Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Project Blitz

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,732
    Rep Power
    18
    A Christian politician who;
    - bans marriage celebrants from doing SSM
    - bans doctors from performing abortions
    - legalizes the teaching of intelligent design in schools
    ...isn't aiding Christianity. They are enacting the will of their constituents.

    That's no different to the democratically elected atheist politian who represented their constituency by doing the opposite.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,316
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A Christian politician who;
    - bans marriage celebrants from doing SSM
    - bans doctors from performing abortions
    - legalizes the teaching of intelligent design in schools
    ...isn't aiding Christianity. They are enacting the will of their constituents.

    That's no different to the democratically elected atheist politian who represented their constituency by doing the opposite.
    Actually, there's a vast difference. One of them is trying to force others to follow their religious beliefs.
    The other is allowing anyone to follow their own personal beliefs. Allowing people to NOT follow your religious beliefs does not, in any way, force YOU to not follow your beliefs. If you can't see the difference, seek help.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,968
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,414
    Rep Power
    66
    Yes, why is it that christians never seem to follow the teachings of their beliefs unless coerced by the state?

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,732
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A Christian politician who;
    - bans marriage celebrants from doing SSM
    - bans doctors from performing abortions
    - legalizes the teaching of intelligent design in schools
    ...isn't aiding Christianity. They are enacting the will of their constituents.

    That's no different to the democratically elected atheist politian who represented their constituency by doing the opposite.
    Actually, there's a vast difference. One of them is trying to force others to follow their religious beliefs.
    The other is allowing anyone to follow their own personal beliefs. Allowing people to NOT follow your religious beliefs does not, in any way, force YOU to not follow your beliefs. If you can't see the difference, seek help.
    No goverment allows anyone to follow their personal beliefs.
    Especially not democratically elected governments.
    People (constituents) seem to like having a say when it comes to shaping the sort of society in which they live.

    That means if those constituents collectively agree that public indecency is harmful, they can and will impose their democratic authority on those who think there's nothing wrong with 'letting it all hang out'.

    It makes no difference how or why voters came to think public nudity is wicked. If they hold that view for religious reasons, so what? Secular does not mean that We The People have to justify why we are opposed to or in favor of something. Secular does not mean The People can't have laws which just so happen to coincide with religion.

    If you really do believe in secularism, you would accept that (democratic) law making should not be hampered by considerations as to whether the will of the people does or does not derive from religion. The separation of Church and State means that the secular State has no right to interrogate constituents about their religious motives for wanting to ban any given anti-social behaviour. Ironically, its atheists who make secularism a device for interrogation and thought policing.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,316
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    A Christian politician who;
    - bans marriage celebrants from doing SSM
    - bans doctors from performing abortions
    - legalizes the teaching of intelligent design in schools
    ...isn't aiding Christianity. They are enacting the will of their constituents.

    That's no different to the democratically elected atheist politian who represented their constituency by doing the opposite.
    Actually, there's a vast difference. One of them is trying to force others to follow their religious beliefs.
    The other is allowing anyone to follow their own personal beliefs. Allowing people to NOT follow your religious beliefs does not, in any way, force YOU to not follow your beliefs. If you can't see the difference, seek help.
    No goverment allows anyone to follow their personal beliefs.
    Especially not democratically elected governments.
    People (constituents) seem to like having a say when it comes to shaping the sort of society in which they live.

    That means if those constituents collectively agree that public indecency is harmful, they can and will impose their democratic authority on those who think there's nothing wrong with 'letting it all hang out'.

    It makes no difference how or why voters came to think public nudity is wicked. If they hold that view for religious reasons, so what? Secular does not mean that We The People have to justify why we are opposed to or in favor of something. Secular does not mean The People can't have laws which just so happen to coincide with religion.

    If you really do believe in secularism, you would accept that (democratic) law making should not be hampered by considerations as to whether the will of the people does or does not derive from religion. The separation of Church and State means that the secular State has no right to interrogate constituents about their religious motives for wanting to ban any given anti-social behaviour. Ironically, its atheists who make secularism a device for interrogation and thought policing.
    Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Similar Threads

  1. Python programming project
    By excreationist in forum Computers and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-11-2019, 05:37 AM
  2. Project Irony caught again
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-04-2017, 02:58 AM
  3. Arduino project
    By DrZoidberg in forum Religions vs. Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-20-2017, 04:54 AM
  4. Google's Project Soli
    By Underseer in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2015, 10:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •