Creationism as a Human RIghts Problem.

[mark kennedy]

You know, all this nonsense about whether socialism is also democratic is just a waste of time.

Mark has every right to make his assertion that it isn't. If socialism includes a right to control capital, what would the meaning of democracy be in such a world? Is it crazy to say that the right to vote is somehow not "enough democracy" or real democracy where the state restricts rights for private ownership?

The point is that these concepts are quite flexible. The question is not whether he is right -- since he has been accused of ignorance. (If someone questions whether George Bush is a "real" Republican, can you accuse them of ignorance? No.) The question is whether he has a rational basis for his argument, not whether he understands political science.

Really.

I just mentioned in passing that I found it amusing that a socialist was trying to defend democracy by mischaracterizing creationism as a human rights violation. Then they start with their typical tangents which have come to mean less and less to me.

Of course, I may well be mistaken that a democratic socialist is an oxymoron but that is my perception. I know what the cradle of democracy looked like and it was predominantly traditional Christian theism. Maybe I'm not worldly wise enough to discern the subtle complexities of modernist double speak but I know a political social agenda when I see one. This one is a classic.

Really.

 

[Dannager]

Yea, I liked the part where you completely ran off topic for your ad hominem argument.

You really need to stop calling things that aren't ad hominem that.

That's not what I said, what I said was that was that we call them liberals. As always there is one inflammatory mischaracterization after another which is typical of TE arguments. The truth is the democratic socialists is as much an oxymoron to me as theistic evolution.

Are you denying that you objected to another person's pointing out that there are American socialists involved in politics? And really, it doesn't matter what democratic socialists are to you. If you think that democratic socialists are anything other than what they actually are, you're wrong. It's that simple. You don't get to redefine entire ideologies just because you don't like them.

Typical, of course there are socialists in the U.S. political system

Then why the "funny, I've never heard of one" line earlier? When someone uses that kind of statement, it usually means that they're implying that none exist. Are you back-peddling now?

Actually, I had never heard of Bernie Sanders and I'm aware that there are remnants of the now defunct Socialist party. So what?

So don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't. That's the only thing I'm objecting to.

Democracy in America includes the right to the free exercise of religious views.

No, the Constitution includes that right. Democracy simply means government by the people.

We don't allow religious doctrine to be taught in the public schools but we don't pass laws characterizing it as a human rights violation. By the way, socialists belong to a political philosophy that is colored by and animosity for traditional religion. It is no wonder that religion is attacked in Europe by socialists. The one Senator you pointed to as a socialist is in fact an atheist which is exactly what I would expect.

Hahahahaha, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Really, mark, why are you doing this?

You have deliberately sidestepped the point I made about the free exercise of religion being the first right of Americans.

Which is guaranteed by our Constitution, not the fact that we're a democratic state.

That is a tradition going back to the Puritan Whigs and the Protestant Reformation. Democracy as a political idea was well established long before Socialism ever came along.

Which has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Free exercise of religion is not a necessary characteristic of a democracy. If, in a democratic state, the majority of the population voted to make Buddhism the official state religion and outlaw all others, you would have a democratic state without free exercise of religion.

 

[Dannager]

You have just been charged with, not aberrant sematics, but with being uneducated, studid and clueless about civics 101.

No, he hasn't. None of us have any problem with people being uneducated about certain things. As I pointed out, this isn't the sort of thing I would expect the average Joe to be knowledgeable about. The problem is that mark kennedy isn't just being ignorant - he's pretending he isn't.

 

[Dannager]

I know what the cradle of democracy looked like and it was predominantly traditional Christian theism.

Yeah, because America was totally the cradle of democracy.

 

[billwald]

Democratic socialism is fascism where private property exists but the govt controls the use of the private property and favors big business over the workers.

 

[Dannager]

Democratic socialism is fascism where private property exists but the govt controls the use of the private property and favors big business over the workers.

Well, favors the benefit of the state over the benefit of the individual workers, but sure. It certainly has many aspects of classical fascism attached.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, because America was totally the cradle of democracy.

