Democracy is the worst form of government...

[BPPLEE]

Your premises are undeniable. I haven't argued against them because they are undeniable. What you need to do is give an example of when that right can be removed. You've done that. I don't agree with it. For the reasons I gave when you first suggested it.

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Bradskii]

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

That's one way that the right doesn't exist. As I say, I'm ambivalent about it. What was suggested was a means to remove it from people who already have it. And I'm far from being ambivalent about that.

 

[stevevw]

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

Its got everything to do with democracy. If certain views and voives are denied in the first place then it breaches freedom of speech and religion which are the principles that democracy is based on. The alternative is that we deny certain views and beliefs in favor of others thus creating a dictatorship of beliefs and views.

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.

Yes and no. Non Christians can have similar values to Christians but they can also have contradictory values. That there is common ground on some values shows they are more than just Christian and that they have a long history. It is these values that I think are being undermined and reinterpreted which conflict with Christianity. because they conflict and because the secular State has chosen to allow contradictory beliefs and values that we have the problem today of a declining democracy.

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.

Its got to do with democracy because its the moral basis for society. The State cannot be neutral on this. If they are no longer for Christian values then they are against it. They cannot be neutral.

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?

No as I support freedom of belief and religion. But that is no what is happening. Its actually the State and its agents that are doing the denying. Most Christians have accepted that they have to live in a society where people will hold different beliefs and values and they tolerate that even being accepting and respecting of the person.

But the same cannot be said for the State, its agents and many ideologues. Today Christians are sacked, attacked even physically for simply professing their beliefs. There are many examples. The FBI has been spying on the Catholic church which shows the disdain for their belief. Many have been sacked for their belief, the 'No' supporters on issues like abortion, SSM and Trans have been wrongly made out to be bigots and hatefrul thus encouraging intimidation and violence of Christians.

It seems being a Christian today is a threat yet in an inclusive and tolerant society a different belief should hold equal status. You know "I appreciate your beliefs and view but mine are different". Not simply holding those views should mean being cancelled and excluded from the table of diverse views.

In fact if we look at the bigger picture we see as society has moved away from God and become more secular so has the level of Christian and religious persecution and descrimination has risen. Is that a coincident of is there some truth that secular society has created its own beliefs and now sees Christianity as a threat to be taken out.

This relates to democracy because its about Freedoms which are the core principle of democracy. When certain views, beliefs and voices are denied and others are allowed it creates a divided and distrustful society. It polarizes people along party and identity lines which leads to extreme ideaologies and actions from both sides. That is why we are seeing an increase in radicalisation within Western nations where people are actually getting violent for their beliefs.


The Criminalization of Christianity in Canada
library/articles/on-the-brink-the-criminalization-of-christianity-in-canada/

Christians in secular environments are facing more intolerance and discrimination than any other religion worldwide.
Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies

Attacks on Christians in Europe soar by 70 per cent in a year amid rise in secularist and Islamist ideologies

catholicherald.co.uk

Judiciary Committee Uncovers Multiple FBI Field Offices Coordinated to Prepare Anti-Catholic Memo
Judiciary Committee Uncovers Multiple FBI Field Offices Coordinated to Prepare Anti-Catholic Memo

A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World
Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, government restrictions on religion – laws, policies and actions by state officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices – increased markedly around the world. And social hostilities involving religion – including violence and harassment by private individuals, organizations or groups – also have risen since 2007, the year Pew Research Center began tracking the issue.

A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World

Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, government restrictions on religion - laws, policies and actions by state officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices - increased markedly around the world.

www.pewresearch.org

Its about time people started acknowledging that the Christian belief is under attack in the secular west. This is a breach of the principles of democracy freedom of speech, association, religion and conscience. If these principles are being undermined then we are no longer a Democracy.

 

[Bradskii]

Its about time people started acknowledging that the Christian belief is under attack in the secular west. This is a breach of the principles of democracy freedom of speech, association, religion and conscience. If these principles are being undermined then we are no longer a Democracy.

Steve, for heaven's sake. This is a thread about the process of electing a government. Not about whether people are rejecting religion.

 

[Mountainmike]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

The alternative is?

It is interesting you cite brexit , although what your view on it is not clear.
The right to decide Own laws , and who can come to a country are the foundation of a nation state and democracy - both of which EU destroyed.
Australia retains both.

What screams out most about brexit, is the willingness of the state, courts, civil service , unelected upper house, a remainer majoroty in the commons , and even the speaker of the house to do all they could to sabotage democracy and the decision of a majority.

What is certainly true is EU is a shamocracy not a democracy.
And the ability of voters or even whole countries to steer the EU which was weak at best is progressively non existent.

