Why are 'refugees' just called 'migrants' now?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 npn  Crowborough 03 Feb 16 9.45am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I agree with this, but to an extent people have the option not to be religious. I know that's harder if you grew up with religion, but it happens. The problem for me, where religion is concerned, is that it affects the choices of those who aren't religious by utilising its social influence to direct policy via democratic process based on religious ideology. Take abortion in Ireland - where in irrespective of religion a religious agenda was forced onto people who were not Catholic. I don't have a problem with Religion or other peoples beliefs in general, provided they allow for others to exercise their beliefs, choices and lifestyles. Obviously there is a limit where consensus agreement occurs (child sex offenders for example, are almost universally unable to establish a rational and sustainable argument as to their lifestyle). But that's just what happens in a democracy, surely? Let's leap to the ludicrous assumption that Corbyn wins a general election (I know it's daft, but stay with me) then socialist rules will be dictated to non-socialists because that's what the majority want. Religion, in this instance, has nothing much to do with it - the people could vote for representatives who would legalise abortion, but choose not to - that's freedom of choice in action.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Feb 16 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
If you'd stopped at "to encourage rejection of belief" I'd be with you. Otherwise, who decides what's divisive? Surely all religions - as opposed to sets of guiding principles like Buddhism - are divisive by definition? I am right behind you on your last paragraph, even though you're obviously a crazed right wing fascist and I'm a commie subversive ;-) All monotheistic faiths are divisive by the nature of their core tenant that there is but one truth - That religions. For the most part religious violence and strife involves one or more monotheistic faith (and often two) - although cultural factors can't be ignored, you don't tend to see religious conflict between eastern philosophies such a Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Hinduism. The simple fact is that Christian, Muslim and Judaism, despite being very closely related faiths, are divisive along the idea of righteousness being a justification for violent acts, cruelty and murder.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 03 Feb 16 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I agree with this, but to an extent people have the option not to be religious. I know that's harder if you grew up with religion, but it happens. The problem for me, where religion is concerned, is that it affects the choices of those who aren't religious by utilising its social influence to direct policy via democratic process based on religious ideology. Take abortion in Ireland - where in irrespective of religion a religious agenda was forced onto people who were not Catholic. I don't have a problem with Religion or other peoples beliefs in general, provided they allow for others to exercise their beliefs, choices and lifestyles. Obviously there is a limit where consensus agreement occurs ()child sex offenders for example, are almost universally unable to establish a rational and sustainable argument as to their lifestyle. Hardly surprising. The cynic in me says that if there were enough of them, politicians would find a way to accommodate their "tastes" and encourage their vote. The liberals might even find a way to make them the victims. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (03 Feb 2016 11.49am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Feb 16 9.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
But that's just what happens in a democracy, surely? Let's leap to the ludicrous assumption that Corbyn wins a general election (I know it's daft, but stay with me) then socialist rules will be dictated to non-socialists because that's what the majority want. Religion, in this instance, has nothing much to do with it - the people could vote for representatives who would legalise abortion, but choose not to - that's freedom of choice in action. In terms of economics and national politics - that's a bit different, and the consensus of society is that of a democratic mandate that exists for a rational reason. Politically, it is a necessary evil. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it should then immediately follow that the state enforces that each person must then be a socalist, belong to the party and otherwise be excluded, punished or criminalised for doing so. There is a big difference between a labour government, conservative government and communism and fascism. The freedom of individuals can be preserved. What I'm talking about is the restriction of choice to individuals, without necessity or viable reason.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Feb 16 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Hardly surprising. The cynic in me says that if there were enough of them, politicians would find a way to accommodate their "tastes" and encourage their vote. The liberals might even find a way to make them the victims. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (03 Feb 2016 11.49am) Thing is though that Liberals have been down this road with PIE etc and long since turned away from that. Plus in terms of consent, there is a reasonable consensus among society to place that at 16 - without any real prejudice. I can't really see the age of consent being lowered - especially with the provision the CPS makes for those around the age of consent (ie where two kids are under sixteen, or one is 15 and the other is 1
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
.| npn Crowborough 04 Feb 16 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
In terms of economics and national politics - that's a bit different, and the consensus of society is that of a democratic mandate that exists for a rational reason. Politically, it is a necessary evil. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it should then immediately follow that the state enforces that each person must then be a socalist, belong to the party and otherwise be excluded, punished or criminalised for doing so. There is a big difference between a labour government, conservative government and communism and fascism. The freedom of individuals can be preserved. What I'm talking about is the restriction of choice to individuals, without necessity or viable reason. But I'd argue that it's a stretch to say issues like abortion are "freedom" issues. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean the state should necessarily let you. Personally, I'm pro-abortion, but if the great Irish public believe it should remain illegal, then it should, until such time as they decide it shouldn't, in my opinion
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Feb 16 10.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
But I'd argue that it's a stretch to say issues like abortion are "freedom" issues. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean the state should necessarily let you. Personally, I'm pro-abortion, but if the great Irish public believe it should remain illegal, then it should, until such time as they decide it shouldn't, in my opinion It should depend not on the desire, but on the argument presented. The problem with the Irish scenario regarding abortion is that it was irrational and based in implementing a moral code onto people when a reasonable compromise could be presented. There wasn't a consensus and there was plenty of scope for a compromise (as exists in the UK). Democracy has to protect minority groups 'choice and lifestyles' from the moral majority. We've seen this time and again through the previous century where the majority has implemented its will to oppress others essentially on the basis of gender, race, lifestyle choices, religion and sexual orientation. And in every case its turned out to be wrong and unjust - eventually. But we still seem to keep doing it... In the abortion example firstly the law didn't prevent abortions. They continued, and women were travelling out of the country to have abortions, or turning to other sources for abortion, or led to large families that are a drain on the state and increased poverty, especially among the working classes. The problem is that such issues are a personal choice, not one that the state needs to be involved with (Infact arguably the state benefits from legalised abortion - as it reduces costs in benefits, education, child care etc...).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Feb 16 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
But I'd argue that it's a stretch to say issues like abortion are "freedom" issues. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean the state should necessarily let you. Personally, I'm pro-abortion, but if the great Irish public believe it should remain illegal, then it should, until such time as they decide it shouldn't, in my opinion Its individual freedom because the choice is made by an individual, and a lot of individuals. Even when it wasn't legal, women were getting abortions. I fail to see what business it would be of the Catholic church if a non-Catholic has an abortion.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Feb 16 10.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
But that's just what happens in a democracy, surely? Let's leap to the ludicrous assumption that Corbyn wins a general election (I know it's daft, but stay with me) then socialist rules will be dictated to non-socialists because that's what the majority want. Religion, in this instance, has nothing much to do with it - the people could vote for representatives who would legalise abortion, but choose not to - that's freedom of choice in action. In some ways religion and the state are similar - Both present the idea that they have the 'truth' and can dictate to others how to live, notably right from wrong. Whilst religion can oppress, it requires the influence over state to do so. Religion alone cannot outlaw gay marriage, for want of an example, except in its own premesis, it requires its followers to influence the democratic process to do that (and does). But here in lies the problem, morality isn't a real thing, there is no single truth, and the imposition of what the truth on others, is oppression (a tyranny of the majority). For society to be truly democratic, the freedom of the individuals right to make their own choices in regards to lifestyle, beliefs etc has to the priority, otherwise we end up going down the same continual dead ends of preventing peoples individual and civil rights on false concepts. For an individuals personal choice to be restricted must at least require a reasonable, sound and pragmatic argument that it protects others from the real harm (such as theft, sexual abuse).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.