No actually Democracy has it's roots in ancient Greece but was 'reborn' during the later part of the Middle Ages. The Protestant Reformation was actually the catalyst, developed in tangible terms primarily by the Puritan Whigs.

America embraced the ideas of Democracy and was one of the first nations that built it's government based on the will of the people. We may not have been the first, in fact I think Switzerland was if memory serves. England after their bloody Civil War and later through the Bloodless Revolution also built a thriving democracy.

At any rate, this is turning into close encounters of the pedantic one liners. In the future I would suggest you hear a guy out before you start calling him a liar and a fool. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy observing how the TEs on here behave. It betrays a lack of confidence in their worldview.

 

[gluadys]

That's not what I said, what I said was that was that we call them liberals.
Typical, of course there are socialists in the U.S. political system but they belong to the left-wing AKA liberal end of the spectrum.

Well, then it is very definitely a peculiar Americanism. In Canada and most of Europe, liberals are seen as centrist, not leftist. Maybe, it comes from having an overwhelmingly two-party system as opposed to the multiple parties that exist in most democracies.

By the way, socialists belong to a political philosophy that is colored by and animosity for traditional religion.

That's not our experience north of the border. All the pioneers of democratic socialism (whom I named in my last post) were Christians. And the only time the party has had a non-Christian leader was when it had a Jewish leader. I've been to several provincial conventions and never found any animosity to religion at a socialist gathering. In fact, Canada's democratic socialist party has a higher proportion of clergy among its members than any other party. One of whom is my provincial Member of Parliament.

 

[shernren]

I just mentioned in passing that I found it amusing that a socialist was trying to defend democracy by mischaracterizing creationism as a human rights violation. Then they start with their typical tangents which have come to mean less and less to me.

It's really cute that a typical tangent that "means less and less to me" spawned some huge posts (#40 and #58). If it didn't mean so much to you why did you spend so much time on it, when gonebowling made an excellent point in #25 about the differences between Europe and the US which you could have commented on? You've done quite a bit yourself in furthering this "tangent", and passing remarks deserve to be corrected where wrong.

Remember this post, long ago?

First of all if you want to moderate this board I suggest you apply for the position. Secondly, Socialism is not a democratic system, the American representative republic is. It is no accident that religious views flourish in democratic societies where religious freedom is protected. On the other hand European socialists are predominately atheistic philosophies with political agendas attached.

I find you ad hominem argument appalling.

You know what I find appalling? Your typical American Anglo-centric ignorance of the rest of the world. I'm not attacking you as a creationist, I'm attacking you as the usual American who has no clue how democracy actually works elsewhere. "Religious views flourish in democratic societies where religious freedom is protected" - my foot! Have you ever tried being a Christian in Malaysia? Have you ever been legally forbidden from sharing the Gospel with an entire race? Have you ever found it ten times harder to get a building permit for a church than for a mosque? Have you ever seen a Muslim who has her religion stamped on her national identification card, and who can't get it changed without appealing to the Islamic courts? And believe me, this is nothing compared to what is coming given the current political climate I can see.

When you first made that post, I wanted to blast it out of the water straightaway, but I thought exactly as you claimed to: that this was a useless tangent that would clear itself up. But no, instead you keep defending your views which have been shown to be wrong by so many people on so many points. "Democracies encourage freedom of religion" - try telling the Iraqis or the Palestinians or even me that. "the cradle of democracy was predominantly traditional Christian theism" - nonsense, my country had a Malay matrilineal democratic system, the Adat Perpatih, running in the 15th century long before any Christians had even conceived democracy. You've been given multiple definitions of democratic socialism that show people who actually practice and champion it, and after fighting for your views through two days of posting you turn around and talk club with your creationist buddy: "Gee, these guys don't really mean anything at all, they're just idiots talking louder than they can think." (What else could a reference to "pedantic one-liners" and "a lack of confidence in their worldview" mean?)

You could have credibly claimed that this was a "tangent that means less and less" two days ago, when you could have quietly ignored Theidiot's post, as I ignored yours then. But you claim through your actions that you know what you're talking about. Well, do you? Do you want to discuss democracies in a religious state, Malaysian politics, and human rights with me? Are you going to show me that you know the intricacies of Greek and Minangkabau history? Or are you going to do what you should've done in the first place - admit that you were wrong, instead of defending yourself and your martyr complex which tells you that any time a TE tries to correct you it's because you're more righteous than he is?

