This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is the rhetoric of some right wing commentators dangerous?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
(Although I believe that in the future they may be a good idea.)A completely religious government?
Nah, I'll really,
really
disagree with you on this one, if just for the sole fact that it would be hell on earth (pardon the pun) for people like me.
We'll convert you before then =P
Or the Pentecostals will get to ya.
Post by
Skreeran
Heh, no offense, but I find it much more likely that more people will begin to ababon old superstitions in favor of falsifyable science than for people to convert to any one particular religion.
But yeah, I get that it's merely a jest.
Biggest problem with Theocracy: Whose religion do we use, and who do we kick out/oppress?
Because a worldwide religion is not happening anytime soon (and I hope that it never does).
Post by
Monday
Biggest problem with Theocracy: Whose religion do we use, and who do we kick out/oppress?
Another religious answer here... but nobody.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
11th Article of Faith. Basically, we believe our way of worship is best, but we are going to try and get you to worship our way, but if you refuse we won't discriminate/prejudice/look down upon you in any way.
(You is a general term with me, not referring to you specifically.)
Because a worldwide religion is not happening anytime soon (and I hope that it never does).
Well, there are three main types of religions world wide: Islam, Christian and Buddhist, which are all worldwide.
I think you meant one religion over the entire world though.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
11th Article of Faith. Basically, we believe our way of worship is best, but we are going to try and get you to worship our way, but if you refuse we won't discriminate/prejudice/look down upon you in any way.
(You is a general term with me, not referring to you specifically.)But even in our mostly secular government now, Athiests have practically no chance of getting elected, to the point where calling someone an athiest is actually mudslinging in some states. I know this personally.
Second, what about people who don't fit into your religion? For homosexuals in your proposed government, you are essentially saying "Get straight or deal with it."
Thirdly, who is in charge? If your church says "Higher taxes to help pay for the church," my taxes go up whether I believe it or not.
And I get no say in it. With such a clear majority, your government could do whatever it likes to the minorities, and all we can do is hope you don't burn us too badly.
Finally, I'm not trying to criticize your beliefs. I'm criticizing faith driven politics in general (theocracies in particular). I mean, heck, I'm you're a male muslim living in Saudi Arabia, you probably don't have it so bad. If you're an athiest, not so much.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
11th Article of Faith. Basically, we believe our way of worship is best, but we are going to try and get you to worship our way, but if you refuse we won't discriminate/prejudice/look down upon you in any way.
(You is a general term with me, not referring to you specifically.)But even in our mostly secular government now, Athiests have practically no chance of getting elected, to the point where calling someone an athiest is actually mudslinging in some states. I know this personally.
Second, what about people who don't fit into your religion? For homosexuals in your proposed government, you are essentially saying "Get straight or deal with it."
Thirdly, who is in charge? If your church says "Higher taxes to help pay for the church," my taxes go up whether I believe it or not.
And I get no say in it. With such a clear majority, your government could do whatever it likes to the minorities, and all we can do is hope you don't burn us too badly.
Finally, I'm not trying to criticize your beliefs. I'm criticizing faith driven politics in general (theocracies in particular). I mean, heck, I'm you're a male muslim living in Saudi Arabia, you probably don't have it so bad. If you're an athiest, not so much.
Last part though.
How when or WHAT they may. Yeah we'll still try and convert you and whatnot
However, you worship nothing (as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong), which is covered. And the taxes are covered by tithing (10% of your income) which wouldn't be put to non-believers as they aren't part of the church.
Edit: I get what you mean though, I was just clearing a couple things up and answering the questions (which looking back they seem rhetorical)
Post by
Skreeran
I'm just saying, theocracy is a pretty unfair model for government. Unless 100 percent of your country is of the same faith, in which case I would wonder where you sent everyone else.
Large church can grow pretty corrupt if all they answer to is "God," especially when they can claim to have a direct line to him. I mean, can you imagine what the United States would be like if the Pope had the final say in everything?
Post by
Monday
I'm just saying, theocracy is a pretty unfair model for government. Unless 100 percent of your country is of the same faith, in which case I would wonder where you sent everyone else.
Large church can grow pretty corrupt if all they answer to is "God," especially when they can claim to have a direct line to him. I mean, can you imagine what the United States would be like if the Pope had the final say in everything?
