You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
MH0825 wrote: No... there should just be no religion controlling governmental decisions. Who cares what the christians, muslims and any other religions wants. As long as their right to practice the religion isn't harmed.
No laws should be based on beliefs of a religion. I can't buy liquor in my town on Sunday because it's a christian town. You can't buy beer until 1PM on Sundays because you should be in church until then. Ridiculous laws based on beliefs of a religion. That is why religion should not play a part.Purely Political: Wouldn't religious laws represent the agenda of a group of people? Laws that were inducted because of religion were passed through people, citizens, representatives, voters.
Religion will, in fact, always be part of politics. People who are religious will have political agendas, and they have every right to pursue their interpretation of policy as every other group in the United States has.
If your town is dominant Christian, shouldn't the ordinances and policy of that town respect the majority? Just because you are there does not mean that they will change for a minority. Everything in democratics is based on majority-minority, and where ever Religious beliefs are a MAJORITY, the POLICY in that area WILL affect said area. It is the way it works.
Over 3.4 Billion people alone believe in the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. That is over 50% of the world's population. If you want to shut up all 3.4 billion just because they pursue policy that integrates with their way of life, then I just don't get your point.
But because I don't believe in their religion I am subjective to their laws that are purely religious backing and no reasoning except because we should be in church so we have to wait to get alcohol until after that? That is a ludicrous law and is because of religion and religion only that is in effect.
Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.
I concur 100%
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.Yes, however I believe the discussion was about religion in politics. Since this is a website called "The American Voters" I am assuming in American politics. American politics, at the federal level, is a representative democracy, and it is generally democracy at the local level. Democracy is, and has always been majority > minority. If religious groups represent the majority, then I just answered our question: Religion does have a place in American policy.
I never knew that we were talking good or bad here, I thought we were talking about how religion does or does not fit into current government infrastructure. Whether the system works is an entirely different thread.
MH0825 wrote: LOL... American is not a democracy regardless of what you were taught in middle or high school. America is a republic.Representative Democracy ~ Republic. America is a constitutional republic, however a representative democracy and a republic function the same way. The people elect representatives (head of state) to make the decisions.
If you would have actually read my post you would have seen that I wrote a Representative Democracy, not a pure pseudo-Greek Democracy.
And to boot, I have seen local communities act in almost the exact same fasion as a pure democracy would function. The only difference is that in a direct democracy, voting constitutes everything, in those communities, laws do. Either way, the people are voting, and therefore my point is still valid.
But the majority aren't voting. The minority of Americans who are eligible to vote actually vote. Just because out of those who vote the majority believe a certain way, does that mean it's actually the majority's views?
MH0825 wrote: But the majority aren't voting. The minority of Americans who are eligible to vote actually vote. Just because out of those who vote the majority believe a certain way, does that mean it's actually the majority's views?If you do not get up and vote for support of your own perspective, then you do not really deserve the right to bitch about it later. (Sorry about the language, used for emphasis) The majority, as it is right now, deserves the domination of policy it gets if the people who oppose said policy do not express themselves and step up to the plate.
Haha, and I love how you keep stimulating more conversasion with more questions, it's very smart to bring more activity.
I fully agree with if you don't vote you don't deserve to bitch but I do vote. I can't help that the others don't vote. But if I vote, can I not bitch for those that feel the same way I do that don't vote? I have no control over others and neither should anyone. But that's exactly what I hope to gain on this site, bringing more people to vote for what they believe in.
The questions thing is something I've always done in debate class and as a salesman. The more questions you ask, the more you're able to get to the bottom of something and find the real true reason someone feels someway or eventually you'll have the person debunk their own argument.
MH0825 wroteThe questions thing is something I've always done in debate class and as a salesman. The more questions you ask, the more you're able to get to the bottom of something and find the real true reason someone feels someway or eventually you'll have the person debunk their own argument.Haha, good strategy. You won't find myself debunking my own argument though.
