104 replies to this topic

[MagickMonkey]

http://godfatherpoli...ngage-politics/

I think to the extent their engagement is non-secular in nature, the answer is yes!

[MagickMonkey]

BTW, I think Rowdy Otto Riemer did a good job of responding to the article in the comment section (sort comments by newest).

[Noggy]

I think they should. It's a democracy. The point is to get your views elected. If they have those views, then they should vote on them. You don't vote for what you think other people want, that would break democracy.

[MagickMonkey]

I think they should. It's a democracy. The point is to get your views elected. If they have those views, then they should vote on them. You don't vote for what you think other people want, that would break democracy.

But we have a secular government, and they should not expect the government to enforce their religious views. Of course, ideally, they wouldn't hold those views to begin with. While our voices shouldn't carry the weight of law in this context, we should tell them to keep their religion out of politics.

[FeelHappy]

It would be nice if christians could throw away their literal readings of their book (although their readings already are selective) and use reason and what's best for humanity on things like gay marriage, global warming or evolution teaching then I'd be pretty happy.....don't see it happening though.

[Noggy]

I think they should. It's a democracy. The point is to get your views elected. If they have those views, then they should vote on them. You don't vote for what you think other people want, that would break democracy.

But we have a secular government, and they should not expect the government to enforce their religious views. Of course, ideally, they wouldn't hold those views to begin with. While our voices shouldn't carry the weight of law in this context, we should tell them to keep their religion out of politics.

No we have a government by the people. Its not set in stone as a secular government. Thats how it (mostly) is now. If 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of congress wanted us to have a non-secular government it wouldn't. It's called democracy.

[stryper]

MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where ya been?

[MrsRoper]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Somebody get me the DESITIN!!!

This entire ARTICLE chapped my ass.

[florduh]

If 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of congress wanted us to have a non-secular government it wouldn't. It's called democracy.

Secular government is the only way to extend constitutionally guaranteed rights to everyone. The democracy isn't free to override certain principles. Any flavor of theocracy would violate both the spirit and specifics of the Constitution.

[Noggy]

If 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of congress wanted us to have a non-secular government it wouldn't. It's called democracy.

Secular government is the only way to extend constitutionally guaranteed rights to everyone. The democracy isn't free to override certain principles. Any flavor of theocracy would violate both the spirit and specifics of the Constitution.

Doesn't really matter. It's a flexible government for a reason. If they wanted to abolish the bill of rights with the requirements I posted here, they'd be right to do it. According to the constitution. And our government.

[Noggy]

The constitution is cool in the fact that if the majority of people in most areas want something like a dictatorship, they could do it. It's a freedom. If 90% of the people here are Christians and want it, then they would probably get what they wanted. I don't really see anything wrong with that. At least not legally.

[florduh]

The constitution is cool in the fact that if the majority of people in most areas want something like a dictatorship, they could do it. It's a freedom. If 90% of the people here are Christians and want it, then they would probably get what they wanted. I don't really see anything wrong with that. At least not legally.

Majority rules, but not at the expense of minorities. I'm not convinced we can just vote that away and adopt a non-representative government. Where are our constitutional attorneys when we need them?

[MrsRoper]

BTW, I think Rowdy Otto Riemer did a good job of responding to the article in the comment section (sort comments by newest).

This was great. I wanted to cut & paste it here for everyone, but I think it's too long and will break the rules.

[Noggy]

The constitution is cool in the fact that if the majority of people in most areas want something like a dictatorship, they could do it. It's a freedom. If 90% of the people here are Christians and want it, then they would probably get what they wanted. I don't really see anything wrong with that. At least not legally.

Majority rules, but not at the expense of minorities. I'm not convinced we can just vote that away and adopt a non-representative government. Where are our constitutional attorneys when we need them?

Amend the constitution to strike the first 10 amendments. Thatd be the first start.

[LoneTarus]

I think they should be forced to not marry religion and politics. no legislation should ever be drafted that uses religion instead of facts as its basis.

If we ever ended up as a theocracy and I couldn't flee to another country I would rather die fighting against it rather than bow down to it. I consider the religious right (and other religious fundamentalists) to be a major threat to any sort of true liberty. they are #2 on my list right under criminal bankers and corporations that have bought and paid for the government. The useful religious idiots will rush towards any authoritarian fascist system offered up to them so long as it is wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

As long as they think they have an in to impose their religious views on everyone else and control other people's lives and even thoughts by force they will do everything in their power to do so. I'm sorry but anyone that wants a theocracy is my enemy. In that regard I totally agree with Hitchens.

Edited by LoneTarus, 21 June 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Noggy]

I think they should be forced to not marry religion and politics. no legislation should ever be drafted that uses religion instead of facts as its basis.

If we ever ended up as a theocracy and I couldn't flee to another country I would rather die fighting against it rather than bow down to it. I consider the religious right (and other religious fundamentalists) to be a major threat to any sort of true liberty. they are #2 on my list right under criminal bankers and corporations that have bought and paid for the government. The useful religious idiots will rush towards any authoritarian fascist system offered up to them so long as it is wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

As long as they think they have an in to impose their religious views on everyone else and control other people's lives and then thoughts by force they will do everything in their power to do so. I'm sorry but anyone that wants a theocracy is my enemy. In that regard I totally agree with Hitchens.

Who decides what is a fact? The majority?

[LoneTarus]

Who decides what is a fact? The majority?

If there is no science to back it up it is not a fact. I think it would be fairly simple to determine whether or not proposed laws have a basis in science and logic rather than religious magical thinking and "morals" based on a bronze age book.

Either way government should be strictly secular, it was intended to be so from the beginning (the founders were deists not theists and knew what happens when you have religion married to the state). and I think there should be strict rules in place to call out anyone that tries to pass laws based on their religious beliefs rather than a serious proven need that has a secular context.

[Noggy]

Who decides what is a fact? The majority?

If there is no science to back it up it is not a fact. I think it would be fairly simple to determine whether or not proposed laws have a basis in science and logic rather than religious magical thinking and "morals" based on a bronze age book.

Either way government should be strictly secular, it was intended to be so from the beginning (the founders were deists not theists and knew what happens when you have religion married to the state). and I think there should be strict rules in place to call out anyone that tries to pass laws based on their religious beliefs rather than a serious proven need that has a secular context.

If they had intended it to be strictly secular, they would've done a much better job.

So you want a government ran by scientists? Remember that most "science" done now-a-days is funded by the government. I see conflicts of interest here.

[florduh]

So you want a government ran by scientists?

Government run by scientists or one run by Bronze Age superstition. Is that our dichotomy now?