Democracy is the worst form of government...

[stevevw]

Yes, society's values change over time. And these changes are reflected in the law. This, I think, is a good thing. These changes to the law do not impinge on the beliefs or the customs of those who disagree with such changes. Abortion and same sex marriage are available, not compulsory.

But if people object they are condemned and rideculed for holding those beliefs. That is not tolerant of different views but antagonistic to all views except the one supported by the State and its agents. Changes are not a good thing if they undermine society.

Society has not rejected God. That is absurd. Christian churches and traditions are everywhere. It is true that many people - an ever-increasing number - have rejected religion. I think this is a natural consequence of broader education. Christians' intolerance has no doubt encouraged the trend. Abortion and same sex marriage are cases in point. Only a vociferous minority (mostly evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics) oppose what the majority have accepted.

Of course secular society has rejected God. I am talking about in the public square. That is what secular means. It use to be that around 90% of people were Christian an these issues were based on Christian values. Now that belief has deminished so have Christian values. There are churches but they are pushed to the fringes and I would not be surprised if some will be pushed to the point that they become underground. Already they are targeted by State officals so its not a case of inclusiveness in the same way secular ideologies enjoy protections.

Perhaps certain Christian groups are dismayed that their hold over society has weakened through the development of secular ideas and tolerance of non-Christian ethics.

No its just a case of an antagonism from the State who claims inclusiveness on the one hand but denies certain beliefs on the other.

 

[stevevw]

There's a difference between a position that has no facts to back it up and a position with which you disagree.

Incidentally, your mention of creationism kinda proves the point. It can't be taught because it's purely a religious belief. So those that wanted to push it realised that in a secular society they needed evidence and not belief. Hence ID. They understood what was needed. Only trouble was that the evidence has to be persuasive. And theirs is risibly inept.

Yes thats my point. If Creationism is band in schools because it lacks evdience which is fair enough then so should other ideological beliefs that have no evdience like some of the ideas that have been enforced in education. Like I said do you honestly think that what the government allows to be taught is based on science or an ideological belief.

I can list several ideas that the State has pushed onto society that have little evdience yet were taught as fact if you want. So the State is pushing its own form of belief just the same as Creationists. We know this because the State has been busted spreading lies on many occassions.

 

[Whyayeman]

But if people object they are condemned and rideculed for holding those beliefs. That is not tolerant of different views but antagonistic to all views except the one supported by the State and its agents. Changes are not a good thing if they undermine society.

Nothing to do with democracy. It is just a gripe.

Of course secular society has rejected God. I am talking about in the public square. That is what secular means. It use to be that around 90% of people were Christian an these issues were based on Christian values. Now that belief has deminished so have Christian values. There are churches but they are pushed to the fringes and I would not be surprised if some will be pushed to the point that they become underground. Already they are targeted by State officals so its not a case of inclusiveness in the same way secular ideologies enjoy protections.

No its just a case of an antagonism from the State who claims inclusiveness on the one hand but denies certain beliefs on the other.

There is nothing very surprising about the rejection of specifically Christian values but I have said before that there is very little difference between the values held by Christians and non-Christians. It is not really surprising since much of what we consider to be morally right or wrong stems from the same sources, usually thought of as Greek. Again, this has nothing to do with democracy.

I can think of no beliefs that are denied by the USA or my own country. I know that you are opposed to some aspects of modern society such as the freedom to be married to somebody of the same sex - but it is not compulsory. Would you deny other people a right to do something just because it is not a right you personally wish to exercise?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought the same has happened in the US. Are they allowed to teach creationism or that sex before marriage is not good or that a mother and father is the best setup for kids.

Creationism is religion, not science. It is illegal to teach (but it happens as enforcement is often lax). The other things are not religion. Not sure what they teach. They have done the "abstinence" thing in sex ed. It generally doesn't work.

I wasn't talking about traditional religious belief. I was asking if there were any other beliefs or ideas that the State allows to be taught in schools besides religious beliefs. Or is the State and public education completely neutral on all these issues.

No matter how hard you try you, these other "beliefs" you rail on are not religion. Most of them aren't even ideologies. None of this is relevant to theocracy, or democracy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes thats my point. If Creationism is band in schools because it lacks evdience which is fair enough then so should other ideological beliefs that have no evdience like some of the ideas that have been enforced in education. Like I said do you honestly think that what the government allows to be taught is based on science or an ideological belief.

Creationism is banned because it is not science and has no place in a science classroom. It is also not history and has no place in a history classroom. It is religious doctrine, pure and simple. If your church wants to teach children creationism, go for it, but in your own churches or church schools.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sigh... How many times do we have to go over this.

Of course secular society has rejected God.

This is just wrong. Secular is the alternative to religious in institutions, etc. It is not about "rejecting God" or any such things. Some things are inherently secular. Take for example plumbing. Is plumbing based on religion? No. Therefore it is a secular profession and economic activity. Plumbing businesses are inherently secular. It's not about whether a specific plumber is religious or not, it is still secular.

Most economic activities are inherently secular, with the exceptions being the businesses that [specifically cater to religious views like Christian book stores. (Edited to finish sentence. Ooops.)]

I am talking about in the public square. That is what secular means.