Most European democracies are not “ first past the post “ but are. “proportional representation” which leads to weak governments that are Completely unable to take radical decisions, so are victim to an EU which does not face meaningful reelection.

Do you prefer the Swiss system where all meaningful change is put to referendum?

 

[Bradskii]

Do you prefer the Swiss system where all meaningful change is put to referendum?

I'm not a fan of referendums. Certainly ones for something as complex and far reaching as Brexit.

 

[Whyayeman]

You seem to know the criminal mind so well. Do you really want to allow someone who thinks this way to vote? I would say most never vote anyway.

As a matter of fact, I have worked with convicts, all of them long sentence men and many of them lifers, so yes I have some knowledge. I think you might be writing from ignorance here. Please do mention your practical experience of what you call (with a straight face?) the 'criminal mind'.

In the UK, none of them vote. I think voting is a duty and I could see how as part of rehabilitation this duty could be introduced into programmes within prison.

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm not a fan of referendums. Certainly ones for something as complex and far reaching as Brexit.

And I’m not a fan of U.K. law being written behind closed doors by unelected commissioners in brussels, with a sham parliament , with no meaningful power, passing them .

My parents geberation fought and died in a war to defend a simple principle:
U.K. law to be decided in London, not imposed from Brussels or Berlin.
The party proposing the preferred program of legislation get elected.

The actual failing was Gordon Brown ( worst pm britain had by a big margin )
, surrendering U.K. sovereignty to EU at Lisbon to make uk law subservient WITHOUT referendum.
The referendum should have been to join , not leave. He refused to conduct a referendum knowing he would lose.
He insulted the memory of all those who died in the war!!
Is that a better way?

The EU left U.K. , it was a trading club that became an uncontrollable superstate.

The people are far better placed to take such decisions than MPs.
All views get represented then, not just the public sector.

 

[Whyayeman]

The alternative is?

It is interesting you cite brexit , although what your view on it is not clear.
The right to decide Own laws , and who can come to a country are the foundation of a nation state and democracy - both of which EU destroyed.
Australia retains both.

What screams out most about brexit, is the willingness of the state, courts, civil service , unelected upper house, a remainer majoroty in the commons , and even the speaker of the house to do all they could to sabotage democracy and the decision of a majority.

What is certainly true is EU is a shamocracy not a democracy.
And the ability of voters or even whole countries to steer the EU which was weak at best is progressively non existent.

Most European democracies are not “ first past the post “ but are. “proportional representation” which leads to weak governments that are Completely unable to take radical decisions, so are victim to an EU which does not face meaningful reelection.

Do you prefer the Swiss system where all meaningful change is put to referendum?

This is not really the place for moaning about the EU. The UK is not part of it, so discussion is pointless.

Proportional Representation has led to such poor government that since WWII it has played a part in bringing devastated countries into the forefront of trade, economic success and a position of great respect in the world. It can't be all bad.

 

[Bradskii]

The referendum should have been to join , not leave.

Then if you're such a fan then I guess that you wouldn't mind one right now.

'On average, as many as 59% now say they would vote to rejoin the EU, while only 41% would back staying out.' Britain has changed hugely since 2016. This is how the Brexit vote would go now | John Curtice

Or maybe not. Be sure to let me know.

 

[BPPLEE]

As a matter of fact, I have worked with convicts, all of them long sentence men and many of them lifers, so yes I have some knowledge. I think you might be writing from ignorance here. Please do mention your practical experience of what you call (with a straight face?) the 'criminal mind'.

In the UK, none of them vote. I think voting is a duty and I could see how as part of rehabilitation this duty could be introduced into programmes within prison.

You proposed to know what a criminal was thinking . I was in law enforcement 16 years and 14 in security so no I’m not ignorant. One of the problems in law enforcement is that there is no way to think like a criminal. You will most likely be surprised by the way they think. They do things that would never occur to me

 

[Bradskii]

I think there's agreement that if a criminal has lost the right to vote then he or she should be given the opportunity to reclaim it.

 

[Whyayeman]

You proposed to know what a criminal was thinking . I was in law enforcement 16 years and 14 in security so no I’m not ignorant. One of the problems in law enforcement is that there is no way to think like a criminal. You will most likely be surprised by the way they think

OK. Then you might agree with me that there is no such thing as the 'criminal mind'. Do you suppose that Jihadist terrorists have much in common with muggers? In my experience they hold one another in contempt.

But this is about democracy. Let us drop this sideshow.

 

[BPPLEE]

OK. Then you might agree with me that there is no such thing as the 'criminal mind'. Do you suppose that Jihadist terrorists have much in common with muggers? In my experience they hold one another in contempt.

But this is about democracy. Let us drop this sideshow.

