the post prior. I think I can be excused for being a little testy.
And the fact that you think the bolded point is an extreme view is all I need to showcase the intolerance I'm experiencing here. Not all religion is religious extremism. If you can't tell the difference, you need to study religion and the religious a lot more before sounding off on what they are, or what they are not.
From my position, it seems like your position is simply "question my religious beliefs and you're intolerant of them", full stop.
I hope it's not, because any reasoned individual like you seem like you mostly are understands that questioning a position is not equal to being against that position.
Once again, he posted an argument comparing your reasons for believing to what he felt was a similar situation. If he was wrong, instead of responding with indignation and insult, you should have responded with a rebut of his argument. If the latter was not possible, then maybe you should reconsider your belief.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 03-25-2012 at 09:11 PM.
Again, I point you to the current state of affairs in the GOP. Where religious issues like creationism and gay marriage are hot topics. Abortion as well, but primarily based on how the position is supported.
This. There is no way you can argue that these GOP policies are not religiously motivated.
Again, I point you to the current state of affairs in the GOP. Where religious issues like creationism and gay marriage are hot topics. Abortion as well, but primarily based on how the position is supported.
That is nowhere near theocracy.
Your statement demeans the suffering of everyone who's run afoul of the truly theorcratic aspirations of groups like the Salem witch hunters, the Inquisitions, and the current Iranian theoractic despots.
If you can't figure out the difference between that, and voting your conscience on an openly democratic issue in which everyone, including those who disagree with you, have a full and fair say in the outcome, then I recommend you study a lot more history. It's not like Iranian Christians get a voice on the Supreme Islamic Council, or Iranian secularists for that matter.
Surely you see the difference between voting policy based on a religious viewpoint, and theocracy.
yes but surely you see the problem with the politicians you elect, enacting laws based on religious beliefs, when religious freedom was one of america's founding principles.
Your statement demeans the suffering of everyone who's run afoul of the truly theorcratic aspirations of groups like the Salem witch hunters, the Inquisitions, and the current Iranian theoractic despots.
If you can't figure out the difference between that, and voting your conscience on an openly democratic issue in which everyone, including those who disagree with you, have a full and fair say in the outcome, then I recommend you study a lot more history. It's not like Iranian Christians get a voice on the Supreme Islamic Council, or Iranian secularists for that matter.
The question is what's the difference between a state that actively uses religion to create and defend laws and a state which actively promotes a particular religion?
The question is what's the difference between a state that actively uses religion to create and defend laws and a state which actively promotes a particular religion?
IMO, very little.
IMO, a whole heck of a lot. Especially if the laws don't favor one particular religion. For example, much of the moral outlook on issues like abortion, gay rights, etc is commonly held between Judaism, Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, etc, and in many cases a large number of secularist or not-particularly-religious folks as well.
You can't say it's theorcratic, just because a law goes through that a lot of people who happen to be religious support. That's a very shallow, historically indefensible view of what it is to be a theocracy.
And damning to the whole justification for that definition of theocracy is the fact that even if the secular factions who oppose the new law got outvoted, they had a vote, and can vote again later to overturn the law. That does not happen in a theocratic system.
yes but surely you see the problem with the politicians you elect, enacting laws based on religious beliefs, when religious freedom was one of america's founding principles.
No I can't.
Religious freedom does not exclude the privilege of voting for laws based on religious conscience. It just does not. That's not in any law or legal precedent I've ever read.
You can't favor one particular faith. You can't suppress one particular faith. You can't favor or suppress skepticism, agnosticism or atheism. That's as far as the law goes. That's as far as it should go.
Religious freedom does not exclude the privilege of voting for laws based on religious conscience. It just does not. That's not in any law or legal precedent I've ever read.
You can't favor one particular faith. You can't suppress one particular faith. You can't favor or suppress skepticism, agnosticism or atheism. That's as far as the law goes. That's as far as it should go.
so let's say that congress makes birth control illegal, because of their religious beliefs. now women cannot use birth control. doesn't matter if they're Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or atheist - no birth control. you don't see a problem with this.
so let's say that congress makes birth control illegal, because of their religious beliefs. now women cannot use birth control. doesn't matter if they're Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or atheist - no birth control. you don't see a problem with this.
Well the nice thing about this "theocratic" system is that they can't actually do that, because the Supreme Court would have a dozen legal precedents to declare such a law Unconstitutional on its legal merits.
IMO, a whole heck of a lot. Especially if the laws don't favor one particular religion. For example, much of the moral outlook on issues like abortion, gay rights, etc is commonly held between Judaism, Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, etc, and in many cases a large number of secularist or not-particularly-religious folks as well.
I'd love it if you could find me a "secularist" who is anti-gay rights or for Creationism in schools. Please?
The fact is, whether all religions agree or not, if it is based on religion, it is basically theocracy without the explicit approval of a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
You can't say it's theorcratic, just because a law goes through that a lot of people who happen to be religious support. That's a very shallow, historically indefensible view of what it is to be a theocracy.