When are you going to grow up?

 

[mark kennedy]

You really need to stop calling things that aren't ad hominem that.

You really ought to stop correcting things that are not mistakes.

Are you denying that you objected to another person's pointing out that there are American socialists involved in politics?

I never said that, I said that we call them liberals.

And really, it doesn't matter what democratic socialists are to you. If you think that democratic socialists are anything other than what they actually are, you're wrong. It's that simple. You don't get to redefine entire ideologies just because you don't like them.

Antithesitic political and social agendas are not democratic, I don't care what you call them.

Then why the "funny, I've never heard of one" line earlier? When someone uses that kind of statement, it usually means that they're implying that none exist. Are you back-peddling now?

Whatever...

So don't act like you know what you're talking about if you don't. That's the only thing I'm objecting to.

Don't talk to me in generalities and Wikipedia links and expect me to be contrite about perceived errors. I have been through this too many times, you will just harp on this until the thread is effectively derailed because you have no way of making a substantive point.

No, the Constitution includes that right. Democracy simply means government by the people.

The U.S. Constitution includes the First Amendment recognizing religion as a basic human right. Apparently socialists, democratic or otherwise see it differently.

Hahahahaha, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Really, mark, why are you doing this?

Hahahahaha, Jewish is his ethnic identity. He is in fact an atheist. When did being Jewish ever mean that you couldn't be an atheist. In fact I have encountered a number of atheists who insist on being regarded as Christian, we call them liberals to.

Which is guaranteed by our Constitution, not the fact that we're a democratic state.

Which has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Free exercise of religion is not a necessary characteristic of a democracy. If, in a democratic state, the majority of the population voted to make Buddhism the official state religion and outlaw all others, you would have a democratic state without free exercise of religion.

America is one of the oldest and arguably the most successful democracy around. The free exercise of religion is protected as a Civil Right and that is one of the key reasons it has been successful. You can't dictate religion in a democracy, state religion and governments that censor religion are mark by a lack or personal liberty.

Theoretically you could vote to make Buddhism a state religion but your talking in hypotheticals.

 

[Dannager]

You really ought to stop correcting things that are not mistakes.

No, they were mistakes, mark. Everyone here knows that. You know that. You just aren't admitting it.

I never said that, I said that we call them liberals.

Funny, I have never seen anyone in American politics claim to be a socialist, democratic or otherwise.

Impressive. You were actually willing to lie about something I only had to go back two pages to quote.

Antithesitic political and social agendas are not democratic, I don't care what you call them.

That has nothing to do with democracy. Learn what the word means. You can't just define it however you feel like and expect us to take you seriously.

Whatever...

How hilariously non-committal of you.

Don't talk to me in generalities and Wikipedia links and expect me to be contrite about perceived errors.

I didn't need to provide the Wiki link. I could have just said it how it was, but I figured your first reaction would be to yell that we're making unsubstantiated claims. So I substantiated them. You were wrong, mark.

I have been through this too many times, you will just harp on this until the thread is effectively derailed because you have no way of making a substantive point.

I will harp on this, just like others here are, until you stop adamantly denying that you spoke about something you clearly had no right to be speaking with any authority on. And then I will draw an analogy between that behavior and the ideology and practices we've witnessed in many creationists.

The U.S. Constitution includes the First Amendment recognizing religion as a basic human right. Apparently socialists, democratic or otherwise see it differently.

Except they don't, and you only want it to be that way to justify your beliefs. That is not the reasonable way to view the situation.

Hahahahaha, Jewish is his ethnic identity. He is in fact an atheist.

No, his religion is Judaism.

When did being Jewish ever mean that you couldn't be an atheist.

If you're a part of the Jewish religion, then yeah, it means you can't be an atheist. He's a member of the Jewish religion.

In fact I have encountered a number of atheists who insist on being regarded as Christian, we call them liberals to.

Ahh, so those who disagree with you aren't Christian. Yeah, mark, we know. Also, we don't really care about your personal definitions of just about anything.

