|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2013 13:20 koreasilver wrote:
sc2superfan is, like he generally is, being incredibly stupid,
May I ask you to explain this comment (not the "like he generally is" I take that for what it is)?
In what way does your idea that some subconscious, pseudo-religion being already present (an assertion I wouldn't necessarily disagree with) logically necessitate that the establishment of a state religion by a state or local government is illegal and/or immoral?
Further, how would the establishment of an actual religion, by a state, in any way destroy the traditional, unspoken beliefs concerning liberty and justice; which I will admit (gladly) do hold a kind of religious meaning in the minds of the general populace?
|
On April 06 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect.
In what way is it tyrannical to put up a picture of Jesus, or a cross, or the Ten Commandments?
And in what way is it not tyrannical to decide, upon a whim, that all people must be silent about their faith because you yourself are uncomfortable with their possessing said faith?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dude, if you think the first amendment doesn't supervene states law...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
A federal judge has ordered the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make "morning-after" emergency contraception pills available without a prescription to all girls of reproductive age, reversing a decision by the Barack Obama administration. The ruling in a Brooklyn court, New York, on Friday is the latest step in the years-long legal saga over the pill known as "Plan B", a drug that has also sparked political and religious battles. The order reverses a surprise December 2011 decision by US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who had barred girls under 17 from buying the pills without a prescription. The FDA had initially decided to approve over-the-counter sales with no age limits, but Sebelius ordered it to reverse course. Reproductive-rights groups cheered the decision as overdue, while anti-abortion and some religious groups condemned it. Some pharmacists had refused to dispense emergency contraceptives because it violated their religious faith. Making the pills available over the counter removes the pharmacist's role in dispensing the drug. In a statement, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said, "This ruling should be appealed and overturned." The judge in his ruling also criticised the Obama administration for interfering with the process for political purposes. President Obama had supported restriction, invoking his daughters. But the timing, 11 months ahead of the presidential election, sparked criticism that he was trying to appease social conservatives. In his ruling, US District Judge Edward Korman called Sebelius' decision "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable". "The motivation for the secretary's action was obviously political," he wrote. Science vs politicsBecause physicians and doctors advising the FDA had concluded that the morning-after pills were safe for younger adolescents and did not cause promiscuity, critics say Sebelius' decision as an instance of politics trumping science - something that particularly riled activists who had been led to expect otherwise. The Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups had petitioned the FDA to strike down age and access limits, saying there was no scientific proof that girls younger than 17 could not safely use the drug without supervision. Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/20134601425570715.html
|
On April 06 2013 17:07 oneofthem wrote:
dude, if you think the first amendment doesn't supervene states law...
My argument is more that a state and local government, while being subject to the first amendment, should be held less accountable to it, for lack of a better term. State and local governments, being closer to the people and therefore, necessarily a purer expression of their will, should be more flexible with how they specifically choose to interpret and follow the amendment.
And more importantly, that the first amendment is not so exclusive as people seem to think.
|
On April 06 2013 17:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect. In what way is it tyrannical to put up a picture of Jesus, or a cross, or the Ten Commandments? And in what way is it not tyrannical to decide, upon a whim, that all people must be silent about their faith because you yourself are uncomfortable with their possessing said faith?
"All people must be silent?" That isn't just hyperbole, it's insanity. You're a crazy person.
What I am telling you, quite simply, is to not frame your deity upon my kid's school walls. I did not call you a tyrant, you're the one throwing that word around. It is not tyranny that you and others not be allowed to adorn government buildings with your preferred religious symbols. It's common sense. There is no need for it, no use for it, and yes, believe it or not, the truth of the matter is, it justifiably offends people.
You're offended that you can't celebrate your religion in government buildings? Well too bad. Better you be offended by the simple lack of adornments, than everybody else who doesn't share your beliefs who is forced to attend these institutions.
It's common sense, and more importantly, common respect. Government buildings are for public services.
What is conservative about thinking that you need to adorn government buildings with moral codes? When did this creepy desire to dress-up government institutions with "morality" find its way into so-called "conservative" thought? You can preach anywhere -- from your home, on the freakin' street. Just not in government, public, tax-payer buildings.
Tyranny? Jesus Christ.
|
On April 06 2013 17:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect. In what way is it tyrannical to put up a picture of Jesus, or a cross, or the Ten Commandments? And in what way is it not tyrannical to decide, upon a whim, that all people must be silent about their faith because you yourself are uncomfortable with their possessing said faith?
