 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now were talking.  |
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You don't know me very well. Limiting 'social freedoms' is a bonus, and if he's fiscally conservative, that's another bonus. 
A belligerant international politics stance, isn't really that much of an issue. |
So you are pro-state religion then? Pro heresy laws?
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's see. Does he believe that your faith checks at the door of the legislature? |
Let's he believes they can say what they want, but that any law should be based on pretty much non-religious reasons, or reasons that are not specific to any particular religion (christianity is no more support than budhism).
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is his economics based upon the redistribution of wealth? |
So far as it is a pragmatic solution to improving the country overall (in terms of economic growth, health, happiness, etc). We will assume that the effects of these policies is as I said, everyone gets richer in the long run, and generally speaking everything gets better.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
Drachosaur:
Your whole post is riddled with jargon.
Define 'social freedoms', define 'good economic principles.'
Can't vote for the man, if I don't understand what he stands for.
quote:
So you are pro-state religion then? Pro heresy laws?
|
Given this choice opposed to a state religion of atheism, and rejection of God, it's pretty cut and dried for me.
quote:
Let's he believes they can say what they want, but that any law should be based on pretty much non-religious reasons, or reasons that are not specific to any particular religion (christianity is no more support than budhism).
|
I'll take that for a yes.
quote:
So far as it is a pragmatic solution to improving the country overall (in terms of economic growth, health, happiness, etc). We will assume that the effects of these policies is as I said, everyone gets richer in the long run, and generally speaking everything gets better.
|
Oh, another yes.
I wouldn't even vote for your good candidate if he were prolife, as opposed to your 'bad' candidate!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
So, Ben, are you in favor of laws that enforce a particular set of religious values then? Compared to laws that allow all non-harmful* religious values to be exercised? Naturally these values might not be christian. They could be budhist, hindu, pagan, or anything else.
-Drachasor
*We'll assume "harmful" means direct, physical harm to another (and potentially the self, whichever you prefer).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
BK, I simply can't understand why abortion is such a major issue for a Presidential candidate - the President does not really set abortion laws. Congress writes the laws, and the Supreme Court rules on challenges to the law. Now, the President can INFLUENCE Congress, and he can make appointments to the Supreme Court - but you should realize that any makeup of the Supreme Court that is not composed of social conservatives with a political agenda is not going to overturn Roe.
So, while the President can impact abortion, aren't there more important issues that he has more direct control over? Such as, I don't know, starting wars?
As for the rest of your emotionally charged speech about abortion and embryonic stem cells, why don't you just defer to expert scientific opinion? When doctors agree that embryos and fetuses are living humans, the same as you and me, then I'll be closer to opposing abortion, although you still ignore the fact that a fetus relies on the body of the mother for support, so the continued consent of the mother seems to me to be morally required as well. But in any case, I don't pretend to more about science and medicine than doctors and scientists, and THEY overwhelmingly do not take your view on abortion and stem cell research. Why do you think that is - do they all have a political agenda?  No, I doubt it. The ones with a political/religious agenda tend to be the social conservative/religious right doctors and scientists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
So, Ben, are you in favor of laws that enforce a particular set of religious values then? Compared to laws that allow all non-harmful* religious values to be exercised? Naturally these values might not be christian. They could be budhist, hindu, pagan, or anything else.
-Drachasor
*We'll assume "harmful" means direct, physical harm to another (and potentially the self, whichever you prefer).
|
So you, are willing to enforce a particular set of values, when you believe that opposition to these values is harmful?
Why do you disagree with the enforcement of religious ideals, grounded in the same principle of the preventation of harms?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Given this choice opposed to a state religion of atheism, and rejection of God, it's pretty cut and dried for me. |
What's wrong with a state that is officially atheist but does not prohibit or constrain any organized religion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
What's wrong with a state that is officially atheist but does not prohibit or constrain any organized religion? |
Ben was saying that he believes such a thing is inherently harmful to all citizens. I think he was trying to say he is pro-'democratic' theocracy.
The difference between that and me is that I am pragmatic and care about results that can be seen and measured. Happiness and the like can be seen and measured, as can misery. From what I have seen more happiness and less misery are typical of societies that allow more religious and intellectual freedom, compared to those that don't.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
These children are not the property of their parents before their birth, any more so than they are after birth. |
Ah, but before birth, the fetus can't survive without the continued consent of the mother. That doesn't necessarily make it property, in the sense that my computer is my property, but it means that the mother retains some moral rights regarding her own body.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
And what is wrong with a state that establishes Catholicism along the same principles? |
Nothing, so long as the state doesn't take policy dictations from the Pope/Church, and doesn't provide special exemptions for Catholic Churchs, etc., etc.
quote:
The truth is, one cannot establish a religion without constraining other religions. |
That's sorta my point. Atheism isn't a religion. Catholicism is. Now, many people like to call atheism a religion, and that may be true for certain definitions in the case of certain rabid atheists, but in the sense I'm talking about, I simply mean the complete absence of religion from government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How do you empirically measure happiness? |
While what makes someone happy might vary from person to person (and this can be found out, though it is harder), how satisfied someone is with their life, how much they enjoy it, other such factors can be fairly accurately judged by asking them to grade such factors on a 1-10 scale.
Unhappiness is much, much easier to measure. Depression and other mental illnesses, poverty, difficulty with affording basic needs, high levels of stress are all things that are much easier to spot.
More improvements to such measurements would come by understanding the brain better.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Atheism is a religion, in that it cannot be proven along empirical grounds, and is based upon the dictations of conscience. |
That's technically "hard atheism" that is a faith-based belief; which is not religion.
If you don't like that, then let us say an agnostic government. How about that?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2004 22:59
|