America is one of the oldest and arguably the most successful democracy around.

That doesn't mean that America is suddenly the definition of democracy. Man, this is difficult.

The free exercise of religion is protected as a Civil Right and that is one of the key reasons it has been successful.

Maybe. But that protection is part of our constitution, and is not inherent in a democracy.

You can't dictate religion in a democracy, state religion and governments that censor religion are mark by a lack or personal liberty.

Democracy doesn't guarantee personal liberty. Heck, we don't even have full personal liberty. Where on earth did you learn politics?

Theoretically you could vote to make Buddhism a state religion but your talking in hypotheticals.

Wait, would we be talking in theoreticals or hypotheticals? Which is it?

 

[shernren]

Theoretically you could vote to make Buddhism a state religion but your talking in hypotheticals.

Try telling Bhutan, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar that they are hypothetical countries.

 

[chaoschristian]

Try telling Bhutan, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar that they are hypothetical countries.

I think Mark's comment is intended only to apply to an American framework.

As in: you could hypothetically have Congress or a state legislature vote on a bill that would institute a state religion [assumed hidden conclusion: but it wouldn't pass or the courts would strike it down.]

 

[Dannager]

I think Mark's comment is intended only to apply to an American framework.

As in: you could hypothetically have Congress or a state legislature vote on a bill that would institute a state religion [assumed hidden conclusion: but it wouldn't pass or the courts would strike it down.]

Even then, it would be struck down because of our constitution, not the fact that we're a democracy.

 

[shernren]

I think Mark's comment is intended only to apply to an American framework.

As in: you could hypothetically have Congress or a state legislature vote on a bill that would institute a state religion [assumed hidden conclusion: but it wouldn't pass or the courts would strike it down.]

No, he was trying to indicate that somehow democracy as a uniquely Christian notion preserves freedom of religion:

America is one of the oldest and arguably the most successful democracy around. The free exercise of religion is protected as a Civil Right and that is one of the key reasons it has been successful. You can't dictate religion in a democracy, state religion and governments that censor religion are mark by a lack or personal liberty.

Theoretically you could vote to make Buddhism a state religion but your talking in hypotheticals.

(emphasis added)

I agree with gonebowling and Dannager: it would be impossible to vote Buddhism as a state religion of America, but that's not because of democracy but because of the Constitution. And the idea of a constitution is a far older and not even uniquely Christian idea either.

 

[busterdog]

Even then, it would be struck down because of our constitution, not the fact that we're a democracy.

Just to be clear. The Constitution read literally cannot preclude a State from having a State religion. See 10th Am. and the Establishment clause. The federal government is however denied the ability to establish an official religion.. And of course, the Supreme Court has read the Constitution to say things about States that it doesn't say in this respect.

And, Mark is making perfect sense. Everyone is free to disagree with him. Why folks want to accuse him of factual error is just more of a recurrent problem.

 

[shernren]

And, Mark is making perfect sense. Everyone is free to disagree with him. Why folks want to accuse him of factual error is just more of a recurrent problem.

Do you want to show me how democracy is helping religious freedom in Muslim countries worldwide?

 

[arunma]

No, his religion is Judaism.

If you're a part of the Jewish religion, then yeah, it means you can't be an atheist. He's a member of the Jewish religion.

Actually Mark is right. Judaism is something you're born with, and it is irrespective of your personal beliefs. A person can be both Jewish and atheist. In fact I know Jews who practice Judaism, and don't even believe that God exists. Go post a thread on Non-Christian Religions if you don't believe me.

 

[shernren]

Actually Mark is right. Judaism is something you're born with, and it is irrespective of your personal beliefs. A person can be both Jewish and atheist. In fact I know Jews who practice Judaism, and don't even believe that God exists. Go post a thread on Non-Christian Religions if you don't believe me.

They can? No kidding! That's pretty cool.

Atheist.com seems to think Bernie is an atheist: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/195511.htm

 

[Mallon]

I've met "Christians" from Europe before who say the same thing. They call themselves Christians because they were born into a Christian nation. But they don't actually believe that Jesus stuff.