Religious People with Political Views

[Apathy]

Legislating based on morals is not at all the same as creating a theocracy.

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy

Care to retract that claim?

Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other.

How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature.

If one claims that it is invalid then it is that person who is imposing a view.

The most asinine comment I have ever had the privilege of reading on the internet. (which is saying a lot) If you were to claim killing others was a morally acceptable thing to do and I were to disagree saying that cant possibly be moral there would be no imposition. In fact the only imposition here is that asinine comment trying to stifle the voices of those who disagree.

I never said I would impose my moral view on others. I said that I would vote with my moral view advising me just like anyone else would vote with their views advising them.

What on earth do you think you are doing by voting for those who wish to legislate your morality on others? Every time you attempt to legislate your personal moral views via voting you are imposing your morals on others.

We all use our views of the world to influence politicians who will then write laws that establish justice.

When you use absolutes like ALL you are just begging to be proven wrong. In fact minarchist and anarchist alike simply wish to live their own lives according to their own views and wish not to impose these views on others via a corrupt political system.

What gives anyone the right to dictate what justice is? No ONE person does. We have a system* that takes input from all of us and weighs it against the principles of the constitution to dictate justice.

Ok first off besides the obvious fluff and total lack of substance the phrase justice is used rather broadly. Define your terms.

You may prefer a system in which there is no government but that too would be a system of justice. Someones system must be in place and since anarchy leaves the door open for a corrupt government to take over almost all of us prefer a system of government. It IS unfair that those who do not want to live under a government are forced to. And further more it is unfair that they don't consent to live under that system just by virtue of their not choosing to leave. It is the lesser of evils. Our founding fathers agreed that government and taxes were evil but necessary.

Ok this was not a topic about anarchy you are changing the topic, if you wish to discuss that start a new thread. Secondly there is more fluff than substance in the paragraph.

* Our system does not all for a theocracy even if all the people wanted one, it does not allow for a Christian, or atheist or any majority to impose their ideas on the rest. But it does allow for all groups to have a voice and to use that voice to influence their fellow citizens.

*cough* prostitution laws *cough* *cough* Drug War *cough* *cough* alcohol prohibition *cough*

I guess what Im trying to say is bullsh1t.

EG. As a Christian I may want everyone to know the message of salvation but I choose not to propose any laws that would make that compulsary.

The fact that you even consider that an option is scary.

Others may want that and I would argue that there is a greater good to not making the message of salvation mandatory that even advances the Christian message better. I am perfectly capable of being a Christian and voicing my opinions in the legislative marketplace without imposing those ideas on others and it is due to our system that makes that so.

You cant force religious salvation on others for it to be a true conversion it needs to be something of their choosing. Furthermore is you vote for legislators with the intention of making you moral code law that is an imposition.

 

[Apathy]

Quote the exact statement of mine where you became convinced I was arguing that religion should dictate laws.

I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide....

.....

 

[GenSeneca]

.....

Ah... So it's only when my statements are taken out of context that one can arrive at the fallacious conclusions you have been drawing.

Try reading the entire sentence:

I have no problem with "legislation based on...religious values" but any proposed legislation, whether based on religion [or ideology], needs to be logically valid.​

I was clear from the beginning and nowhere in that clarity are calls for laws to be based on religion, much less an argument in favor of making the US a Christian theocracy.

Anything else?

 

[Dr.Who]

Care to retract that claim?

No. I never ever proposed that a religious authority be set up. I made it clear that individual citizens would choose candidates based on their own morals or worldview but the candidates would govern based on constitutional principles.

I have made a lot of things clear and in reading your responses to them I suspect that you need to read them again with an open mind.

What I see is evidence at play here to support the OP's claim in this thread that some think religious views should be discarded. You have your rationalization but the result is the same. I make a claim that religious word views are as valuable as any other world view and should be considered IN THE SAME WAY and you start saying that I want a theocracy.

 

[Dr.Who]

How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature.

How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs (like atheism) to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature. I therefore claim that all atheist must not be allowed to hold office because they want to set up an "atheistic theocracy." Sarcasm.

 

[Dr.Who]

Care to retract that claim?



