Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2012, 06:40 PM   #31
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Stargazer wrote View Post
It's more the view that they must disclose their (non) faith as a matter of course. It seems to be expected. Where it should be irrelevant.
Not if you're a theist whose concerned the candidate will ruin the country by enforcing their godless, satanic values. It's highly relevant (to you) then.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:21 PM   #32
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
Not if you're a theist whose concerned the candidate will ruin the country by enforcing their godless, satanic values. It's highly relevant (to you) then.
Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office. What happens to the separation of church and state then? This is why it should be irrelevant. On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population? Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:49 PM   #33
Kinich Ahau
Obsessed Member
 
Kinich Ahau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
You better watch out in the UK. If figures drop any further you might face a wave of evangelical missionaries from the US. The good thing about this is the poor Africans might get some relief from the fuckers.

Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
Kinich Ahau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 07:50 PM   #34
ubs
I Live Here
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: So Cal
Posts: 5,193
Quote:
Stargazer wrote View Post
Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office. What happens to the separation of church and state then? This is why it should be irrelevant. On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population? Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.
Victus is down on democracy. A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.
ubs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 08:25 PM   #35
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
ubs wrote View Post
Victus is down on democracy. A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.
Oh, just what we need - another thing to worry about.

Which part of you is worried?

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 02:56 AM   #36
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
Kinich Ahau wrote View Post
You better watch out in the UK. If figures drop any further you might face a wave of evangelical missionaries from the US. The good thing about this is the poor Africans might get some relief from the fuckers.

that would be fun!!

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 08:10 AM   #37
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
ubs wrote View Post
I predict the numbers will do an about face before the end of Obama's administration in response to economic hardship. Shall we take bets?


Honestly I don't know if we have numbers on this. I'm guessing there haven't been any sea changes. It either means Obama has saved us all from the econopocalypse or that it isn't as easy to predict human behaviour as some people think. (Or perhaps some other false -chotomy.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:06 AM   #38
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
Stargazer wrote View Post
Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office.
Practically, yes. Legally, no.

Anyone can hold office, legally. But only people who believe in god will hold office if the democracy works and voters care about that kind of thing.

Quote:
Stargazer wrote
What happens to the separation of church and state then?
There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.

Quote:
Stargazer wrote
This is why it should be irrelevant.
It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.

Quote:
Stargazer wrote
On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population?
They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?

Quote:
Stargazer wrote
Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.
Why does it matter if infringements on liberty stem from religion vs. some other inane form of ignorance or irrationality?

Quote:
ubs wrote View Post
Victus is down on democracy.
I think democracy is probably the least-worst means of solving genuine collective problems. It just happens to 1) be applied more often to non-collective problems to which it is inappropriate and 2) inherently generates bad incentives for voters to make rational choices.

As such, when I see a democracy with irrational policies and a public that strongly support those policies, I don't conclude that democracy has failed, but that it has succeeded in giving voters what they wanted, however terrible and counter-productive that may be.

Quote:
ubs wrote
A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.
I feel I've been pretty forthright on that front.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:12 AM   #39
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
I don't know if Christianity has surged under the dark reign of our black knight(mare?), but gun sales shot up this past Christmas.

Conventional wisdom says they're related. God and guns, that is. But who trusts conventional wisdom?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:44 AM   #40
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
Practically, yes. Legally, no.

Anyone can hold office, legally. But only people who believe in god will hold office if the democracy works and voters care about that kind of thing.

So, if the people want to create a Christian state and enforce the Bible as law, they can. How long before we go down the slippery slope and have a government like Afghanistan's? Yes, it's Islamic, not Christian, but at the bottom of the slope lies fundamentalist totalitarian rule in either of these, or any religion. Our country was created as a place that allows freedom of religion (and, by extension, no religion), which is in the Constitution, and while separation of church and state is not, per se, it was a comment of Thomas Jefferson's which has been generally (but not completely) upheld by the Supreme Court. If we allow a majority religion to impose their beliefs on this country, how then are we allowing religious freedom?

There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.

It (separation of church and state) can be violated without a "legal test."

It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.

True.

They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?

See above.

Why does it matter if infringements on liberty stem from religion vs. some other inane form of ignorance or irrationality?

It doesn't. Infringements on liberty from all sources need to be watched carefully, lest we sign away our rights.

I think democracy is probably the least-worst means of solving genuine collective problems. It just happens to 1) be applied more often to non-collective problems to which it is inappropriate and 2) inherently generates bad incentives for voters to make rational choices.

As such, when I see a democracy with irrational policies and a public that strongly support those policies, I don't conclude that democracy has failed, but that it has succeeded in giving voters what they wanted, however terrible and counter-productive that may be.

A democracy is better run with an educated public. With our educational standards falling in relation to other nations, it is no wonder that fewer of us are capable of critical reasoning and therefore fall prey to those who would think for them. These days, it seems, we are encouraged not to think for ourselves, but to accept at face value what we are told, without independently checking other sources.

I feel I've been pretty forthright on that front.


Let us know when the takeover is scheduled to begin.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 08:05 AM   #41
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.
Depends on the state. Some states have religious requirements for public office, despite the clear constitutional violation.
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.
Sad, but very accurate. This crap won't stop until the majority of people don't give a shit any more what a candidate's religious views are.
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?
We don't have a pure democracy. Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 08:20 AM   #42
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.
Well said.

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:01 AM   #43
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
Depends on the state. Some states have religious requirements for public office, despite the clear constitutional violation.
Indeed, but how many atheists could even win an election to be in a position to challenge said laws in those jurisdictions? Basically none.

Quote:
nkb wrote
Sad, but very accurate. This crap won't stop until the majority of people don't give a shit any more what a candidate's religious views are.
Yar.

Quote:
nkb wrote
We don't have a pure democracy. Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.
Well, some rights are. But to the extent that you think that's a good think, it's an argument against democracy.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:07 AM   #44
Stargazer
Obsessed Member
 
Stargazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,727
Do you mean to say a democracy does not protect the rights of the individual?

I thought you said you didn't care what any of us thought? So, you do care? I do wish you would make up your mind already. - NKB
Stargazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 03:18 PM   #45
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Over here in the UK we appear to be doing quite well in the war against ignorant christians

“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational