The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic.

Alright, I do agree with you, Cyprusg

 

"I feel that morally, islam and christianity really aren't that different, are they? Come to think of it, religions aren't very different at all. Basically, don't hurt people, don't steal, etc. If it were someone's religion to FORCE everyone else to be of that religion, that would be wrong, but that is absolutely not the case."

By banning an early abortion-where the fetus is a mere blastocyst-are you not violating the rights of a person who would want an abortion and does not believe in the soul? Is that not the same thing as I have outlined?

 

By banning an early abortion-where the fetus is a mere blastocyst-are you not violating the rights of a person who would want an abortion and does not believe in the soul? Is that not the same thing as I have outlined?

The problam is that any argument is valid for supporting a law, at least in a democratic society. To use two different examples:

Ther are both secular and religious reasons to oppose abortion. The question of when life begins is not solely a religious one (after all, the fetus has its own unique DNA, one of the identifying factors of an individual). If most of a population opposes abortion for religious reasons, but the lawmaker opposes it for secular reasons, is it ok for him to vote for it? Or should he vote against it?

Similarly, there are both secular and religious reasons to oppose alcohol. Let's reverse things. Assume that most ofthe population is opposed to alcohol based on secular reasons (i.e. drunk driving, health costs, etc.). Should a muslim lawmaker (whose religion teaches not to drink alcohol) vote for or against the law, by your reasoning?

Ultimately, in a democratic society, an individual's reasons for passing or supporting a law are irrelevant. A Christian who votes for a ban on abortion is no more or less unconstitutional or wrong than an atheist who votes for it. The same applies for those who vote against it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball, outside of faith, what makes a fetus a morally significant entity?

Edit: By my reasoning, the Muslim lawmaker would be justified in proposing a ban if he could make a compelling argument based on one of the premises in your post.

Also, consider reading my post again. I'm arguing against legislating outside the realm of reason. I never make the case that we should merely avoid legislating faith becuase it's the PC thing to do. I argue that we shouldn't because there isn't an objective standard to appeal to. Big difference.

 

Kimball, outside of faith, what makes a fetus a morally significant entity?

Take that to the Abortion thread.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Wait, wait, you're going to completely denigrate my view then, when challenged, tell me I'm off topic? Man . . .

 

Wait, wait, you're going to completely denigrate my view then, when challenged, tell me I'm off topic? Man . . .

My post was on topic (specifically what is or is not an appropriate basis for political beliefs). Yours was not (addressing whether a fetus is a person or not). Yours belongs in another threda.

Now, take it to the Abortion thread, or drop it. You can use abortion as an example in this thread, but you cannot derail this discussion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Okay, guys, let's get back to the thread's topic. We can always debate this issue elsewhere.

What do you guys think of Hilary's newly religious rhetoric?

 

By banning an early abortion-where the fetus is a mere blastocyst-are you not violating the rights of a person who would want an abortion and does not believe in the soul? Is that not the same thing as I have outlined?

Wow, this has really got the ole gears in my head turning. What a complicated issue.

I'll have to think about this one a little longer but a quick answer would be that when you abort a baby you're infringing on it's rights. I think it's absurd that someone could make the case that it's alright to abort a baby at 23 weeks from conception but yet if it was outside the mother and you killed it, it would be murder. So I think in terms of abortion I can make an argument that abortion should be illegal PURELY based on the criteria that our laws have set.

As far as imposing beliefs, we all impose our beliefs, whether religious or not. I'm sure some wacko believes it's alright to beat his woman, and maybe she even thinks it's ok, but by us saying it's not alright we're imposing our beliefs onto them.

So when is it not ok to impose our beliefs?

I'm having trouble articulating what I want to say, so I'll have to think about it longer.

 

We really can't talk about this any longer. It's a legitimate issue for a thread with our subject but I'm getting threatened. In the words of Kimball Not appropriate Does anyone have a Congo avatar, preferably, one of those gray gorillas?

KK EDIT: Contents of private messages may not be reposted without the sender's permission.

 

Alright, well be the first to continue the discussion in the abortion thread. I'm at work and got nothing to do right now...so I'm ready to go.

 

Except what's funny is that you were warned for that very same thing, by me, just yesterday. The actual abortion thread was even upped for you.

K_K isn't doing anything more than reinforcing forum policy...no different than any of us would.

 

K_K isn't doing anything more than reinforcing forum policy...no different than any of us would.

But you're nicer about it...

j/k Kimball..don't ban me.

Ok, off to the abortion thread we go!

 

I don't recall complaining. Jesting? Yes. As I pointed out to Kimball, and am pointing out to you(and I do appreciate the correspondence):1) Last time, the thread had already drifted . . I just made the mistake of jumping into the dialogue. 2)In this instance, we were talking about why policy should/shouldn't be directly affected by one's religious beliefs. Abortion just happened to come up. In fact, it was one of many hypotheticals to come up-it was a context. Nothing more.

 

Eschatos, check out this thread, you'll love it.

http://boards.theforce.net/The_Senate_Floor/b10320/14975442/?1328

 

and that's no problem at all.

The standard has always been that off-topic examples can be used to support a point of discussion. I'm certainly guilty of topic-drifting myself.

However, when the original point is lost in that drift, it's time to realign the discussion. This shouldn't be taken as a slight against any specific user, unless that user continues down that path.