It would be bad.
I get what you are saying, religious governments aren't the best now (and I agree).
However, I jsut have to say this (yet another religious answer... but hey it fits the subject =P)
10th article of faith:
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, I do not believe that. So I guess we'll find out who is right within our lifetimes. If Christ comes back, I'll eat my hat and explain my reasoning to him personally. If he doesn't before we die, well, then we'll know (for a few seconds before we die, anyway) that he probably isn't coming during our lifetimes, eh?
Post by
Monday
Well, I do not believe that. So I guess we'll find out who is right within our lifetimes. If Christ comes back, I'll eat my hat and explain my reasoning to him personally. If he doesn't before we die, well, then we'll know (for a few seconds before we die, anyway) that he probably isn't coming during our lifetimes, eh?
Indeed. And I believe we've finished up this debate... as I see nothing else to debate about.
(Not trying to snobbishly end the debate, just stating a fact.)
Post by
kattib
Funden you forgot Hinduism, the worlds 3rd largest religion (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
)
Also, our founding fathers (yknow the ones that started this country) did not want this country to be a theocracy or ever be a nation founded in religion (
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
)
On the note of athiesm as a religion, it is not, it never will be. It is the absence of religion, saying athiesm is a religion is like me saying being a non-jew is a religion. Being athiest does not mean you subscribe to different beliefs except for a single nonbelief in god, from there all similarities end.
Theocracy hasnt worked through history (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Antiquity
'Iran, ancient egypt, the vatican (currently in loads of debt and different issues)')
On the topic of religion in government (not theocracy) sure fine go ahead its freedom of speech but you do not have the right to impede the rights of another person (those inalienable ones; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) go ahead and try to convert people on public property (until they ask you to stop, afterward its harrasment)
On topic on topic: I believe it could be harmful in that people become radicalized in their beliefs and are not willing to realize that some of their ideas are bad and the other side is good.
I propose someone split this topic into different parts, continuing the original topic idea and another on the idea of religion in government
PS: I felt like citing my post arguments it was fun lol :P
Post by
Neffy
I don't think many people take them seriously.
And if they do, I don't think they'll act on it.
The media sucks. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are all guilty of some sort of partisan bias, if just because of who pays the bills. They're biased at best and narrowcasting at worst.
Conservatives call Liberals Communists, Liberals call Conservatives Terrorists... Fact is, we all need an "us" to get behind and a "them" to hate. In World War 2 "us," the Allies, hated "them" the Axis powers, and our media reflected that (just look at comics/cartoons from the war. Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, and Captain America outsmarting those whacky nazis). In the Cold War it was "us," the capitalists, versus "them," those dirty commies. Now, with no one outside our own country to hate, we've gone back to hating eachother.
I'm just a high school student, so I may be wrong, but it seems like it's just natural human behavior to group up with individuals like ourselves, and to hate any groups that aren't like ourselves. The definition of similarity can be broad (Capitalists versus Communists) or narrow (Whites versus Blacks), but us vs. them seems to be one of the foundations fo human behavior.
But I digress. No, I don't think it's dangerous.
Much wisdom, I sense in you.
You wisdom, sense I much in.
Post by
Monday
(Dropped in for one more)
Funden you forgot Hinduism
Hinduism is an ethnic religion, not a universalizing one.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
(Dropped in for one more)
Funden you forgot Hinduism
Hinduism is an ethnic religion, not a universalizing one.Why don't you go tell that to Adams... :P
And I would disagree as well. Just because Hinduism is centralized in Asia hardly means that it isn't one of the big religions.
Post by
Adamsm
(Dropped in for one more)
Funden you forgot Hinduism
Hinduism is an ethnic religion, not a universalizing one.
Oh really?
Post by
Orranis
This thread is now about anime. Which anime is your favorite? Mine is Rozen Maiden.
desu~I like Monster.
Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, Naruto.
On topic, I do think there should be some rule about a disclaimer on misinformation. I do not think Fox has the right to advertise themselves as an unbiased media organization. (Which they do)
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
To be fair MSNBC bills itself the same way, and they've turned hard left the past couple of years. I like listening to all sides, making up my mind by what makes most sense at the time.
While I agree it's biased, I am hard pressed to find any writing explicitly stating that it's totally objective. Fox News, on the other hand, has it in it's logo.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.