Question Regarding Politics and Religion

[Rubashov]

That is a false dichotomy. It is like saying "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others". By definition a democratic republic will end up with mostly representatives that reflect the majority view, unless you legislate that minority views are somehow worth more than the majority view to make things "equal". I agree that minorities need to have representation that can help protect their interests, but not at the expense of anyone else's interests. But therein lies the rub, especially with groups with conflicting interests (religious/atheist for example).

The aim of good government should be to ensure that minorities whatever they may be do not suffer disadvantage due to membership of that minority group. Its not about promoting their interests but more protecting them from being disadvantaged by the majority. Most states have something along the lines of a Human Rights Commission, and a body of law that penalises discrimination. For the most part these cases are hard to prove and organisation like the HRC are toothless tigers.

 

[Siro]

That's great from a strictly rhetorical point of view, divorced from real value judgements that people have to make every day. I don't live in my university's western philosophy class we can bang on about how can we be certain of anything and so on. Quantifying and pouring over language for hours but I find it as boring now as I did then. The reality is that people are harrowingly similar, that most organised societies in general have similar rules and customs, as do most large organised religions. Whether use choose to accept the value judgements of others is irrelevant, you live in a society of laws and your actions will be judged by the value judgements of others.

If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not only do human cultures have very different values, but the same culture will have very different values over an individual's life time. What liberals consider natural rights today would seem completely alien to the vast majority of people 50 years ago.

There is nothing inevitable about the current package of progressive ideology. In the future, people who call themselves progressives will look back on us with as much disdain as progressives do to those who came before. And they will do it with just as much fervor and conviction.

 

[fishonjazz]

Agreed. And it doesn't matter who is in power-- some special interests will always be over-represented, and their opponents will see the inequity in it, and make a lot of noise about the injustice of it all. Our democratic republic has elected a government, for example, that seems rather committed to protecting the interests of "minority groups" such as big oil or pharma, conservative religious groups, the wealthiest 1%, etc. I can promise you those "minorities" have no problem with that. But have no fear: Some day, when the green, homeopathic, pansexual, socialists have established lobbies with greater influence in DC, those other people will probably be really unhappy, and sweet will be the karmic retribution of that age.

Great post

 

[♪alt13]

That's great from a strictly rhetorical point of view, divorced from real value judgements that people have to make every day. I don't live in my university's western philosophy class we can bang on about how can we be certain of anything and so on. Quantifying and pouring over language for hours but I find it as boring now as I did then. The reality is that people are harrowingly similar, that most organised societies in general have similar rules and customs, as do most large organised religions. Whether use choose to accept the value judgements of others is irrelevant, you live in a society of laws and your actions will be judged by the value judgements of others.

Western style liberalism is if anything an oddity. It is ignorant to proclaim that our liberal values are representative of humanity.

Perhaps you should have paid better attention to those who tried to educate you on Western philosophy. Your values come directly from that tradition.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Religion doesn't matter to me, whatsoever. However, extremists in ANY religion would make me hesitant to support.

For example, if we had a president that sent us to war, and then said he did so because he felt God wanted him to improve the world by doing so, I would want that person out of power as soon as possible.

 

[Ron Mexico]

That is a false dichotomy. It is like saying "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others". By definition a democratic republic will end up with mostly representatives that reflect the majority view, unless you legislate that minority views are somehow worth more than the majority view to make things "equal". I agree that minorities need to have representation that can help protect their interests, but not at the expense of anyone else's interests. But therein lies the rub, especially with groups with conflicting interests (religious/atheist for example).

I dont think anyone is claiming minority groups should have their interests protected at the expense of others. I also have not seen or heard the claim that "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others"

 

[Ron Mexico]

I found out that nothing triggers me worse than liberal secularists making religious proclamations about the exclusivity of their Truth. Specially when accompanied by the oh-so-typical bewilderment at heathen unbelievers.

I have not seen anyone claim this but maybe I missed it. Where is that at in this thread?

 

[babe]

I have not seen anyone claim this but maybe I missed it. Where is that at in this thread?

read a few of my philosophical rants.... Siro has generalized the phenomena of collective human convictions operating as a self-evident social construct of reality, without the benefit of any objective evidence or measureable parameters.... The stuff we will die for because we are "good" in some contemporary set of accepted norms.

"religions" are generally seen as requiring some assertions about "God", something no one has seen or heard from, except upon hearsay. The same psychological realities operate in the human mind whenever we know nothing about the subject, but believe with all our hearts that we are right somehow.

I'm a bit more complicated than Siro, because I fear the things we humans will do when we do have evidence or proof of our beliefs even more......

 

[Stoked]

killing for the state and terminating a pregnancy are two very different things.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have made the connection.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I dont think anyone is claiming minority groups should have their interests protected at the expense of others. I also have not seen or heard the claim that "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others"

but that is what the elft sems to be about oppression olympics, identity politics and minorities.

like they seriously asked a judge if he would choose the side of the little man if it is a case vs the little man and a big company.

that does not matter. if the little guy is wrong why chose the little guy.

a judge should not look at the power of one guy. but at if someone did something wrong according to the law

 

[Siro]

I have not seen anyone claim this but maybe I missed it. Where is that at in this thread?