Yes, christians in the US are generally so timid and demure about their faith.
It's illegal, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with tyranny, or propriety. It's about the very american notion that no religion takes precedence over any other, something that should be a no-brainer for any self-respecting conservative. Either you recognize all religions equally or none of them. America chose, wisely, to go with none.
The idea that rights can only be certain and true if they come from god is abhorrent, it's reductionist and self-deprecating to the point of servility. What gave christianty the monopoly on human rights? Or any religion? Our humanism and our altriusm come from ourselves, to attribute it to some greater being without which we would be lost to barbarism is a horrible notion, it demeans and degrades us. A secular state is the only moral state, and the US being the first truly secular nation should be a point of pride.
|
What really does piss me off about American secularism is that we seem to believe that the solution is simply not to talk about religious issues at all. This is not good for a democracy when we go from promoting a dogmatic ideology to not talking about it.
|
Agreed, the subject is so infected and volatile that politicians avoid it like the plague. It's cowardly and irresponsible. A debate is needed, religions of all stripes need to be examined and confronted openly, not just by random lawsuits over christmas trees in schools.
|
On April 06 2013 18:15 McBengt wrote:
Agreed, the subject is so infected and volatile that politicians avoid it like the plague. It's cowardly and irresponsible. A debate is needed, religions of all stripes need to be examined and confronted openly, not just by random lawsuits over christmas trees in schools.
What? Who, do you think, needs to be debating the religions? Politicians? On what merit? Are we comparing the religions? Isn't this just actually leading to our government then endorsing certain religions over others? I'm really not understanding what you mean by this "needed debate". The only debate needed has been ongoing, quite wonderfully, from academia and religious institutions. It is a free, open debate.
Religion is fine. It gets all the attention and examination it needs. It enjoys exclusive and legal tax benefits for the communal and charitable benefits they provide, and yet they're very clearly separated from being established via governance. Our handling of religion is currently quite perfect, all in all. People are generally free to do what they want with it. Some people want to see government-promoted religion -- but they're not successful. Those lawsuits work. Other people don't want to talk about it, because it's been done for thousands of years to rather disasterous results.
As an atheist, I'll admit I'm personally happy to see religion become more irrelevant and demonized. I think it's warranted. But regardless, none of this irrelevance or demonizing is a result of our laws or politicians. Secularism isn't killing religion - knowledge is killing religion. It's simply our culture reflecting on the amazingly superior knowledge we've garnered over history and science, compared to our ancestors.
|
On April 06 2013 18:15 McBengt wrote:
Agreed, the subject is so infected and volatile that politicians avoid it like the plague. It's cowardly and irresponsible. A debate is needed, religions of all stripes need to be examined and confronted openly, not just by random lawsuits over christmas trees in schools.
Yeah...I remember one case at my school where a father threatened to sue the school because a valedictorian at a graduation ceremony used some religious rhetoric and asked for all of us to pray for success in the future.
Such infantile actions really needs to stop, especially when someone wishes you well. I do not believe in God myself, but attacking those who wished you well it plain stupid.
|
Barack Obama win second time US president.
|
It's a massive part of american culture and society, yet it's constantly relegated to the back of the public debate as simply matter of personal belief. It's not so much a debate about religion itself as its effects and its influence that is needed. At its inception it was supposed to be a fundamentally secular nation, yet a lot of people seem to think otherwise.
|
On April 06 2013 18:06 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 17:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 06 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect. In what way is it tyrannical to put up a picture of Jesus, or a cross, or the Ten Commandments? And in what way is it not tyrannical to decide, upon a whim, that all people must be silent about their faith because you yourself are uncomfortable with their possessing said faith? Yes, christians in the US are generally so timid and demure about their faith. It's illegal, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with tyranny, or propriety. It's about the very american notion that no religion takes precedence over any other, something that should be a no-brainer for any self-respecting conservative. Either you recognize all religions equally or none of them. America chose, wisely, to go with none. The idea that rights can only be certain and true if they come from god is abhorrent, it's reductionist and self-deprecating to the point of servility. What gave christianty the monopoly on human rights? Or any religion? Our humanism and our altriusm come from ourselves, to attribute it to some greater being without which we would be lost to barbarism is a horrible notion, it demeans and degrades us. A secular state is the only moral state, and the US being the first truly secular nation should be a point of pride.
