Apparent Disconnect In Debate On Role Of Government

[Socrates]

Disapproval or "judgment" of a form of behavior does not equal hate for persons.

You clearly disapprove of "superstition" and religious belief and tradition, and judge them wrong, yet that doesn't necessarily mean you hate all Catholics.

If you were truly non-judgmental, religious belief would not bother you, nor would you waste time railing against it.

[stevil]

I think people should legally be able to believe in what ever god or non god that they will into existence.
People should legally be able to choose to not eat pork or beef according to their religion if that is what they want to do.
People can give their money away to a begger on the street, to a relative, to a charity or to a church if that is what they choose to do.

But I disagree with people imposing restrictions on others when there is no victim, no harm to society, especially when the acts that are opposed is none of other people's business.

I am not against religion. But I am against any society or group or organisation that looks to put bigotry and oppression into law.
A group that is against gay marriage in my opinion is a group that is against love, and a group that is best to look at themselves and following a righteous life themselves rather than to worry and point at others into living a righteous lifestyle.

On the topic of health care and schooling I believe that governments ought to provide these for society. This isn't to say that private organisations aren't allowed to provide this service as well.
But of course a society needs to look after its sick. Schooling is a great equaliser between the wealthy and the poor. With an education a poor person can easily pull themselves out of poverty. In fairness a society needs to provide a decent level of schooling for free for all its members, this goes a long way towards equal opportunity.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316556775' post='2307765']
And I'd have no problem in theory with the law only recognizing marriages witnessed by the Catholic Church, but in American society that's really not a feasible option.
[/quote]
This would in essence be swapping one governing body with another. So no different really, other than that one organisation is inclusive to all people in society and the other is exclusive to all but those of one particular brand of one particular religion.

in someways i am not opposed to having marrieage outside of the realm of government, but of course this means it will be completely unregulated, so anyone and every one could then get a type of marriage to whomever and what ever they like. Without government recognition it would be meaningless with regards to inheritance, family support, guardianship of minors, partner support, child support, authority to visit or make medical decisions for loved ones etc.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316545357' post='2307706']
Oh, most definately.

But most people these days that have cast aside the superstitions and traditions of religion and whom have replaced this with thought and reasoning and compassion and love, these people seem to me to be less likely to judge others, especially on things where there is no percieved victims.
[/quote]
Yes ... that's why we have such a lovely safe society.. NOT. People murdering other people because they were asked to drive slowly, children having a 1 in 4 chance of sexual molestation or sexual behavior in our public schools, the elderly increasingly victims of home invasions and scams, the general lack of civility , decency and manners and the sanctioned murder of millions of babies. Really as a society we are doing so well....

[kamiller42]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' timestamp='1316032720' post='2304704']
Fair enough. But why, then, do we want and expect government to get involved in other very personal areas of our lives, e.g. restricting aborting, disallowing same-sex marriage?
[/quote]
Federal government has an interest in abortion because the federal government has a duty to protect innocent life. It did it during the Civil War, now it's the unborn's turn.

The composition of marriage is important to the federal government because marriage involves contracts crossing state lines (Marriage is a legal contract.) and because it relies on an understanding of what a family unit is for regulatory reasons, like processing taxes.

[stevil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1316630697' post='2308174']
Yes ... that's why we have such a lovely safe society.. NOT. People murdering other people because they were asked to drive slowly, children having a 1 in 4 chance of sexual molestation or sexual behavior in our public schools, the elderly increasingly victims of home invasions and scams, the general lack of civility , decency and manners and the sanctioned murder of millions of babies. Really as a society we are doing so well....
[/quote]
Are you saying that it is the atheists fault?

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316588117' post='2307963']
But I am against any society or group or organisation that looks to put bigotry and oppression into law.
A group that is against gay marriage in my opinion is a group that is against love, and a group that is best to look at themselves and following a righteous life themselves rather than to worry and point at others into living a righteous lifestyle.[/quote]
That's mighty judgmental of you.


Besides, if you were a philosophically consistent atheist, you'd understand that we are all nothing but purposeless pieces of biological matter. Your opinions, "love," "fairness," "bigotry" "oppression" and all such abstract ideas and concepts, including your atheism, are just illusions resulting from the electrical and chemical activity in your brain, which are purely physical motions which can have no more significance or claim on truth than a bowel movement. And since, as an atheist, you know that to be the case, you'd realize that there is no such thing as "ought" or "ought not." Since there is no reason to declare the pattern of the firing of synapses in your brain cells inherently any "better" or "worse" than my own, there is no point in trying to argue further.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316652336' post='2308351']
Are you saying that it is the atheists fault?
[/quote]
It sure as heck isn't the result of adherence to Christian principles.

[Mr.Cat]

[center][img]http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/religion/images/Philosophy-of-Atheism-02.jpg[/img][/center]

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316729279' post='2308666']
It sure as heck isn't the result of adherence to Christian principles.
[/quote]
Hmmm, so why are atheists under represented in prisons?

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316776240' post='2308861']
Hmmm, so why are atheists under represented in prisons?
[/quote]
Maybe for the reason blacks are over-represented?

You can rest assured that the murders, robberies, thefts, assaults, and rapes that land people behind bars have absolutely nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Obeying the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Christ's Sermon on the Mount are certainly not a prescription for prison time (at least not in any just society).

I'd imagine truly devout practicing Christians who regularly attend church, pray, and read the Bible are far more under-represented in prisons than atheists.


So why are atheists over-represented among murderous dictators?