Where Rubashov claimed his opinions are just the common norms of all societies (facepalm), and those who have different views are just crazy.

That's how religious fundamentalists see the world. Many of the liberals I know seem to be religious fundamentalists.

 

[Siro]

I'm sorry but I can't believe there is someone out there who thinks the pro-choice position is some eternal and universal norm. As opposed to a very recent Western norm.

It is incredible.

I really miss NAOS. We only have a couple of good thinkers left.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm sorry but I can't believe there is someone out there who thinks the pro-choice position is some eternal and universal norm. As opposed to a very recent Western norm.

It is incredible.

I really miss NAOS. We only have a couple of good thinkers left.

lol forget pro choice.

what about life and liberty! those are also not universal norms


recently they become more and more prevalent

 

[Ron Mexico]

Where Rubashov claimed his opinions are just the common norms of all societies (facepalm), and those who have different views are just crazy.

That's how religious fundamentalists see the world. Many of the liberals I know seem to be religious fundamentalists.

I assumed he was being facetious with that comment. Maybe ill reread. Probably not, there are a lot of takes I dislike in this thread that I have no energy to discuss. It is mildly interesting to hear the differences in what people expect/want out of their leadership and what role it plays though.

 

[JazzGal]

So for example, if there's a person running for office that believes their way is the only way to God/Allah/Spaghetti Monster, should that disqualify them from office? And for this example, we'll say there's no prior evidence of true discrimination.

I might have to think about a Pastafarian. Still, as long as he/she didn't expect me to worship any noodly beings and pass laws that strainers are required headgear, I might be able to work around it.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[green]

To me this is more interesting from the standpoint of our representative government. Does an atheist politician represent his constituency if most of them are religious? Can a muslim politician represent a largely Christian populace? Or can one religious sect, that derides another (say southern baptist vs mormons, or something) represent that faction within their constituency?

Also, asking anyone to leave some core facet of their personality out of their decision-making is like asking a white guy to not be white, but only in these certain circumstances. A core belief will ALWAYS influence someone in their decisions, even if only subconsciously, be it religious or whatever.

Absolutely then can represent, because the ideals that the voters valued enough to vote for him transcend religion.

Religion is stupid. It puts up barriers between us. It gives people justification to be *** holes to each other in the name of righteousness and god.

Like I said earlier, if someone valued their rep's religion over policy...those are the real "terrorists". Whether mormon, muslim, atheist, etc.

 

[green]

I'm sorry but I can't believe there is someone out there who thinks the pro-choice position is some eternal and universal norm. As opposed to a very recent Western norm.

It is incredible.

I really miss NAOS. We only have a couple of good thinkers left.

The ironic thing is, isn't the Mormon Church pro-choice? Don't they believe that abortion is ok in certain circumstances?

Yes, yes they do. So, if God believes that abortion is ok in the case of incest, rape and the health of the mother, how do you legislate that?

The answer is, you can't.

So, in order to allow abortion to be legal in God approved ways, wouldn't you need to have abortion be legal?

The anti-abortion stance by mormons goes agains their doctrine.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm sorry but I can't believe there is someone out there who thinks the pro-choice position is some eternal and universal norm. As opposed to a very recent Western norm.

It is incredible.

I really miss NAOS. We only have a couple of good thinkers left.

Liberals have worked so hard to defend pro-choice(I generally buy their arguments and agree with them) that they have become pro-abortion(I don't agree with that, abortion is not a day at the beach).

If I had to provide my position on abortion in a sound bite I would say that "I am pro-choice but anti-abortion".

Women don't walk out of an abortion clinic feeling good about themselves certain that they made the right decision. It is an incredibly difficult thing. I would implore anyone on either side of the issue to just listen to any woman who has had the procedure done without judgement. I can honestly say that I have and that it can be both the right decision and something to be avoided.

 

[DutchJazzer]

The ironic thing is, isn't the Mormon Church pro-choice? Don't they believe that abortion is ok in certain circumstances?

Yes, yes they do. So, if God believes that abortion is ok in the case of incest, rape and the health of the mother, how do you legislate that?

The answer is, you can't.

So, in order to allow abortion to be legal in God approved ways, wouldn't you need to have abortion be legal?

The anti-abortion stance by mormons goes agains their doctrine.

don't know about the mormon church but judaism is ok with taking a live to save a live!

so taking the babies live is ok to save the mothers live.
or if a rape was so traumatic it depresses a woman to a point of suicide, she may abort. but they will try and talk her into carrying it full term and put the baby up for adoption. after all the baby did nothing wrong!


so i assume same is to be said of Mormons and christians

 

[DutchJazzer]

Women don't walk out of an abortion clinic feeling good about themselves certain that they made the right decision.

well lena dunham wishes she had an abortion so theirs that!

but yeah she is an outlier. but she is what we call an influencer