|
Post by Atheo on Jul 30, 2007 13:51:34 GMT -5
I agree that saying 'Apollo wants this' is a horrible political argument. But not using that argument does not mean leaving religion out of politics. Religious people can't leave religion out of politics as religion governs every choice they make. I would simply want good reasons for saying that Apollo wants this- and then, if the majority of debaters are wrshipers of Apollo, it's right that they win. Majority rules.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Jul 31, 2007 20:53:19 GMT -5
I don't think that a religion's popularity gives it any more credability. Unless your god shows up, in person, to the debates we needn't discuss their views.
If the majority of the population are racist or sexist is it right that they legislate against minorities or women?
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 1, 2007 16:33:24 GMT -5
It's not right that those people hold that opinion; however if democracy is to work we must put our faith in the majority vote. No matter how objectionable you find a law to be, if it is voted for and it wins, it is right to implement the law. Now, I would find a law discriminating against minorities and women to be repugnant and evil. But I would fight it by voting against it because the majority vote decides a country's definition of right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Aug 2, 2007 15:19:51 GMT -5
Its possible for a majority to be wrong, and we should be able to admit that. Suppose that the majority of the people worshipped Apollo (as was our previous cenario), or were members of the Church of Chrust, Scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ%2C_Scientist).
Think of the consequences to all health care. All diseases are considered a curse from Apollo. And the best way to cure them is praise and sacrifice to Apollo.
Or a total rejection of our modern medicine.
If a majority of people held these beliefs it would show up in our laws, so long as we allowed religion into politics.
We have to rely on reason, and evidence in politics there's no place for faith. Imagine if whenever you called an ambulence it took you to a church, or a temple built in Apollo's honour, instead of to a hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 2, 2007 22:18:21 GMT -5
I never said it was impossible for the majority to be wrong. Slaver y in America proves that. I said that if the majority wants something, it should be granted. However, in order to make sure that, say, black people are not banned fro public restaurants, we have the constitution to make sure the majority's rule cannot became truly horrible. The only loophole I've found in this is abortion, as abortions were not around when the constitution was made.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Aug 3, 2007 16:46:12 GMT -5
You've touched on something important. A constitution cannot forsee future problems. Law makers (your founding Fathers, the writers of the Magna Carta, or John A. MacDonald) from 100 years ago and beyond would have had no idea that stem cell research or abortion would ever be debated. Technology has only made these things possible in recent times.
For me, this signals the importance of reason, evidence, and mature debate. Its hard to imagine a problem that those things couldn't solve. But, with a government that is influenced by religion reason and mature debate are compartmentalized. They are allowed in some discussions (property tax law for example) but shunned out of others (gay marriage, teaching evolution in schools, aborition, stem cell research or any issue where people have played the faith card).
Imagine a government where reason, evidence and mature debates decide every single issue. How (or would) gay marriage be discussed? Would there still be places where sodomy is illegal? Where the sale of dildos is illegal?
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Aug 3, 2007 17:55:10 GMT -5
Imagine a government where reason, evidence and mature debates decide every single issue. How (or would) gay marriage be discussed? Would there still be places where sodomy is illegal? Where the sale of dildos is illegal? Yes, in a society who has come to terms with the reality of existence and realizes who is in control. The chosen people of God had none of this when they were at the height of their power and morality.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 3, 2007 22:49:37 GMT -5
The kind of government you're describing sounds a lot like the Inner Party and Big Brother from 1984 by George Orwell, if you've read it. Immoral, but cold, efficient, and very intelligent. And from a certain perspective, it makes sense. But we have to balance reason with instinct- instinct makes us who we are.
|
|
|
Post by jupiter on Aug 4, 2007 12:20:44 GMT -5
I have read 1984, its a great book. What I'm talking about is nothing like the Inner Party. The Inner Party was authoritarian. They had a huge distrust of the general population, and sought to control them in everything (hence thought crimes).Thats not at all what I am talking about.
Whats so immoral about reason, evidence and mature debate?
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 4, 2007 12:49:57 GMT -5
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And I have never been against reason, evidence, and mature debate. My stance all along has just been that we can't expect a religious person to keep religion out of their choice of opinion or vote. We all make decisions based upon what is most important to us. But there is nothing immoral about the virtues you have endorsed, it's just that religion makes most people's moralities. so if we remove religion from people's reaons of choice, they will have no moral prop to stand on and will simply vote for the most efficient, and probably smartest, thing. But efficiency and intelligence are not always good if not tempered by instinctual morality- or in the case of religious people, religious morality.
In any case, it is impossible to ask religious people to leave religion out of their decisions when religion automatically permeates everything about their moralities.
|
|