No it doesn't. See above.

It use to be that around 90% of people were Christian an these issues were based on Christian values. Now that belief has deminished so have Christian values. There are churches but they are pushed to the fringes and I would not be surprised if some will be pushed to the point that they become underground. Already they are targeted by State officals so its not a case of inclusiveness in the same way secular ideologies enjoy protections.

What is it you fear about being in the minority? Does the society that was built when your religion was in the majority not protect religious minorities adequately.

 

[Pommer]

If its not rocket science and so obvious then why do some government positions on these issues have little to evdience and even evidence that they do harm. How is it that the State can ban Christian ideas and not others that are more or less the same thing in that they push an ideological position rather than anything factual yet still are the basis for State enforced policy and laws.

One can have a law against murder. That’s fine.
One cannot have a law that states “murder is hereby made illegal” because of Exodus 20:13 says it’s verboten.

 

[Bradskii]

Which is it, the former broad OP or the revised narrow one?

We're talking about the process. Does it need improving or changing.

 

[Bradskii]

I can list several ideas that the State has pushed onto society that have little evdience yet were taught as fact if you want.

Was it no evidence or little evidence? You seem to have changed your argument. You need to pick one. Let me know which.

And while you're deciding that, just be aware that not all evidence is valid. Not all facts are correct. We're able to make a decision on this because the evidence and the facts are presented. That is the critical point you seem not to understand. Rather than say 'it is written' we are given the reasons for a decision so we can decide if it's the correct one.

I thought it best to explain that because I have a feeling you're thinking about using examples where evidence is given with which you disagree. Please don't waste our time doing that.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes thats my point. If Creationism is band in schools because it lacks evdience...

Just a point here. Creationism is a religious belief. That is why it is banned. ID wants to be taught and says it's not a religious belief and it has evidence. Therefore they can make a case for it.

Unfortunately for them their case fails because the evidence is inept. But that's why we need the evidence (as opposed to 'it is written'); so we can make that decision.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can not think of *ANY* ethical argument to restrict voting for *ANY* adult citizen.

How about they're illiterate?

How about they're in a coma?

How about they're in jail?

What??!!? Deficits don't take away anyone's vote. Get a grip.

For voter suppression? No thanks.

We're so rapidly reaching a point where the voting public is too dumb to be voting. Perhaps an AI can sort out the dimwitted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just a point here. Creationism is a religious belief. That is why it is banned.

Gender theory is a belief. There's no evidence of gender.

Race essentialism is a belief. There's no evidence of race or the evidence of it's importance.

 

[Whyayeman]

How about they're illiterate?

Yes, of course How would a state set about putting a stop to it? Would there be exams every election? Or once branded as unlettered, it is for life?

How about they're in a coma?

It would be rather silly to bar an unconscious person from voting, wouldn't it? I mean, they would have to wake up to vote, wouldn't they?

How about they're in jail?

Yes, of course. Many countries allow prisoners to vote. Again, easy to allow, tricky to disbar. What about prisoners on remand (innocent until etc) and prisoners serving their sentences on parole?

 

[o_mlly]

I can not think of *ANY* ethical argument to restrict voting for *ANY* adult citizen.

Your legal argument didn't pass muster. So, let's see your ethical argument that all adult citizens have a right to vote.

 

[o_mlly]

ID wants to be taught and says it's not a religious belief and it has evidence. Therefore they can make a case for it.

Unfortunately for them their case fails because the evidence is inept.

We have a different forum for that topic. Please follow the OP's instruction and stay on topic.

 

[Whyayeman]

let's see your ethical argument that all adult citizens have a right to vote.

It is hard to take this as a serious request from someone from the country that over centuries has shed its blood for the principle of - how does it go - 'Government by the people for the people'?

Frankly I don't much care about ethical arguments on this topic. For me universal suffrage is a given. If somebody wants to attack it, let him.

From what I have read so far I am guessing that arguments will try to suggest that voting is a privilege and should be restricted to some elite - which will inevitably include themselves and exclude people who are 'inferior' to them.

 

[Bradskii]

We have a different forum for that topic. Please follow the OP's instruction and stay on topic.

I'll do my best not to further encourage Steve regarding these wayward topics.

 

[Bradskii]

For me universal suffrage is a given.

Someone said that we hold some truths to be self evident. I guess that's probably one of them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your legal argument didn't pass muster. So, let's see your ethical argument that all adult citizens have a right to vote.

Because we all face the consequences of the actions of government and the decisions they make about taxation, defense policy, international relations, urban planning, environmental regulations, civil law, etc., etc., etc.

What's your counter argument? "Those without property have less to lose from the actions of government, so only the propertied should be allowed to vote." (That was basically the argument 250 years ago about restricting voting to the propertied.)

 

[o_mlly]

Someone said that we hold some truths to be self evident. I guess that's probably one of them.

Someone said that we hold some truths to be self-evident?

Are you referring to: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

Is this is what you are referring then I didn't see universal suffrage on that list.

For those rights that are listed, do you agree as to who endowed men with those unalienable rights? If not then where did such rights come from?

Looks like we still need an ethical argument for universal suffrage. (And from non-believers, an ethical argument that any human rights exist at all.)