What's new
By:
Filters

Question Regarding Politics and Religion

DutchJazzer said:
islam on the other hand has convert or DIE!
Click to expand...

I have had religious conversations with 100s of different types of religious people. I have talked to many Muslim people. Not once has this been the approach that a Muslim person has taken with me. Christians have by far been the most aggressive with me but none of them have threatened violence or death towards me. Just the usual fire and brimstone talk and the whole corrupting my family and friends guilt talk.


Oh wait I forgot [MENTION=848]dalamon[/MENTION] definitely did threaten to kill me if I didnt convert when he was in Utah. But he is the exception. Or was he just nice and talked about his religious views in a peaceful manor explaining why he was Muslim, I cant remember which one. It was definitely one of those two though.
 
DutchJazzer said:
so no left wingers for yhou then?

fasicsm, nazism, communism, socialism all authoritarian and LEFT WING!
Click to expand...

There are authoritarians from all sorts. I think you've missed some lessons in political science if you think fascism and nazism are left-wing. LOL!
 
White Chocolate said:
No worries. I never understood why it was such a big deal anyways. Who cares if he is a Muslim.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I dont care if he is or isnt on principal. But it is pretty easy to find out if he is, there is no reason to speculate.

The reason people did care is that as a non Christian you are less likely to win the US presidency and it was a smear tactic against Obama to get him to lose. His presidential hopes were riding on people knowing the truth about him in this regard. At this point it is far less of an issue but still I would rather people not saying incorrect things about me that are easy to prove. I would not be bugged if people called me whatever religion but I would correct them, if people still insisted on claiming I was something I was not I think it might bug me. For Obama I think he is a fairly devout christian so I would guess he would not like being called another religion and people down playing his real beliefs that I am guessing are important to him.
 
Ron Mexico said:
To me one of the main functions of government is to protect minority groups. The majority and/or groups in power dont need help with their interests.
Click to expand...

Rubashov said:
It's a corner stone of liberal democracies. An essential element of good government
Click to expand...

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).
 
LogGrad98 said:
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).
Click to expand...

That's what constitutions and bills of rights are for. They set up inalienable rights that every individual has and the state defends those rights, those don't depend on the majority and the majority is not allowed to touch those(usually). And from there on majority rules... usually... kind of*... as long as they don't step on those basic human rights. If they do, the state needs to act to defend those rights and seek remedies to the situation.

*the asterisk is there because even though in theory majority rules, there might be influences that overtake the political process in a country(oligarchies or lobbyists pushing and succeeding to enact policies that go against the will of the majority but are in favor of certain influential minority).
 
stitches said:
That's what constitutions and bills of rights are for. They set up inalienable rights that every individual has and the state defends those rights, those don't depend on the majority and the majority is not allowed to touch those(usually). And from there on majority rules... usually... kind of*... as long as they don't step on those basic human rights. If they do, the state needs to act to defend those rights and seek remedies to the situation.

*the asterisk is there because even though in theory majority rules, there might be influences that overtake the political process in a country(oligarchies or lobbyists pushing and succeeding to enact policies that go against the will of the majority but are in favor of certain influential minority).
Click to expand...

The constitution can be amended by a large enough majority.

Also, people hide behind the "will of people" only when it advances their own agendas. Otherwise, in the words of Tocqueville, it is the tyranny of the majority.
 
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.
 
LogGrad98 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
JazzGal said:
I am not religious, and I mostly do not care what someone's religion is when deciding to vote for them. However, I will not vote for someone whose ideas of "religious freedom" differs vastly from my own. Anyone who believes that they can discriminate against another person because of their religious beliefs will not be getting my vote. Religious freedom to me means being able to worship and believe and live in whatever fashion you choose as long as it does not harm others. If a candidate believes that all should live as that individual believes, and wants to make laws consistent with that belief, that's when they have crossed the line.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JustTheTip said:
I figured why not combine two hot topics that get everybody heated, generate some real uproar. But seriously, I'd like this to be a discussion without reading insults, of which I am guilty. Basically, act like Siro and Colton, not like Dutch and Thriller.

A lot of people here are religious, some are not at all. I think this applies to any and all groups, whether a fundamentalist or a loose rules kind of person.

Are we ok with people whom we have theological differences with, having rule and dominion politically over us? As in, as a fundamental Christian, am I ok with having a Muslim as my senator? Or an atheist as my president? And same goes the other way. Would somebody's belief system, and solely their belief system, impair you from voting for them?
Click to expand...

I've never voted for or against someone because of their religion. So, certainly I'm OK having a Muslim/atheist/whatever as my President.

That being said, religion certainly impacts people's views, so depending on their VIEWS I may not be OK with them.

I ask partially because of Bernie essentially saying that a fundamental Christian should not be approved because of his religious beliefs, but more from a principal standpoint on where we should stand on this. At what points are a persons beliefs too extreme for office? I would really prefer to avoid the typical Dem/Con hissy fits that happen here (that I am guilty of), and just talk about the principals. And I don't want to make this about Bernie either. His reaction just made me think about this topic, and I figured it would make for a good discussion.
Click to expand...

"At what points are a persons beliefs too extreme for office?" --> Excellent question but nearly impossible to answer in general terms. I'd probably have to consider people on a case by case basis.
 
fishonjazz said:
I hate trump. Have no idea what religion he is or if he is even religious. (Anyone know?)
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly he claimed to be Christian in the primaries but there's little evidence he ever went to church, read the Bible, etc. Personally I think it's most likely he's not religious at all. Maybe not an atheist, probably just someone for whom religion is not an important question. That's not the reason I didn't vote for him, though.
 
Siro said:
LOL. No. Aside from the innate human capacities for empathy, justice, or what have you, there is nothing that we must inherently agree upon. And that includes what you call personal choice.

In the example of abortion, if someone agrees that murder is wrong, and they view a fetus as a human, then killing the fetus is murder, and thus wrong. There is nothing "unreasonable" about it.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I have had religious conversations with 100s of different types of religious people. I have talked to many Muslim people. Not once has this been the approach that a Muslim person has taken with me. Christians have by far been the most aggressive with me but none of them have threatened violence or death towards me. Just the usual fire and brimstone talk and the whole corrupting my family and friends guilt talk.


Oh wait I forgot @<a href="https://jazzfanz.com/member.php?u=848" target="_blank">dalamon</a> definitely did threaten to kill me if I didnt convert when he was in Utah. But he is the exception. Or was he just nice and talked about his religious views in a peaceful manor explaining why he was Muslim, I cant remember which one. It was definitely one of those two though.
Click to expand...



the budhist in maldives beg to differ,
the people in indiana beg to differ!
judge it on the ammount of damage the religion as a whole has done!

they take over countries! and build mosque at their holy sites and claim it is their holy site??


this is a HISTORICAL FACT! and still is!

the more extremer a Muslim gets the more he talks about taking over the world etc! these are facts. have you not seen how these people talk about how they wanna make every country a caliphate!

the more extremer a jew get the more isolated he gets!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w

BLACK FLAG of islam! over DOWNINGSTREET!(their wahsington)

face it thats what a significant amount of islammist want.

throughout history they all tried and succesfully converted entire COUNTRIES through WAR and demolition


sorry but i dont care about your anectodal facts! while i got whole countries who been demolished and converted!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top