Cole wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.Yes, however I believe the discussion was about religion in politics. Since this is a website called "The American Voters" I am assuming in American politics. American politics, at the federal level, is a representative democracy, and it is generally democracy at the local level. Democracy is, and has always been majority > minority. If religious groups represent the majority, then I just answered our question: Religion does have a place in American policy.
I never knew that we were talking good or bad here, I thought we were talking about how religion does or does not fit into current government infrastructure. Whether the system works is an entirely different thread.
I think all you've answered is why religion has a place in American policy. And I already knew why. I thought this thread was about what people thought of religion in politics.
I'm not american, so forgive any inaccuracies here. The majority of Americans are baseball fans, should Government policy be dictated by baseball? Have sanctions against Britain because it doesn't believe in baseball. No one can work on a Saturday, because the game is on. Sounds a bit silly doesn't it. But religion does interfere with Government policy, and for no sound reason as far as I'm concerned.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Cole wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.Yes, however I believe the discussion was about religion in politics. Since this is a website called "The American Voters" I am assuming in American politics. American politics, at the federal level, is a representative democracy, and it is generally democracy at the local level. Democracy is, and has always been majority > minority. If religious groups represent the majority, then I just answered our question: Religion does have a place in American policy.
I never knew that we were talking good or bad here, I thought we were talking about how religion does or does not fit into current government infrastructure. Whether the system works is an entirely different thread.
I'm not american, so forgive any inaccuracies here. The majority of Americans are baseball fans, should Government policy be dictated by baseball? Have sanctions against Britain because it doesn't believe in baseball. No one can work on a Saturday, because the game is on. Sounds a bit silly doesn't it. But religion does interfere with Government policy, and for no sound reason as far as I'm concerned.You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend. Religion influences people from their sense of morality to the way they live their lives. Religious groups are groups of those people, and they represent the interests of those people. For many people, religion is the core influence of the way they live their lives, and that is where religion is different than baseball. Because religion is that core influence, people tend to pursue policy that supports their main beliefs. That is where religion takes hold in politics.
I'm sorry, it is very difficult to put into words the idea I am supporting. Eventually it will click.
MH0825 wrote: No... there should just be no religion controlling governmental decisions. Who cares what the christians, muslims and any other religions wants. As long as their right to practice the religion isn't harmed.
No laws should be based on beliefs of a religion. I can't buy liquor in my town on Sunday because it's a christian town. You can't buy beer until 1PM on Sundays because you should be in church until then. Ridiculous laws based on beliefs of a religion. That is why religion should not play a part.
It's not a matter of religion controling government decisions. That's such a vague definition - makes me unsure of what you're speaking of, to be honest. I would agree that laws such as the ones you mentioned shouldn't be in place.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Lpspider wrote:
That's foolish and makes little sense. Who's logic? Who's to determine who's logic is most logical? WHY shouldn't the people's desire be the decisions made? THAT would be the most logical.If the majority wanted to invade France, because they talk funny, would it be logical to do so? If the majority believe in something that has no tangible effect on reality, would it be logical to make life altering decisions on the strength of it?
In a democracy the voters decide who's logic to follow.
It would be logical for the majority... but see, this is a purely hypothetical situation that (I hope) would never happen.
Does the majority create the definition of logic?
If you consider the amount of voter apathy, many idiots are fortunately not voting. Probably because real idiots don't get far enough in the democratic process, or simply because the majority of idiots don't really care enough to vote nevermind run for election.
What idiots will do is excercise civil disobedience, so the politicians will continue to try and play it safe.
If the idiots aren't voting why would we need a government that won't follow what the people want if what the people want (the ones who voted) isn't affected by the "idiots" who don't vote?
Cole wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Cole wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Obviously Government will, and indeed does represent the agenda of this large voting community. But I don't think it should.
This discussion isn't about what does or will happen, it's just people giving their opinion. If your only argument for including religious belief in deciding Government policy is "it's very popular" that just doesn't cut it with me. Popularity is no real indication of what's good or bad.Yes, however I believe the discussion was about religion in politics. Since this is a website called "The American Voters" I am assuming in American politics. American politics, at the federal level, is a representative democracy, and it is generally democracy at the local level. Democracy is, and has always been majority > minority. If religious groups represent the majority, then I just answered our question: Religion does have a place in American policy.