The overall goal is still to provide a condusive forum where people can discuss the issues in a serious manner, but enjoy doing it.

 

Thanks Cy. Your point is taken, 44. I'll be more mindful of drifting. Thanks for taking the time to illuminate my path of errors. Given the nature of the discussion, I still think it's debatable whether what we were talking about was off topic but, hell, that's life . . .

Again, let discuss this, assuming people are left (I have a paper to finish so I'll be absent if you guys take this up . .):What do you guys think of Hilary's newly religious rhetoric?

 

"What do you guys think of Hilary's newly religious rhetoric?"

The question answers itself: it's rhetoric.

 

Yeah, but both Clintons have the uncanny ability to speak to the people.

Let's use the issue of same sex marriage as an example.

Clinton signed the only law that prohibits same sex marriage at the federal level. However, he did it with a smile, and a "whimsical" attitude that kept the majority of opponents on his side. There was barely a wimper of protest, and even today, people don't connect the fact that Clinton was against same sex marriage.

Bush indicates that he is against the practice as well, and a firestorm of perception is produced. The result is the same, but Bush has a much more blunt style, which has been described as the "with us, or against us" mentality.

Hillary has the same ability as her husband. Indpendent of her voting record, she can direct the perception of her acts in the direction she wants. This is a powerful ability to have, especially in politics.

 

I think it also has to do with Bush's religious aspect. Clinton for as much as he liked you to think was very irreligious in his actions. He seemed to strive to keep both sides happy. Which was a great asset to him as he could make compromises. When Bush says something you know he expects you to go his way or you're a black sheep. Back to Bush's religious views, if he mentions god guiding him and all that nice fundamentalist type talk; it really doesn't endear you to your opposition and all it ends up doing is making you think he's trying to create a theocracy. Which for all intents and purposes we have if politicians have to pander to the religious to get votes and win elections.

 

people don't connect the fact that Clinton was against same sex marriage.

They don't?? Who've you been talking to??

Bush indicates that he is against the practice as well, and a firestorm of perception is produced.

The difference between the two was that Clinton's law put it to each individual state to decide what to recognize and what not to recognize, granting states the ability to not recognize specific marriages from other states if they so opt. Whereas, Bush endorsed (unsuccessfully) a US Constitutional Amendment, denying both marriage and civil unions to gay couples nationwide. He later recanted, suggesting he would not seek civil union verbiage, although as written, the amendment can be interpretted to include civil unions in the ban.

 

Clinton signed the only law that prohibits same sex marriage at the federal level. However, he did it with a smile, and a "whimsical" attitude that kept the majority of opponents on his side. There was barely a wimper of protest, and even today, people don't connect the fact that Clinton was against same sex marriage.

I think has more to do with timing, with all of the court cases and the increase in those that agree with gay marriage. Plus with Bush making christian morals a key part of his campaign all of those moral issues have been at the forefront certainly more than I've ever seen them.

Hillary has the same ability as her husband. Indpendent of her voting record, she can direct the perception of her acts in the direction she wants.

What do you mean she can direct the perception of her acts in a direction she wants?

 

I think it also has to do with Bush's religious aspect. Clinton for as much as he liked you to think was very irreligious in his actions. He seemed to strive to keep both sides happy. Which was a great asset to him as he could make compromises. When Bush says something you know he expects you to go his way or you're a black sheep. Back to Bush's religious views, if he mentions god guiding him and all that nice fundamentalist type talk; it really doesn't endear you to your opposition and all it ends up doing is making you think he's trying to create a theocracy. Which for all intents and purposes we have if politicians have to pander to the religious to get votes and win elections.

Translation: it's better to be a two-faced hypocrite than a sincere Christian.


EDIT: That was little snippy of me, so I'll elaborate. I don't see how sincerity about his faith will lead rational people to believe Bush is trying to create a theocracy. (But who ever said Bush's most vocal critics were rational?)

Nor do I think politicians have to feign religiosity to win votes. It would be enough to not be so fervently anti-religion, defending secularism so strongly that religion has no place in the public arena and -- ahem -- asserting that mere sincerity about one's beliefs promotes a theocracy.

 

You're really horrible at translating. Our politicians are two-faced and hypocritical, even Jay-zus Ch--GWB I get those two confused. I wonder why. No. That's not what I was saying, Clinton wasn't that great but he knew how to keep both sides happy as much as possible. And I don't care how sincere of a Christian a politician is, they shouldn't be using their faith to dictate their positions. They should be doing what they feel their state's population would want. This only applies to congress. Now, the President as a representative of the people not just the majority but every American, should be a bit more neutral where religion is concerned. That's my main gripe with our President now, he doesn't do that. And I disagree with every one of his policies. Not that I'm an expert and could offer alternatives, given time and research I probably could, but otherwise no.

Oh and I really loved his use of Liberal during the debates I'm betting connie's really enjoyed that. "Hur...hur...that is what liberals do, duuuurr..." I have no respect for the man.

*ahem* Sorry for the digression.

 

I'll ignore the poor attempts at humor.

And I don't care how sincere of a Christian a politician is, they shouldn't be using their faith to dictate their positions. They should be doing what they feel their state's population would want. This only applies to congress. Now, the President as a representative of the people not just the majority but every American, should be a bit more neutral where religion is concerned.

I think you misunderstand the role of a representative. A representative is not supposed to simply reflect popular opinion but to do what he thinks is best.