Part Ic:
Political science is related to political philosophy and ideology. These are beliefs which influence behaviour. Primarily behavioural science is mind and psychology. Sociology is the bigger picture of the philosophies and ideologies and sociology of the society.
That's quite the winding thread...
Especially in that the very ideologies who are now pushing the culture wars are the ones who made the poilitical the personal. Thus bringing in ideological beliefs and morals as the central justification.
I spend an awful lot of time fighting them here, but I will not surrender secular society and government to the dominionists.
Surely this is subjective and depends on what beliefs and situation. If your beliefs align with the State then you will not experience any conflict. But then tell that to say Christians who may want to implement their beliefs in public and are told they cannot.
I cannot emphasize any more than this: the state does not *CONTROL* your beliefs. That is not possible. That said, it does not mean your beliefs can't be in conflict with the policy of your government. Mine are currently. But, that does not change what those beliefs are.
So are abortion or marriage laws underpinned by any ethics. Surely it depends on whether the policy or law has some ethical connection.
It's complicated.
Its not like we are merely dealing with particals or rocks.
Sometimes I am not so certain about this.
If they decide that abortion is legal they just gave the OK for abortion. They cannot detach themselves from their moral obligation and responsibility.
Ok so it is those who represent the State and fill that void with their political ideologythat brings the morals in. It is the system that allows people to lobby politicians in positions of power that can implement ideological agendas.
How is this not a moral position. The State is more or less making a moral determination that abortion is ok before the cut off time. Thats a moral determination. In fact the very point that there is a cut off time shows we are talking about a moral determination.
Its still a moral determination one way or the other. Even the idea of allowing the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions is a moral issue as to whether the State can over rule people or not.
The problem, Steve, is that there is no general consensus on abortion. Like other "moral issues" there are lots of people who disagree with what is being called here the "Christian position". Some of them even work from the same scriptures and do not conclude that 'abortion is murder'. It falls in with the other things that some people think are immoral and others don't. If you think it is immoral, then don't do it.
But there are no fists involved. Its a case on one right and moral determination over riding another. The State chose to side with allowing abortions and thus the need for abortion clinics.
The right to practice a belief and to protest is also a right. Why is it the right for one and not the other. Because ultimately when you have a society that tries to be all things to all people and allow conflicting beliefs someone is going to be denied when the beliefs conflict.
The fists are a metaphor, Steve. It only says that your rights don't extend to denying other people of their rights. The law you mention is an anti-harassment law that prohibits harassing patients. It makes no other restrictions. Protest all you like, just don't harass.
I said "two or more" please read my words.
So you did, but you quickly reduce everything to two positions anyway.
But evenso that makes it even more complicated and will eventually either cause conflicts or make some bow down to something they disagree with in certain situations.
Abolitionists was a movement coming from Christian ethics that all were equal in Christ. Wilberforce was a great Christian abolitionist.
That's nice.
I think primarily western nations were more united and had a stronger identity about who they were and what they stood for. Though we had generous immigration programs people primarily integrated into the western life.
I was talking about the 1840s/50s (the ante-bellum period). There were plenty of wars between Western nations (and before and after), so I don't get this "more united" thing. I don't know anyone had an "immigration program". Some countries, like the US, had open immigration, but it wasn't a "program". The mass migration to the US in that period was from Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. The immigrants blended in to US society so smoothly that there were literal anti-immigration parties that got seats in Congress. (And these were all immigrants from "the West".)
I don't think its any coincident that the more we have allowed unbridled immigration of ideas and beliefs that are different the more we have destablised society.
Immigration is not "unbridialed" and our society isn't "destabilized".
Yes as argued above the State cannot divorce itself from the moral responsibility of its social policies.
Sure it can.
You are creating a strawman. I did not say there were just two. I specified there were "two or more".
True, but when I read your next line...
But primarily there is for the sake of the core issues only two positions. Either abortion is ok or not and either marriage is biblical or not and the same for most social issues.
How many wives makes a marriage biblical? 3, 6
It does not matter if pro abortion is because of a number of reasons and moral positions. Its still a binary choice of it being allowed or not. Or is a biblical marriage or not.
And this is why government should be neutral on these matters.
The insistence on their being more than 2 positions on belief and morals actually makes it worse. Now society has to accommodate many possible conflicting positions. What people forget is part of belief and morals are for people to actually live out and live under their beliefs. Otherwise they being denied that belief.
Oh look, now you are having a problem when I say there are more than 2 positions. SMH.
Short answer, live your morals, leave the rest of us alone.
So win-win