They do things that would never occur to me. I could get statements because they believed they were tricking me but I couldn’t predict their behavior.
There is no comparison of a Jihadist to a mugger. They are motivated by completely different objectives

 

[Mountainmike]

This is not really the place for moaning about the EU. The UK is not part of it, so discussion is pointless.

Proportional Representation has led to such poor government that since WWII it has played a part in bringing devastated countries into the forefront of trade, economic success and a position of great respect in the world. It can't be all bad.

I didn’t raise the brexit issue - bradskii did.

The thread is about democracy.

The democratic deficit in the EU has caused most of its problems.

The refusal to accept democracy at the heart of the brexit vote is the problem with democracy, as was the refusal of brown to call a vote he was bound to lose.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, for heaven's sake. This is a thread about the process of electing a government. Not about whether people are rejecting religion.

Yes and what I am explaining with how each side has a polarized position which is made up of their beliefs and ideologies is relevant because it highlights how the State cannot be neutral. You cannot show how the system is undemocractic unless you expose how religion (Christianity) or any other belief or ideology is being denied.

Exposing how there is no neutrality by the State and that the State is actually doing the same thing as people accuse religion of doing and therefore affecting the process of electing governments and eroding the principles of Freedom of belief, speech and association thus eroding democracy..

 

[stevevw]

You keep saying 'no evidence' despite the evidence. As I said, just because you you don't agree with something doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist.

If there is no evdience then why have some of these ideas been banned based on lack of evidence. See this is why I bring this up to show that the facts and truth are not so clear and yet the State and its agents claim its fact, truth. But when we dig a little we find that its not the case. At the very least its ambigious and yet the State and its agents claim its 100% fact.

I think at the very least we have to question the claims made by the State and its agents and not assume they are the truth. The point is the State acts like its the truth and then tries to force this on everyone. That seems more like Totalitarianism than democracy. I can give you specific examples if you like.

For example how the State interfers with social media ensuring certain views are deleted while promoting their own ideology. They were spying on the Catholic church. If the States willing to do that then they are willing to do other things to push a false ideology. Look at Climate change and the contradictory and fake evdience pushed by both sides. Give me a break lol.

Again, as I said, ID has realised it needed evidence and so presented it. It exists. They have just interpreted it incorrectly. Sex, gender and race have a galactic amount of evidence coming to all sorts of conclusions. Tough luck if you don't agree with some of It. But you can't say it's not there.

No they don't and thats the contenious issue in the first place, that people keep saying there is evidence but there isn't. Its fake news, say it enough and people begin to believe. That is what politics have been reduced to identity, buying votes, vested interests, lobbying, Rights based politics, cancelling opposing views, repeating mantras, pushing flase truths and name calling. Surely you see this in the way polititians are behaving.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In a moment I will continue this discussion of "secularism" only because you seem to be of the belief that it threatens you religion and (somehow) democracy. But before I respond to your post directly I will try one more time to help you through your apparent difficulty with the concept of "secular". I don't know why, but you seem convinced that anything that is claimed to be neutral w.r.t. religion either is a religion of its own (somehow) or anti-religion (specifically anti- your religion). It is as if you see everything only through the lens of religion and find big religion sized holes in anything or anyone that is said to not have religion or religious beliefs.

I will again try to give you an example so I hope you can come to a better understanding of this.. Math.

When I was 7 and learning multiplication I sat in a classroom where no religion was discussed or mentioned. We were there to learn math and religion was unnecessary to that task and irrelevant to it. You could have observed the class for the whole year and not learned what religion (if any) the teacher or students belonged to or what gods they worshiped. (Given the demographics, I suspect most in the room were Christians and believed, like I did, in a god [or was it three? it's very confusing].) It didn't matter if my teacher was a Christian, or in coven, or an atheist. (She wasn't in a convent, I didn't go to *that* kind of school, thankfully.) Perhaps if I'd gone to that Catholic school attached to our church on the other side of town with the religious images and posters on the walls of the class rooms and a crucifix over the blackboard I might have confused multiplication for a Catholic activity ordained by God (or Jesus or whatever) and had a difficult time getting that notion out of my head. Fortunately, I was spared that.

Learning math was independent of what religion the students were. Teaching it was independent of the teacher's religion. Likewise, using math is independent of religion. Hindus can do math, and so can Christians. Muslims can do math and so can atheists. The list goes on. Math can be used by anyone regardless of religion. It can be used for "good" or "bad". It can be used poorly or well. That is because...

Math is secular.

This doesn't mean that math is a religion of its own. It doesn't mean that math is anti-Christian. Not everything relates to religion. Those things are inherently secular. Some things can be with or without religion. These things include government, music, literature, art, etc. Like with the inherently secular math, secular music isn't inherently anti-religion, it just doesn't contain any religion or serve the purpose of a religion.