I never knew that we were talking good or bad here, I thought we were talking about how religion does or does not fit into current government infrastructure. Whether the system works is an entirely different thread.
I'm not american, so forgive any inaccuracies here. The majority of Americans are baseball fans, should Government policy be dictated by baseball? Have sanctions against Britain because it doesn't believe in baseball. No one can work on a Saturday, because the game is on. Sounds a bit silly doesn't it. But religion does interfere with Government policy, and for no sound reason as far as I'm concerned.You are comparing apples to oranges, my friend. Religion influences people from their sense of morality to the way they live their lives. Religious groups are groups of those people, and they represent the interests of those people. For many people, religion is the core influence of the way they live their lives, and that is where religion is different than baseball. Because religion is that core influence, people tend to pursue policy that supports their main beliefs. That is where religion takes hold in politics.
I'm sorry, it is very difficult to put into words the idea I am supporting. Eventually it will click. Religion is as meaningless as baseball to many, that is my point. If the majority suddenly decided baseball is as important as religion and wanted to change Government policy accordingly wouldn't you think it ridiculous?
Lpspider wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Lpspider wrote:
That's foolish and makes little sense. Who's logic? Who's to determine who's logic is most logical? WHY shouldn't the people's desire be the decisions made? THAT would be the most logical.If the majority wanted to invade France, because they talk funny, would it be logical to do so? If the majority believe in something that has no tangible effect on reality, would it be logical to make life altering decisions on the strength of it?
In a democracy the voters decide who's logic to follow.
It would be logical for the majority... but see, this is a purely hypothetical situation that (I hope) would never happen.
Does the majority create the definition of logic? No. If you consider the amount of voter apathy, many idiots are fortunately not voting. Probably because real idiots don't get far enough in the democratic process, or simply because the majority of idiots don't really care enough to vote nevermind run for election.
What idiots will do is excercise civil disobedience, so the politicians will continue to try and play it safe.
If the idiots aren't voting why would we need a government that won't follow what the people want if what the people want (the ones who voted) isn't affected by the "idiots" who don't vote? I did say, the idiots do have an effect. Just not through the ballot box. On top of the voter Government have to keep the plebs happy, or they riot.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Lpspider wrote: Mr Morningstarr wrote: Lpspider wrote:
That's foolish and makes little sense. Who's logic? Who's to determine who's logic is most logical? WHY shouldn't the people's desire be the decisions made? THAT would be the most logical.If the majority wanted to invade France, because they talk funny, would it be logical to do so? If the majority believe in something that has no tangible effect on reality, would it be logical to make life altering decisions on the strength of it?
In a democracy the voters decide who's logic to follow.
It would be logical for the majority... but see, this is a purely hypothetical situation that (I hope) would never happen.
Does the majority create the definition of logic? No.
Then what, in your opinion, would make something "logical"?
If you consider the amount of voter apathy, many idiots are fortunately not voting. Probably because real idiots don't get far enough in the democratic process, or simply because the majority of idiots don't really care enough to vote nevermind run for election.
What idiots will do is excercise civil disobedience, so the politicians will continue to try and play it safe.
If the idiots aren't voting why would we need a government that won't follow what the people want if what the people want (the ones who voted) isn't affected by the "idiots" who don't vote? I did say, the idiots do have an effect. Just not through the ballot box. On top of the voter Government have to keep the plebs happy, or they riot.
But wouldn't you have riots to a more extreme degree if the government totally ignored what it's people wanted?
Lpspider wrote:
Then what, in your opinion, would make something "logical"?
Logic requires reasoning, not just popularity. If going to war with France was detrimental to the country the Government should logically do what's best for the country, not just give in to popular opinion. That is what a Government does, they don't hold referendums for every decision.
But wouldn't you have riots to a more extreme degree if the government totally ignored what it's people wanted? Yes, that is what I'm saying. I don't believe religion has a huge part in decision making in Government, but many decisions are made because of religion and the requirement to keep the masses reasonably content.
