EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2374
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
In regards to Yoav's points, there are a few things I want to point out. Yes, my views are based on my background and experience (deeply conservative, southern, etc), but you miss the point that the vast majority of the opposition to things like gay marriage and so on are based solely on religious grounds. There really is no logical argument against gay marriage that hasn't been well argued and refuted, but that doesn't matter because once the religious try to veil their disdain in arguments about effects on society and the family or whatever else, they will eventually resort to "Well that is just what I believe.". This is the case for many political issues. Another point, there is no "atheistic" justification for all the things like you say there is. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in the divine. One can not go from 'there is no god" to "I should do such and such atrocity", but there is a very easy and rather logical path from "homosexuality is an abomination" to "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" or from a rather detailed outline of how slaves should be treated to "slavery is ok". It just is not the same. That is the same argument I would raise against the common argument that the religious will bring up about atheistic dictators. They always cite Hitler first, which is interesting in that that is either ignorance or their part or dishonesty. While Hitler himself was quite anti-Christianity is true, he specifically left this out of his politics and even invoked religion to sway people (even though it is likely he himself wasn't even a believer). He even aligned himself with the catholic church, invoked god in Mein Kampf, and so on. But again, the point is there is no logical path from atheism to mass murdering of the jewish people, or anything else of that sort. The other regimes you quoted were atheist regimes yes, but one must take into account the history and circumstances of these regimes. Russia for example is quite mired in a tradition of the 'strong leader' who, for the majority of its history, was basically a demigod and head of both the church and state. As Hitchen's puts it, if Stalin couldn't take advantage of this history then he shouldn't be in the dictatorship business. I could go on forever on Yaov's post because I disagree with so much of it :D. You invoke the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy quite a bit. You don't get to determine what is Christian and what is un-Christian, and you will be hard pressed to prove that there is no path from the teachings in your holy book to things such as opposition to gay marriage. There is a very plain path between the two, and while the more liberal believers twist themselves in knots trying to dodge all the obviously abhorrent things in their sacred texts, they are either being willfully dishonest or simply ignorant of the facts when they make these arguments. Another thing that irks me is when it is said that solutions to these problems came out of religion. This may be true to an extent, but most of the problems are due to religion in the first place, and, perhaps this is the cynic in me, but I think that to sway 'the masses' the path of least resistance is to mire the idea in religious terms. Its like when Tony Blair (who to his credit has done some very good work since being Prime Minister) said that the peace brought to Northern Ireland could be attributed to religious efforts, which to me is a silly thing to say when the conflict is almost entirely a religious one (sure sure there are political reasons and so on but at it's base it is a religious conflict). Sure, I'll side with the progressive religious people every time if its them vs the fundamentalists, but to say that a progressive interpretation of holy texts is the only rational one is being quite dishonest and not even remotely true. But, that is an argument the religious have to have amongst themselves. I do apologize for my wall of text style of posting, it is something I'll have to get better at. Especially if I go back to play TL forum mafia, they hate my walls of text there :D. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Hard to have a US politics thread and not discuss religion in the US and its impact on policy and the political landscape. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote: Trust in progressive ideals or similar things is reasoned out logically and historically, faith in the religious sense is, at its base, believing for the sake of believing. Trust that progressive Or any other particular ideals will result in a particular type of society might be "reasoned out logically and historically". (although that is what Stalin's and Hitler's followers were doing, free markets and constitutional democracy had been shown to be disasters by the 1930s) However, whether that 'end goal society' is worthwhile is Not something that can be worked out logically. Beliefs that people 'should be free' or 'should be happy' aren't logical, they are moral. So while you might not base your morals on religion, you still have morals and they are not logical or historical (they can be internally consistent, and similar to those found in certain past societies), but you can't prove 'these are the correct morals'. You are going to push for society to enact laws that (you believe..with Some historical evidence/logic but that is arguable) will result in a society that will be a 'good' one (by your definition of good, which is even more arguable, and really has no support besides your life history/upbringing/other peoples thoughts). Everyone has a right to do that* and some people's definition of good is at least internally consistent with their beliefs in supernatural phenomena. (including beliefs in the lack thereof) Which means if Carson says he likes a 10% tax because it is like something in the Bible 1. You are free to vote/campaign for Or against him based on those facts (either the 10% tax OR the fact that he got the idea from the Bible) 2. He is not constitutionally disqualified for President based on that fact (no religious test..applied by the law, the voters can apply whatever religious test they like in their individual votes) *at least under the First Amendment that the government may not favor particular opinions, and Especially not particular religious opinions. Even though the Opinion that "it would be good if humanity continued to exist" underlies the vast majority of our laws. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
