Lanmandragon
Well-known member
I doubt it but ok. What makes those 10 people's lives important? Your "simple math" argument presupposes value to human life. Where does the value of human life come from?
Philosophy Religion, science, and the problem of moral edicts made by the scientifically ignorant.
- Thread starter Bacle
- Start date
- Status
I'm not going to play that game or go down that rabbit hole.
Last edited:
Yes, and some of us have families that would never forgive us for saving their lives at the cost of the lives of multiple other people.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Your Mother was a very virtuous woman, I am sorry the world lost her. It's unfortunate this came up here, I don't wish to continue anymore out of respect for that.
Really now? My comment wasn't exclusively directed at you as I was just using an example, but it seems to me that you're on that same boat. And don't try to dance around it by claiming you'd somehow brainwash 300 million people into just looking down on it so it doesn't technically have to be banned.
Not to the extent you seem to be implying. It was far more influenced by the Magna Carta and the enlightenment movement, which should be noted was all about questioning religious orthodoxy and putting forward such ideas as the separation of church and state (could swear that ended up in the Constitution somewhere...). I should also note that Jefferson rather famously wrote his own version of the Bible that eliminated all references to the divine.
Yeah, you're just being asinine with that kind of an argument. The Constitution actually goes out of its way to leave out religious references, and you'd have to go to the Declaration of Independence to really find those. But even there, it's mainly arguing in favor of universality of human rights through arguing all humans are endowed with these rights as we are all equal in the eyes of the lord, or something along those lines. Nothing in either document is suggesting that we ought to adopt religious principles as law, let alone the continued arguments that porn or other forms of speech/expression be either banned by law, or effectively so by attempting the same kind of end-run around individual rights that the leftists are employing to basically destroy the lives of people who say things they don't like.
You are literally saying that you would base law on a religious belief - that is what would make you theocrats. This goes beyond mere "influence" to being literally based on religious doctrine/dogma. This is the aspect you just can't seem to understand and is frankly the most frustrating part of having any kind of discussion on this topic with you and some of the others here. It's like arguing with the leftist that racism is indeed racism, regardless of where it comes from or where it is directed at, yet all they are capable of is repeating "power plus prejudice."
Literally anything that tickles the pleasure centers of the brain in any way can be addictive. Just because something can be addictive (or frankly even if it is), it does not follow that this is automatically bad an must be banned. You're going to have a pretty tough sell to anyone who is liberty-minded to ban something for peoples' "own good."
Does it then follow that if a Hindu is elected into office that it would then be okay for them to ban eating cattle? Or should they be constrained by the establishment clause? Would you be more in favor of secularism being the basis of rule of law in this country, or would you be cool with being under rule of law that follows Hindu religious dictates?
You know, I always find it a bit disturbing when someone makes an argument like this. The implication is that you can't understand the value of human life without your religion, and that your belief in it is effectively the only thing holding you back from being a barbarian.
The civil rights act was passed with numerous people arguing that all people have an equal soul. Should that be repealed? Is that a theocratic law?
How About No to either of those.
If you are talking about in the United States, Hinduism is very much a minority there. Also, it's not an elected monarchy, being "elected into office" doesn't grant the power to rule by decree.
But at least with a Hindu we'd have some idea of what his or her beliefs and values actually were. What is "secularism"? What values does it run on?
In practice, the answer to that seems to be "whatever makes the people in charge rich the fastest".
It's not even about apples and oranges now - you're just grasping at straws.So you'd agree that someone being in office doesn't have the right to pass laws that would harm the liberties of others, and that a separation of religion from state would be an effective protection against that?
Definition of SECULARISM
indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Nah, when its laws you like it doesn't matter they were religious, when its laws you dont its theocracy. That's why you jump to hindus banning meat.
MementoMori
Well-known member
Why the hell is this thread devolving into philosophical navel gazing?
Oh and an example actually relevant to the thread. People that are possessed or could speak in tongues (angel speak to those not in the religion). These cases are most likely either schizophrenia or perhaps stroke. I have also been to religious congregation where people just up and start babling manicly in "tongues".
Knowing what I know now it's probably hysteria and the atmosphere making people with "faith" act in this way, but any other opinion?
Oh and an example actually relevant to the thread. People that are possessed or could speak in tongues (angel speak to those not in the religion). These cases are most likely either schizophrenia or perhaps stroke. I have also been to religious congregation where people just up and start babling manicly in "tongues".
Knowing what I know now it's probably hysteria and the atmosphere making people with "faith" act in this way, but any other opinion?
No, as I've said time and time again - if you are enforcing your religious beliefs/dogma on others, that is theocracy. It's pretty rich seeing someone making the argument that things you don't like should be banned turn around and try to make this kind of argument. It reminds me so much of the stereotypical WBC-type argue that since they cannot oppress others, this represents a form of oppression against them. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.
So those who passed the 14th amendment and cited an equal immortal soul as why, that was theocratic?
What this tells me is that you don't know as much as you seem to think about it.
D
Deleted member
Guest
@Captain X if I was in my ideal country, it would be a Monarchy which enforced religious law. Shakta Hinduism would be a valid basis for that law. But I am not, I am in the United States, and we have our constitution for good reason. We must also be sensitive to the reality of the majority population being Christian. The most I would ever try for is clear labeling of contamination on religious grounds—Beef for Hindus and Pork for Jews and Muslims—at restaurants and other places where the existing kashrut and halal type labeling systems aren’t effective.
Because its clear you only call it theocratic when its a ban on something you like. If its something you agree with it isn't.
- Status