As far as I'm concerned, no one is calling it "theocratic", we're saying it's basically the same thing legally.
A theocracy is a state that actively promotes a religion. Minus the wording in the constitution promoting religious belief, if a country is making laws solely based on religious belief, it's practically theocratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
And damning to the whole justification for that definition of theocracy is the fact that even if the secular factions who oppose the new law got outvoted, they had a vote, and can vote again later to overturn the law. That does not happen in a theocratic system.
They cannot vote again later to overturn the law. Laws in most constitutional countries get their laws overturned in a court of law, where precedent and moral standing are considered over popular vote.
Anyway, in the end, aren't you saying that, if the majority of people in the US wanted a theocracy, they'd be okay to vote it in? And if not, how can you defend a popular vote based on religion as being an okay way to come up with laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Well the nice thing about this "theocratic" system is that they can't actually do that, because the Supreme Court would have a dozen legal precedents to declare such a law Unconstitutional on its legal merits.
Checks and balances ftw!
So you do defend a court system based on precedent and moral authority over popular vote? I'm confused.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 03-25-2012 at 10:05 PM.
I'd love it if you could find me a "secularist" who is for gay right or Creationism. Please?
Are gay rights and creationism the only issues people are kvetching about?
I could point out, if pressed, a number of secular voices opposing abortion for example.
Quote:
The fact is, whether all religions agree or not, if it is based on religion, it is basically theocracy without the explicit approval of a religion.
No, it's not. To be theocracy, a, entire political system needs to be bent to the will of a religion or sect. That's nowhere near your definition, which merely involves members a faith group or multiple faith groups participating in government by voting their conscience.
That's not theocracy, that's democracy. Maybe you'll call it the dark side of democracy (e. g. the fact that people I disagree with each get a vote that has the same value in the electorate as mine) but it's nothing more or less than good old fashioned ordinary democracy. The rule of the people by the people -- inclusive of those people who happen to believe in God.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, no one is calling it "theocratic", we're saying it's basically the same thing legally.
And I'm saying you'll have to justify that, since under no legal argument I've ever seen has religious people voting their conscience ever been considered theocratic.
It's not theocracy when all those crazy churchy people with their irrational belief in this whole "god" thing happen to outvote you. That's just democracy at work.
Quote:
A theocracy is a state that actively promotes a religion. Minus the wording in the constitution promoting religious belief, if a country is making laws solely based on religious belief, it's practically theocratic.
No.. A theocracy is a state that is run by a religion or sect. A state that actively promotes a religion is called "most of Europe."
Quote:
They cannot vote again later to overturn the law. Laws in most constitutional countries get their laws overturned in a court of law, where precedent and moral standing are considered over popular vote.
You've never heard of a repeal movement? They're pretty common. Although most of the time, it's Conservatives using them to try to beat back the latest hair-brained Liberal idea, so I could understand why you were unfamiliar.
Quote:
Anyway, in the end, aren't you saying that, if the majority of people in the US wanted a theocracy, they'd be okay to vote it in? And if not, how can you defend a popular vote based on religion as being an okay way to come up with laws?
if they were sufficiently determined to do so, they probably could, but I thought you said we already were a theocracy, so your question confuses me.
Anyway, the whole thing would fall apart when the question came up of which specific churches got to sit around the big table and decided how everything was run, so that's a hypothetical we're unlikely to have to worry about.
Quote:
So you do defend a court system based on precedent and moral authority over popular vote? I'm confused.
I defend the synthesis of votes based on conscience, and the legal protections designed to prevent conscience from overwhelming rights and liberties.
Are gay rights and creationism the only issues people are kvetching about?
I could point out, if pressed, a number of secular voices opposing abortion for example.
You're the one that brought up gay rights. I understand that abortion is not necessarily 100% religiously motivated (though it still undeniably mostly is). Gay rights and Creationism, however, have, if not everything, then almost everything to do with religion. They are, socially speaking, the hot button topics in US politics right now, and for both, one side is defended only by religion. Or they are as far as I know, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
No, it's not. To be theocracy, a, entire political system needs to be bent to the will of a religion or sect. That's nowhere near your definition, which merely involves members a faith group or multiple faith groups participating in government by voting their conscience.
I say tomato, you say tomoto. I don't see a major difference between "an entire political system...bent to the will of a religion or sect" and "members [of] a faith group or multiple faith groups participating...by voting their conscience".
The US is not a theocracy because of the court system's holding the final say in whether laws violate fundamental rights, but I have little doubt that, without that safe-gap in place, the US would practically be one in practice, if not in name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
That's not theocracy, that's democracy. Maybe you'll call it the dark side of democracy (e. g. the fact that people I disagree with each get a vote that has the same value in the electorate as mine) but it's nothing more or less than good old fashioned ordinary democracy. The rule of the people by the people -- inclusive of those people who happen to believe in God.