And to preempt the inevitable "certain people like to hurt others or dont care about others", I said 'normal', those are called psychopaths and sociopaths edit: example- I want people to treat me with dignity and respect and I think I should treat everyone with dignity and respect, therefor I will treat people that way and expect that they return the favor. Anyways, going out for a few hours. | ||
|
Cowboy64
115 Posts
Still not exactly sure why it's wrong to give her the reasonable religious accommodation she is guaranteed under the Constitution. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On October 08 2015 07:50 Cowboy64 wrote: Still not exactly sure why it's wrong to give her the reasonable religious accommodation she is guaranteed under the Constitution. I don't think its a reasonable religious accommodation. It's allowing one person to fundamentally change the way a job works and refuse to do her job. unless your talking the state constitution which I'll admit it is but I find that particular law to be in any way a good law. But we could sit here all day and argue about what is reasonable. If you have any legal history I'd be interested in seeing it since I'm not too familiar with how that part of the constitution is interpreted from a legal perspective. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
One of the several lawyers who frequent the thread can probably say. One can argue that it is unfair that the law was one way when she took the job and then was switched on her, but I have little sympathy when the law that was in place was discriminatory. I stop listening to people that cry about their rights being violated when other classes of people are being granted rights that the majority of people already have. It is unfortunate that people think that the right to force their beliefs on other people is more important than an individuals rights. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Believing that the law only exists only if the people in the lower end of the chain want to follow it is basically saying the law doesn't exist at all. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Ravianna26
United States44 Posts
Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 08 2015 07:50 Cowboy64 wrote: Still not exactly sure why it's wrong to give her the reasonable religious accommodation she is guaranteed under the Constitution. She wants her name removed from all legal documents relating to gay marriage or anything she religiously doesn't approve of. She is a clerk of the court and is supposed to execute court orders and documents. Literally a core part of the job. Do it or resign. On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote: What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government. Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. As a real Christian, nope. But this stawman is pretty strong. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote: What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government. Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. Just a classic no true Scotsman observation to toss out there. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote: What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government. Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. Actually, yes. If by principled, you mean Christians who force other people to follow their religious doctrine, then absolutely, such people have absolutely no place in a government where "separation of church and state" is a core tenant. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
so in that sense your right if your definition of true Christians is limited to people whose beliefs contradict government jobs and refuse to do them.of course then your arbitrarily defining true christian to a definition most people would have problems with. | ||
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
On October 08 2015 12:26 Ravianna26 wrote: What I'm getting from this conversation is that only unprincipled/fake Christians should be able to work in government. Just an observation. I hope no one is actually saying that. And only unprincipled Christians should be able to work in the army given that the only true Christian stance is pacifism, whatever Aquinas might say. It's not that you're not allowed to because you're Christian, it's that if every time you're told to kill some brown dude you say "I'm going to turn the other cheek and love my neighbour instead" you'll get fired. You don't get a job that involves doing something you refuse to do, then refuse to do it and then cry oppression. If Christians feel government work is contrary to their religion then yes, only "fake" Christians can work in the government. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
(also of note is that he was specifically talking about taxes, and we know how the fundies love taxes). This Kim Davis thing is so stupid. She is in no way in the right and the people who defend are have yet to come up with a coherent argument. Her job is to follow the law and issue licenses to those legally eligible, which now happens to include same-sex couples. If she has some objection to doing her job then she needs to quit. Every job has requirements, and some may object to some of those tasks, but they don't get to say "doing this essential function of the job is against my beliefs so therefor I'm not going to do my job at all". Resign and quit crying about it, you are the one who chooses not to do your job and no sane person is going to feel sorry for you. | ||
| ||
