Results 31 to 40 of 44
-
10-09-2012, 01:50 PM #31
That's an unfair assertion....
I don't think I ever said that one should make policy based on science, I keep saying that I believe one should policy solely based on what's in the constitution not the bible or any other book and I guess that would include a science book.
The reason I bring up science is because science is part of the physical world, the things we can see and test, religion is not part of the physical world, it's based on our feelings and beliefs. You can believe in god all you want but you can't make policy based on the assertion that he exists, that's simply nonsense. I can't go into congress and say I want to make a law that prohibits men from wearing shorts because my god told me he doesn't like that......can we at least agree that that is NOT the way to make policy?
If you wanted to ban shorts you would need REAL evidence that proves that there is a GOOD reason why they need to be banned, NOT because your god told you so....
I guess I didn't word it correctly the first time I said it.....and maybe even now my intentions are not going to be fully understood.
I don't want a dictatorship because as the saying goes "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", regardless of who's in charge, even if it was an atheist.Last edited by JustAlex; 10-09-2012 at 01:54 PM.
-
-
10-09-2012, 01:53 PM #32
alex, at the end of the day, all you're doing is telling people how they should vote. You're trying to undermine the very idea and point of democracy. It's wrong and you're wrong. That's all there is to it.
-
10-09-2012, 01:58 PM #33
I want to go further in trying to explain myself....
When policy makers argue for banning homosexual marriage for instance they do so in a way that is PURELY religious and it's NOT based on real world rules.
Do you remember that thread that I made where I asked if there were ANY good reasons outside of religion why homosexual could not be married?
Do you remembered that NO ONE could bring any good reasons to the table?
This is what I mean when I say that doing policy based on religion is not good.....they are not giving any real world evidence why the things they don't like should be disallowed.
-
-
10-09-2012, 02:10 PM #34
polygamy, taxes, and work benefits were mentioned
i am not for abortion but it has nothing to do with religion
-
10-09-2012, 02:15 PM #35
I guess I'll leave it at that.
Both of our arguments were made, they are here to stay and the great thing will be that various people will come in here and read our back and forth discussion and take them for consideration.
To say the very least, I don't disagree with everything you said, I think we both have a fundamental disagreement on how policy should be done and that's that.
-
-
10-09-2012, 02:18 PM #36
Do you remember I was one of your biggest supporters in that thread?
The fact of the matter is, they can make any laws they want. If congress says it's illegal to turn your head to the left, then it's illegal. The onus is now on anyone who gets arrested under said law to fight it in court, get it in front of SCOTUS and let them do their job in deciding if the law is constitutional. You're complaining about one thing and ignoring the fact that the system is set up so that anything unconstitutional can get thrown out.
Is it a perfect system? Not even close
Does it work? For the most part
Is a flawefd system excuse enough to start telling people how to vote? No
In my perfect democracy, politicians would represent the people who elected them. If those people want a law against elephant fornication, s/he should represent that, no matter how stupid. THAT is a true democracy. Rule by the people through representation. No one has that now. It's rule by the party through the people.
The fact of the matter is, if enough people want a law against homosexual marriage, then there should be a law against homosexual marriage. Democracy is majority rule. SCOTUS is a check'n'balance and, honestly, can't think for themselves since they're bound by the constitution and the constitution only. Politicians swear an oath to abide by the constitution, but quite obviously don't have to. If they did, SCOTUS would be unnecessary.
In the end, my only real gripe is one person trying to tell everyone else how to vote.
-
10-09-2012, 02:19 PM #37
I'm not saying anyone should take religion into consideration. I'm saying everyone should take everything into consideration and, for many, that includes religion.
-
-
10-09-2012, 02:25 PM #38
Welcome to the thread gorrillawaits, uh I mean Shrew. To follow up on your comment if you don't want gay people to be married for tax and work benefits can I assume that you are consistent with your argument and refuse tax and work benefits that you are entitled to as a married person?Drug and smoke free trading.
Hidden Content
Hidden Content cardscomicsmoviesandgames
Hidden Content darkdemon202404
-
10-10-2012, 01:21 PM #39
Evolution and big bang came out of the loins of the Roman Catholic Church. A lot of atheists accept these Roman Catholic Teachings as an excuse to reject Jesus. So they become children of the Pope.
-
10-10-2012, 01:43 PM #40
What in the hell are you talking about? Do you have any proof of this or are you just making things up as you go?
-
Originally Posted by Wickabee 