How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature.



The most asinine comment I have ever had the privilege of reading on the internet. (which is saying a lot) If you were to claim killing others was a morally acceptable thing to do and I were to disagree saying that cant possibly be moral there would be no imposition. In fact the only imposition here is that asinine comment trying to stifle the voices of those who disagree.



What on earth do you think you are doing by voting for those who wish to legislate your morality on others? Every time you attempt to legislate your personal moral views via voting you are imposing your morals on others.



When you use absolutes like ALL you are just begging to be proven wrong. In fact minarchist and anarchist alike simply wish to live their own lives according to their own views and wish not to impose these views on others via a corrupt political system.



Ok first off besides the obvious fluff and total lack of substance the phrase justice is used rather broadly. Define your terms.


Ok this was not a topic about anarchy you are changing the topic, if you wish to discuss that start a new thread. Secondly there is more fluff than substance in the paragraph.


*cough* prostitution laws *cough* *cough* Drug War *cough* *cough* alcohol prohibition *cough*

I guess what Im trying to say is bullsh1t.



The fact that you even consider that an option is scary.



You cant force religious salvation on others for it to be a true conversion it needs to be something of their choosing. Furthermore is you vote for legislators with the intention of making you moral code law that is an imposition.

You have done more to harm your own case than any rebuttal I could make.

 

[Apathy]

Ah... So it's only when my statements are taken out of context that one can arrive at the fallacious conclusions you have been drawing.

Try reading the entire sentence:

I have no problem with "legislation based on...religious values" but any proposed legislation, whether based on religion [or ideology], needs to be logically valid.​

I was clear from the beginning and nowhere in that clarity are calls for laws to be based on religion, much less an argument in favor of making the US a Christian theocracy.

Anything else?

Oh my bad I thought you were trying to have a conversation, but it appears you want a personal fight. Meh....

 

[Apathy]

You have done more to harm your own case than any rebuttal I could make.

Yet another cop out...

 

[Apathy]

1)How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs (like atheism) to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature.
2)I therefore claim that all atheist must not be allowed to hold office because they want to set up an "atheistic theocracy." Sarcasm.

LMAO
1)Firstly atheism is not a belief it is a lack of a belief. The problem is the power itself not the people behind it if an atheist chose to legislate his own personal morals it would be equally unjust.

2)For the most part you were making sense until this point. The legislators personal morals are irrelevant as long as aforementioned individuals do not use it as a basis of legislation.

P.S. "atheist theocracy" is a self contradictory term.

 

[GenSeneca]

Oh my bad I thought you were trying to have a conversation, but it appears you want a personal fight. Meh....

As usual, you are the one who has been spoiling for a fight, taking my statements out of context, an act you do not deny, is just further proof of this fact.

As for a conversation, if you accusing me of arguing in favor of things I have never offered support for is your idea of having a conversation, then your conversational skills are right up there with Pocket. He's the only other person on this board that uses that tactic with me no matter how many times it fails.

 

[Apathy]

As usual, you are the one who has been spoiling for a fight, taking my statements out of context, an act you do not deny, is just further proof of this fact.

As for a conversation, if you accusing me of arguing in favor of things I have never offered support for is your idea of having a conversation, then your conversational skills are right up there with Pocket. He's the only other person on this board that uses that tactic with me no matter how many times it fails.

Go cry to someone who cares, you are being irrational. As for taking your statement out of context. I would say you are more guilty of that than I. Post #39 you used one statement out of context to use as a half-ass excuse to run from the much larger argument. That's the cowards way out. So truly my sympathy for the hypocritical and illogical is non-existent.

Furthermore your crying about being taken out of context is silly as I was only doing as you requested. You asked for the statement that indicated morals should dictate laws and I did so. After that you proceeded to contradict yourself I did not know you wanted the contradiction as well.

Quote the exact statement of mine where you became convinced I was arguing that religion should dictate laws.

You should no better than try to insert this emotional rubbish in the place of actual logic.

 

[Dr.Who]

LMAO
1)Firstly atheism is not a belief it is a lack of a belief. The problem is the power itself not the people behind it if an atheist chose to legislate his own personal morals it would be equally unjust.