One must be very suspicious of this given the history of human thought. Our secularism, our notion of human rights, universal rights, equality, etc. are not naturally given. They are artificial and they operate under a form of myth. The West has grown up on this for centuries now and take it as given when it is still very precarious and fragile. The Enlightenment myth, no matter how valuable and how beautiful it may be, with all its intellectualism, scientific rigor, and above all its romance and ideals, is still fundamentally, a myth. Westerners are much too complacent on this, I think; too much is taken for granted.
and the probably the most fundamentally misunderstood concept: secularism still is not truly atheistic.
|
On April 06 2013 18:36 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 18:06 McBengt wrote:On April 06 2013 17:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 06 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
It's a government building. It's a school. You don't need a picture of Jesus. It isn't tyrannical to ask you to keep your religion to yourself. It's common sense and mutual respect. In what way is it tyrannical to put up a picture of Jesus, or a cross, or the Ten Commandments? And in what way is it not tyrannical to decide, upon a whim, that all people must be silent about their faith because you yourself are uncomfortable with their possessing said faith? Yes, christians in the US are generally so timid and demure about their faith. It's illegal, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with tyranny, or propriety. It's about the very american notion that no religion takes precedence over any other, something that should be a no-brainer for any self-respecting conservative. Either you recognize all religions equally or none of them. America chose, wisely, to go with none. The idea that rights can only be certain and true if they come from god is abhorrent, it's reductionist and self-deprecating to the point of servility. What gave christianty the monopoly on human rights? Or any religion? Our humanism and our altriusm come from ourselves, to attribute it to some greater being without which we would be lost to barbarism is a horrible notion, it demeans and degrades us. A secular state is the only moral state, and the US being the first truly secular nation should be a point of pride. One must be very suspicious of this given the history of human thought. Our secularism, our notion of human rights, universal rights, equality, etc. are not naturally given. They are artificial and they operate under a form of myth. The West has grown up on this for centuries now and take it as given when it is still very precarious and fragile. The Enlightenment myth, not matter how valuable and how beautiful it may be, with all its intellectualism, scientific rigor, and above all its romance and ideals, is still fundamentally, a myth. Westerners are much too complacent on this, I think; too much is taken for granted. and the probably the most fundamentally misunderstood concept: secularism still is not truly atheistic.
This is incorrect. Animals of all kinds instinctively help each other, even animals from other species. Humans cooperated and shared with each other long before any of today's major religions came about. Altriusm and compassion are genetically hardwired into our brains
It's not a myth, it's evolutionary biology. Solidarity is desirable trait, and found over and over in numerous different species, ours included.
This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about, this idea that all good things we do can be directly attributed to either a deity or a specific philosophy. It's horrid, and patently untrue.
Edit: Secularism simply means you don't recognize religions, not that you dismiss them. It's more a MO than an opinion.
|
Altruism and compassion is not synonymous to the various Western liberal ideals of universal human rights and equality. Those are not a given and only operate under the faith and good will of a collective social myth. Even the most asinine and bigoted idiot can be capable of altruism and compassion, but surely one would not be satisfied with the compassion a neo-Nazi might have for his friend and the altruistic actions that such a person may display towards their children.
Western liberals are complacent.
|
USA has a statereligion: The church of the constitution and nationalism.
Both are good in moderation, but in excess it is essentially feelings being used to propagate certain responses. I am not saying that "think of the poor people" or "think of the economy" in itself are better, but it is easier to convince people with logic, that the economy is relatively resiliant to stupidity among politicians, and the poor often have other options than that the nation isn't threatened.
The result is that if a government agency is asking for incredible powers with minimal oversight politicians are likely to give those powers in fear of "hurting the nation" or "opening it up to terrorists". The other side is the constitution fetish where every bad thing is seen as a result of the current law and every good thing is in the constitution and that the constitution is the eternal truth for human lives. Getting away from those tropes will be healthy and looking at other parts of the world for experiences with laws is a necessity to create a better democracy!
Nationalism is fine, but don't let it shadow for reasonable arguments and dont let your feelings of national pride get hurt by a little bit of opposition to the american way of doing things.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-proposed-budget-not-ideal-plan-100112446--politics.html
Obama is now getting attacked from the left for proposing chained CPI and other entitlement cuts. But despite this Republicans still refuse to offer anything.
Boehner argues that they should just do chained CPI and get that out of the way first because they now both agree on it. But Boehner also agreed to closed tax loopholes after Obama's reelection. So this makes him a complete hypocrite. Since they both agree on closing tax loopholes, why don't they just do that and get that out of the way?