I think, whether voted by people or forced in by a dictator or a monarch, if a legal system is dictated by a religion (or, in some cases, a group of religions), it is no different than a theocracy, legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
And I'm saying you'll have to justify that, since under no legal argument I've ever seen has religious people voting their conscience ever been considered theocratic.
Again, that's mostly because most democracies give courts the final say in laws, and have at least implicit declarations of separation of church and state, thereby meaning any law based solely on religion will be struck down (except for putting religious statements on legal tender and putting them in the pledge of allegiance to one's new state for some reason ). Once again, I've no doubt that, without that safeguard, the difference between a theocracy and the US would be practically zilch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
It's not theocracy when all those crazy churchy people with their irrational belief in this whole "god" thing happen to outvote you. That's just democracy at work.
Let me summarize my post so far: when talking about the legal system, a democracy and theocracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least if theocracy is not limited to a dictator or monarch (ie: a single person with all legislative power).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
No.. A theocracy is a state that is run by a religion or sect. A state that actively promotes a religion is called "most of Europe."
Define "run". By that definition, I could probably argue that England is a theocracy, even though I'm very sure it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
You've never heard of a repeal movement? They're pretty common. Although most of the time, it's Conservatives using them to try to beat back the latest hair-brained Liberal idea, so I could understand why you were unfamiliar.
Nice personal shot. Weren't you the one complaining about being attacked earlier?
I'm actually Canadian, so I'm somewhat unfamiliar with some popular American movements, but wouldn't a repeal movement be based on constitutional amendments, not on legal and legislative matters like propositions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
if they were sufficiently determined to do so, they probably could, but I thought you said we already were a theocracy, so your question confuses me.
I said nothing of the sort. I simply stated that, with the political spectrum in the Republican party, if they were given full control of the legal process, the US would practically become a theocracy, at least legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Anyway, the whole thing would fall apart when the question came up of which specific churches got to sit around the big table and decided how everything was run, so that's a hypothetical we're unlikely to have to worry about.
I think the questions isn't whether the US could become a true theocracy, just that the Republican party would love to mold the legal system so that they could pass laws that you'd see in most theocratic societies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
I defend the synthesis of votes based on conscience, and the legal protections designed to prevent conscience from overwhelming rights and liberties.
Not really sure why that was confusing.
You seemed to suggest that popular vote was the best way to decide basic rights. If you simply think that's a part of a longer process that the courts and prior decisions get a final say in, then I agree.
Just so it gets said, Dojji is actually the best non libertarian right wing poster we've had on here for a while. Admittedly, the competition, (JXC, Dr. Fire, AP) is barely even literate, but I would state that he takes the cake by a good margin.
And the fact that you think the bolded point is an extreme view is all I need to showcase the intolerance I'm experiencing here. Not all religion is religious extremism. If you can't tell the difference, you need to study religion and the religious a lot more before sounding off on what they are, or what they are not.
It's not intolerant to say religion has no place in modern day politics or I should more accurately say, government policy... it's the truth.
The whole thing was designed to push both parties to the middle, and it succeeded impressively. Truth be told, there is very, very little radicalization in either political party right now -- by design. The Republicans get a horrible rap because of a few loudmouths, but when you look at what they actually do they're really not all that far right compared to your standard right wing core party in Europe.
Strongly disagree. Congressional redistricting and the role of the primary has together made great conditions for extremism in congress. A district is decided to be safely for one party or another based on demographic data. Usually the real election is decided by who's name gets on the ballot in the primaries. Party primaries tend to have far lower voter turnout and are dominated by the ideological purists and activists. Also note that what happens in a swing year, when national voter anger throws one party out: the ones who go first are always the moderates. For the senate, where seniority determines which committees you sit and thus the amount of real power you hold, this means that in general we see people from states that are safe for their party, the deeply conservative and deeply liberal, holding the important party leadership positions. IMO the only thing that really pulls the party together is the relentless need for cash to fuel campaigns. Both are pro corporate parties, because to be otherwise would be political suicide 90% of the time in our system.
Your statement demeans the suffering of everyone who's run afoul of the truly theorcratic aspirations of groups like the Salem witch hunters, the Inquisitions, and the current Iranian theoractic despots.
If you can't figure out the difference between that, and voting your conscience on an openly democratic issue in which everyone, including those who disagree with you, have a full and fair say in the outcome, then I recommend you study a lot more history. It's not like Iranian Christians get a voice on the Supreme Islamic Council, or Iranian secularists for that matter.
When politicians become extensions/pawns of their religion and start enacting laws enforcing their religious views on the masses, then the line between church and state is erased. Creationism and gay rights are purely religious based topics. You asked for one example of the GOP pushing a religious agenda, you got two. A third if you consider abortion and their use of the bible/god in their argument. To say that the party has not become heavily ruled by the religious right is woefully inaccurate. That is the current state of affairs in the GOP.
). Once again, I've no doubt that, without that safeguard, the difference between a theocracy and the US would be practically zilch.