2)For the most part you were making sense until this point. The legislators personal morals are irrelevant as long as aforementioned individuals do not use it as a basis of legislation.

P.S. "atheist theocracy" is a self contradictory term.

Atheism is as much a belief based on faith as are religious views. Likewise it is also a belief about religion. It is a faith based belief about religion. for some atheists it is a belief that they do not actively believe in God and for others it is an affirmative belief that there absolutely is not God. Multiple times in this thread I have used the words "world view" as an umbrella term for both religion and any other belief about the world. Religious beliefs are just one example of world views and all world views need to be given equal import in a multicultural secuilar federal government system.

The main point is that no person can be without a world view unless he has no thoughts at all. Everyone of us who influences politics will do so on the basis of our world view and we cannot shut out any particular view. Even legislators will use ethical and/or moral or world views to create legislation. It cannot be avoided. Try to name a law in which a world view has not played a part in its making. Legislators try to be unbiased but they cannot be without a world view.

Yes "atheist theocracy" is a self-contradictory term which is of course the reason for the quotes. The quotes tell you that the words cannot be used in the normal way and that a new concept is being described. I assumed you would understand that I was saying that the world view of atheism is being proposed by many as a sort-of theocracy - an authoritative faith based view about religion.

You are capable of understanding the things that Gen and I are saying so your failure to understand must be based on something other than intellect. I have understood everything Gen has said and I think Gen has understood what I have said, no one else has chimed in here to object so I surmise that what we are saying is understandable. Are you being stubborn? Are you arguing against us because you just want to and you are hoping to score some points or knock down some of what we say? I don't know what you are doing except that we are saying understandable things that you are smart enough to understand but don't anyway.

 

[Apathy]

Atheism is as much a belief based on faith as are religious views. Likewise it is also a belief about religion. It is a faith based belief about religion. for some atheists it is a belief that they do not actively believe in God and for others it is an affirmative belief that there absolutely is not God. Multiple times in this thread I have used the words "world view" as an umbrella term for both religion and any other belief about the world. Religious beliefs are just one example of world views and all world views need to be given equal import in a multicultural secuilar federal government system.

The main point is that no person can be without a world view unless he has no thoughts at all. Everyone of us who influences politics will do so on the basis of our world view and we cannot shut out any particular view. Even legislators will use ethical and/or moral or world views to create legislation. It cannot be avoided. Try to name a law in which a world view has not played a part in its making. Legislators try to be unbiased but they cannot be without a world view.

Yes "atheist theocracy" is a self-contradictory term which is of course the reason for the quotes. The quotes tell you that the words cannot be used in the normal way and that a new concept is being described. I assumed you would understand that I was saying that the world view of atheism is being proposed by many as a sort-of theocracy - an authoritative faith based view about religion.

You are capable of understanding the things that Gen and I are saying so your failure to understand must be based on something other than intellect. I have understood everything Gen has said and I think Gen has understood what I have said, no one else has chimed in here to object so I surmise that what we are saying is understandable. Are you being stubborn? Are you arguing against us because you just want to and you are hoping to score some points or knock down some of what we say? I don't know what you are doing except that we are saying understandable things that you are smart enough to understand but don't anyway.

Address the argument you ran away from and I will respond to this.

 

[nobull]

Go cry to someone who cares, you are being irrational. As for taking your statement out of context. I would say you are more guilty of that than I. Post #39 you used one statement out of context to use as a half-ass excuse to run from the much larger argument. That's the cowards way out. So truly my sympathy for the hypocritical and illogical is non-existent.

Furthermore your crying about being taken out of context is silly as I was only doing as you requested. You asked for the statement that indicated morals should dictate laws and I did so. After that you proceeded to contradict yourself I did not know you wanted the contradiction as well.



You should no better than try to insert this emotional rubbish in the place of actual logic.

for you to asume he cares enough about your post to cry about it is just insane..and as far as emotional rubbish goes this post of yours is just rubbish

doug

 

[Gipper]

for you to asume he cares enough about your post to cry about it is just insane..and as far as emotional rubbish goes this post of yours is just rubbish

doug

Well stated. And, I could not agree more.