What can Obama possibly do to make Republicans compromise?
What should Obama do?
|
Preventing a tyranny of the majority is not the same as preventing the majority from ever exercising it's will upon society as a whole. This is why we have a democratic Republic. The majority, in most cases, should be allowed to express and exercise it's will. Without any clear case or argument of oppression, I don't see why preventing the majority the right to make a decision about their society is wrong.
No. The people should be allowed to exercise their will, with a system set in place to protect the minority. This is one of those systems.
You didn't show me why it is majority tyranny, you just made the assertion that it is. You're only argument is that the government would be telling other religions that they are wrong.... which in no way oppresses them. And in no way blocks their political or religious representation. They could still be allowed to elect leaders who hold the same beliefs as them, they would still be allowed to attend their own churches, and they would still be allowed to speak whatever beliefs they hold in the public sphere. You're suggesting some kind of sociological argument that basically boils down to: "it would make me feel bad." But since when does the government have to have any care in the world for how it's policies make you feel, beyond your ability to vote for or against them?
By saying, "You're wrong", you are officially endorsing a certain religion to have (perceived) moral superiority over other religions, which translates into social power. Again, as I've explained, Christians aren't some magical, super-progressive group of tolerant individuals nowadays; even without Christianity being the state religion, they still routinely criticize other religions, force theirs down the throat of others, and otherwise harm individuals that are not Christian, as they've done throughout history. You're being incredibly naive to the level of a small child if you think that you can give one group in society an explicit and official advantage and don't believe they'll abuse it and abuse others with it.
So you get to impose yours, purely on the basis that yours is the minority opinion? I say that we should allow state religions, public displays of Christianity (or any other religion), and prayer in school. You say that we shouldn't, and that opinion should be, according to you, enforced upon me and the majority, on every level, regardless of how great that majority may be. And in no way would I suggest that a majority exercising a religion suddenly makes that religion true. In fact, I guarantee you that the religion any state in this union would establish would be a Protestant one. I am not Protestant, I am Catholic. I would feel no pressure or oppression from living in a state with an established Protestant religion is there was no actual pressure or oppression being applied to me.
See, this is what Christians NEVER get and it fucking blows my mind. Not allowing you to throw up Christian idols every 5 feet in public and force everyone to pray before every public juncture IS NOT OPPRESSING YOUR RELIGION. STOP THINKING IT IS. If the government were to tell you to admit that God DOESN'T exist, or that you should call him Allah, or that you should celebrate Hanukkah, THAT would be oppression and forcing another viewpoint on you. Christians have such an incredibly obnoxious and child-like sense of entitlement that, for some reason, they think that the mere absence of their religious beliefs in the public circle is evidence of oppression and the forcing of another moral view on them. It isn't. I swear, the level of cognitive dissonance in the conservative Christian brain has to be absolutely mind-blowing. How can you consistently endorse forcing your viewpoint on others while complaining about the same thing being done to you when it isn't actually being done?
They saw nothing wrong with constantly appealing to their divine rights. They saw nothing wrong with established state religions. George Washington saw nothing wrong with saying in his farewell address:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.
Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (emphasis my own)
They saw nothing wrong with the House passing authorizing an official day of Thanksgiving; a resolution calling for:
"a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God."
The establishment of the federal government was primarily for unity as one nation. Only one side of the debate (the Federalists) saw it as combating a threat against state power, and even the most ardent of them would be having fits of apoplexy if they looked upon the state of affairs (pun intended) of the country today.
And finally, I am in no way opposed to a powerful federal government. I consider myself to be more on the side of the Federalists than not, and fully support and understand Lincoln's notions of unity. However, this does not mean that I also believe that the states cannot, in any way, exercise power of their own except that which is first approved of by the Supreme Court.
Again, why should we appeal to a group of (by today's standards) culturally backwards individuals that even owned slaves for questions of political and moral authority as the end-all-be-all on the subject?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 06 2013 22:36 paralleluniverse wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/obama-proposed-budget-not-ideal-plan-100112446--politics.htmlObama is now getting attacked from the left for proposing chained CPI and other entitlement cuts. But despite this Republicans still refuse to offer anything. Boehner argues that they should just do chained CPI and get that out of the way first because they now both agree on it. But Boehner also agreed to closed tax loopholes after Obama's reelection. So this makes him a complete hypocrite. Since they both agree on closing tax loopholes, why don't they just do that and get that out of the way? What can Obama possibly do to make Republicans compromise? What should Obama do?
bend over more
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