We *choose* secular government because it works best for religiously pluralistic societies. That's what my country has been from the beginning -- religiously pluralistic -- so a secular government is the best choice. It keeps the government out the business of people's religions.

If secularism is an alternative to religion then its a religion itself. It cannot be an alternative unless it offers an alternative to religious belief. Secularism cannot remain neutral when it comes to belief because its by nature that we attach beliefs to how we govern be it via communism (denying freedoms) which is about morality or by capitalism (value through private ownership) or even democracy (upholding freedoms).

Here's where you go wrong again, with the "vacuum view" of secularism and assume that any non-religious hole in society is filled with some religion that rushed in, the religion of secularism (or is it communism or capitalism, it's hard to tell.) Neither communism or capitalism is inherently connected to religion or anti-religion. It is completely possible to be a non-religious capitalist and a bible-believing commie. (They are also economic systems, not moral systems or governmental systems.)

Yes it is. If the State rejects Christianity or any belief for that matter from the public square then that is undemocractic. If it then acts antangonistically towards a certain belief then its actively denying it.

This is the "Christian privilege" problem. You're religion got away with things it shouldn't have in a secular society, pushing secular governments around with overwhelming numbers. Not being privileged is not the same as being oppressed. (We'll come back to this in a couple months when it is time for Xmas.)

Thats an unreal view of things. You cannot seperate the job description from the ethical codes of conduct. In fact I would say that just as much importance goes into the ethical aspect such as DEI in all professions than the actual practical knowledge of doing the job. You cannot seperate the two just like you cannot seperate the States beliefs and ideology from governance.

Plus it didn't address the point I made which was that Christianity was being actively denied in secular society and by the State which is anti-democractic. Giving an example of a plumber hardly addresses this point. But if say a cake decorator is denied their belief by being forced to celebrate something his conscious doesn't agree with then that is more relevant.

If a plumber were to try and make out with a client then thats relevant. If a plumber is sacked because they wrote on twitter that they supported traditional marriage then thats relevant.

Plumbers have a code of conduct and that some how is related to religion or anti-religion? Good grief. What are those rules? Don't sexually harass clients. Don't take their stuff. Don't swindle them. Don't invade their privacy? Sounds like regular secular laws. No need for a religion to create them. A plumber can abide by those no matter what their religion or the religion of their clients are. Sounds exactly what a secular activity is. No need for a plumber religion to get the plumbing done.

That seems unreal. In some ways entire economic ideas are protested as immoral. capitalism is protested against by most Leftis and Marxist like its the root of all evils. Realistically I don't think we can seperate these things ethically. Even the Welfare State a bastian of Democrates, Labor aned socialists is steeped in morals. Any government that tries to govern by the cold facts of economics will be condemned by all sides.

This is incoherent and poorly spelled.

It does in the sense that secular means the public square should not promote one belief over another but rather be free of belief and religion. A secular government is religious and belief free. But if they promote a particular belief or deny a religion then they are no longer secular but aligning with a belief.

This is the "Christian privilege" problem. You're not the overwhelming majority, you don't get to push the rest of us around.

You have completely missed the point. Its not fearing being a minority, it is fearing that our long held principles such as free speech, freedom of religion and conscience are being denied.

Those aren't Christian principles. They are secular, (Enlightenment), democratic principles. You're welcome.

Thats not just a fear Christians should worry about but something we all should be concerned about. It seems that what is happening now is undoing these long help truth principles rather than creating some better society.

This is the "Christian privilege" problem. You don't get to make all of the decisions for society. That doesn't mean you are oppressed. This is no excuse to destroy democracy.

 

[Whyayeman]

Exposing how there is no neutrality by the State and that the State is actually doing the same thing as people accuse religion of doing and therefore affecting the process of electing governments and eroding the principles of Freedom of belief, speech and association thus eroding democracy..

Who thought that the state was neutral? We have agreed that government is about exercising power according to a set of values. That's not a neutral position.

If we are unhappy with how we are governed in a democracy we can do something about it. The downside is that the majority gets its way. The minorities have to work to persuade the majority to change their minds. That is usually a hard slog and there is no guarantee of success.

It works! Numerous social changes have been made by majorities over the years.

It works but it could work better. The issue is - how can it be improved?

 

[Whyayeman]

They do things that would never occur to me. I could get statements because they believed they were tricking me but I couldn’t predict their behavior.
There is no comparison of a Jihadist to a mugger. They are motivated by completely different objectives

We are agreed, then. We cannot make predictions about how criminals think because they are not all alike.

Let me put it this way. I have suggested that voting is a civic duty laid on us as citizens. I think we should all engage in the processes of democracy which for most of us is just voting.

Why is it that the law excuses criminals from their civic duty? Nobody has even tried to give an answer beyond a sort of shuddering distaste - 'the very idea!'