-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Creationism as a Human RIghts Problem.
- Thread starter busterdog
- Start date
- Status
Interesting way the conversation develops. Dannager and shernren are both right in pointing out that democracy per se does not guarantee religious freedom.
In an overwhelmingly Muslim nation, it is easy to democratically legislate discrimination against non-Muslims. Christian democracies have been historically guilty of enacting legislation that discriminated against Jews, Native American religious practices such as the potlach, and against ethnic minorities such as Canadian and American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII.
What keeps democracies or any state away from such discrimination is a commitment to human rights. In effect, just as a constitutional monarchy limits the powers of the monarch, the Constitution limits the powers of democratic rule and makes some types of legislation illegitimate even when it is supported by the majority of the people.
As an aside, we have a unique situation in Canada, in that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes a "Notwithstanding" clause. This is an escape clause that permits the government to go ahead with legislation that has been deemed by the courts to contravene the Charter. In effect, should some legislation important to the government be disallowed by the courts on the grounds it violates the Charter, the government can re-introduce it saying "Notwithstanding the fact that this legislation does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we wish to make it law anyway."
So far, it hasn't been used, and I hope it never is, but there have already been popular calls for the government to use it. One came when the courts decreed that "marriage" did not necessarily imply "between a man and a woman", thus opening the door to legal gay & lesbian marriages.
Anyway, I just thought it interesting that once we recognize that democracy can be a mixed blessing and does not inherently support freedom of religion, we are back to human rights. And whether teaching creationism in public schools can be seen as a violation of human rights.
In an overwhelmingly Muslim nation, it is easy to democratically legislate discrimination against non-Muslims. Christian democracies have been historically guilty of enacting legislation that discriminated against Jews, Native American religious practices such as the potlach, and against ethnic minorities such as Canadian and American citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII.
What keeps democracies or any state away from such discrimination is a commitment to human rights. In effect, just as a constitutional monarchy limits the powers of the monarch, the Constitution limits the powers of democratic rule and makes some types of legislation illegitimate even when it is supported by the majority of the people.
As an aside, we have a unique situation in Canada, in that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes a "Notwithstanding" clause. This is an escape clause that permits the government to go ahead with legislation that has been deemed by the courts to contravene the Charter. In effect, should some legislation important to the government be disallowed by the courts on the grounds it violates the Charter, the government can re-introduce it saying "Notwithstanding the fact that this legislation does not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we wish to make it law anyway."
So far, it hasn't been used, and I hope it never is, but there have already been popular calls for the government to use it. One came when the courts decreed that "marriage" did not necessarily imply "between a man and a woman", thus opening the door to legal gay & lesbian marriages.
Anyway, I just thought it interesting that once we recognize that democracy can be a mixed blessing and does not inherently support freedom of religion, we are back to human rights. And whether teaching creationism in public schools can be seen as a violation of human rights.
Upvote
0
His office's press package notes his religion as Jewish. So does OnTheIssues, which doesn't list someone's religion unless they claim to be an adherent.
Upvote
0
Well, let's not compare apples to oranges.
If you do not support child and sweat shop labor, and believe that governments should intervene to prohibit such things, you have just supported socialistic concepts. Social security, public schools, medicaid, minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, paid overtime, etc, are all offsprings of socialism. In fact the US economy is a mixed economy that incorporates both socialism and capitalism. We can continue to go on with examples, but I think I've made my point.
Democratic socialism means that I can use my vote to tell a nation that it needs to tend to the orphan and the widow, or provide health care to the less fortunate, and promote legislation that prevents business from exploiting their workers. If you're saying that citizens voting such practices in are not supporting democracy then it seems you do not even understand what democracy means. If you are saying that believers should not use there votes to tend to the orphan and the widow, then you do understand what it even means to believe.
I've noticed that in your numerous posts on this forum you tend to generalize quite poorly, running with scissors without thinking your ideas through. If you oppose socialism you need to define what you think socialism is. Calling it an atheistic philosophy reveals only your ignorance, particularly when you drink from the same cup. Keep crying that everyone and everything that moves is an atheist, or atheistic and it's not long before others realize you are no different than the boy who cried wolf.
So come now and learn the error of your ways.
Well, that is because in America we prefer to see in black and white. David Duke is a conservative a fundamentalist a traditionalist, but I doubt you'll find it fair to sum you up with him, since the terms in the broadest sense includes you as well. We have numerous TEs here who consider themselves conservative, and yet distance themselves from fundamentalist, both are on the Right, but the distinction between their positions is quite vast. Let's not forget that Hitler was a man on the right as well.
Acts 2:44-45:
Acts 4:32-35:
Anyone who supports such a way of living today would be called a socialist even by you, but I doubt you want to refer to the Apostles as supporting an atheistic philosophy now do you? Socialism was in the Biblical tradition long before the word was formed. First you must understand what the word means, and who it includes in the broadest sense of the word, or your ignorance will be worn on your sleeves.
( I apologize for derailing the thread, but someone needs to be bound)
Upvote
0
Socialsm comes in degrees. Not all socialists are are extremists or communists. The current Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, is a socialist.
Considering the fact that the Socialist Party recently narrowly lost thdemocratic French elections proves that socialism and democracy can coexist.
Morover, in the UK we have something called the NHS - free healthcare, provided for all citizens. This is a result of socialism, yet existing in a democratic country.
All democracy means is that the government is voted in. If this government then choses to be heavy-handed with the economy and attempt to plan it more and let markets work less (i.e. take a socialist economic policy) then thats up to them. It doesn't change the fact that they were voted in, and so are democratically elected.
I think many people are confusing democracy with capitalism.
Anyway, on topic, I do believe creationism in the science classroom is a human rights issue. Its a form of brainwashing and child abuse, attempting to lie to a child and tell them a falsehood is true to attempt to mould them into what you want them to believe. The creationism vs. evolution argument can be taught in Religious Studies classes, but not in the science class.
Considering the fact that the Socialist Party recently narrowly lost thdemocratic French elections proves that socialism and democracy can coexist.
Morover, in the UK we have something called the NHS - free healthcare, provided for all citizens. This is a result of socialism, yet existing in a democratic country.
All democracy means is that the government is voted in. If this government then choses to be heavy-handed with the economy and attempt to plan it more and let markets work less (i.e. take a socialist economic policy) then thats up to them. It doesn't change the fact that they were voted in, and so are democratically elected.
I think many people are confusing democracy with capitalism.
Anyway, on topic, I do believe creationism in the science classroom is a human rights issue. Its a form of brainwashing and child abuse, attempting to lie to a child and tell them a falsehood is true to attempt to mould them into what you want them to believe. The creationism vs. evolution argument can be taught in Religious Studies classes, but not in the science class.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