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316812005' post='2309020']
So why are atheists over-represented among murderous dictators?
[/quote]
If you believed in the god of the bible then you would have to define god as the ultimate of all murderous dictators.
I am of course assuming god's reign in heaven is not by periodic vote and hence a dictatorship, and I am of course referring to the event when god flooded the earth and killed very nearly everyone, including amost all of the animals and plants too.
But then again I assume you think god did this because god was good and that this was an act of good.

But in an attempt to keep it real, just for a moment, rather than escallating into a silly argument to satisfy one's personal ego, it may be worth trying to make sense of the state of society today. Why are some horrific acts being performed by some of the people within our society? When I say our society, I mean a society that is seen as reasonably stable, a democratic and first world society like NZ, USA, England, Canada, Australia etc...
It is not directly because of Atheists (as proven by surveys on demographics of criminal offenders in prison) and it is not directly because of devout Catholics (as surmised by Socrates of Phatmass based on his personal definition of what a devout Catholic is)
I'm guessing, but pretty sure it's not because homosexuals are allowed to carryout the act of homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes.

But, yeah, it would be interesting to know why these issues have come about.

[Winchester]

You seem to view democracy as a good.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316882828' post='2309259']
You seem to view democracy as a good.
[/quote]
What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316898530' post='2309347']What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?[/quote]I second this question...

I asked basically the same before but Winchester decided not to answer.

[i]I would give you props for this but sadly I cannot![/i]

Edited September 25, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316898530' post='2309347']
What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?
[/quote]
Democracy represents the will of the majority of the voting body. It does not represent the will of the people and is no assurance of just rule. There are many alternatives, all having their own dangers. Democracy is a means to an end, for me--it is not inherently good to leave rule up to "the people" any more than it is inherently evil to leave rule to one man. Each has its own risks.

Democracy does not allow members to make their own informed adult decisions--it permits a certain group to vote and then uses that vote to inflict the decision of the majority on the minority.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316922337' post='2309477']
Democracy represents the will of the majority of the voting body. It does not represent the will of the people and is no assurance of just rule. There are many alternatives, all having their own dangers. Democracy is a means to an end, for me--it is not inherently good to leave rule up to "the people" any more than it is inherently evil to leave rule to one man. Each has its own risks.

Democracy does not allow members to make their own informed adult decisions--it permits a certain group to vote and then uses that vote to inflict the decision of the majority on the minority.
[/quote]
Certainly, there is no utopia.
If a government performs badly then they only last one term. The best governments IMHO, only get involved when absolutely necessary. We don't need a nanny state, just opportunity and fairness. I personally value being able to make my own decisions. A government telling me what my job or career would be or telling me what city or town to live in would be horrible.

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316939940' post='2309620']
Certainly, there is no utopia.
If a government performs badly then they only last one term.[/quote]
That hasn't been the case in the US.

[quote]The best governments IMHO, only get involved when absolutely necessary. We don't need a nanny state, just opportunity and fairness. I personally value being able to make my own decisions. A government telling me what my job or career would be or telling me what city or town to live in would be horrible.
[/quote]
None of that is assured by democracy. It is possible to have an authoritarian government using democratic means. In the US, people are regularly imprisoned for having stuff other people have declared they should not have. If you attempt to skirt the law against pseudo-ephedrine, for instance, you can be imprisoned. If you are caught, you will be charged and you will spend a lot of money defending yourself. All because you needed more of an allergy medication than some [i]elected [/i]bureaucrats declared you were permitted to purchase.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316044417' post='2304779']

Your two examples are not alike. I think it is a mistake to try to get the federal government to pass a law in defense of marriage. The federal government should not try to define marriage and if such a law is passed, even in defense of the traditional understanding of marriage, then we lose again because government has just absorbed within its power the ability to regulate marriage. Marriage is previous to and is the foundation for the state. Government can encourage it and the procreation of children, through tax breaks etc. since the government/state needs healthy marriages that produce children, but it should not regulate it since it is prior to and independent of the state. Restricting abortion, however, is a different matter. Yes it is personal, like marriage, and society has a vested interest in whether abortions occur or not, like marriage, but the government does in fact have the power to regulate hospitals and has the duty to punish ,prevent, defend its citizens from murder. As such, abortion does fall under something the government should make laws about.
[/quote]

Pax domine bretheren and others..
abortion iz a consequence of the sexual/drug revolution, most participants in abortion said or unsaid end up with psychotic or emotional disorder.

JESUS = GOD SAVES

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316840567' post='2309161']
If you believed in the god of the bible then you would have to define god as the ultimate of all murderous dictators.
I am of course assuming god's reign in heaven is not by periodic vote and hence a dictatorship, and I am of course referring to the event when god flooded the earth and killed very nearly everyone, including amost all of the animals and plants too.
But then again I assume you think god did this because god was good and that this was an act of good.[/quote]
God is Himself the author of life and death. A God that was subject to rules made up by humans or the whims of human opinion wouldn't be much of a God.

If you want to know God's example for human behavior, look to the life of Christ as recounted in the Gospels, as Jesus Christ is God become man. In fact, if you want to try to debate Christians and scripture, it would be good to familiarize yourself with it, and read it yourself, rather than just read atheistic web sites.

Any sincerely believing serious Christian at least knows that he will ultimately be accountable to an all-just God for his actions, while an atheist, if he believes himself strong enough, may believe himself accountable to no one.


[quote]But in an attempt to keep it real, just for a moment, rather than escallating into a silly argument to satisfy one's personal ego, it may be worth trying to make sense of the state of society today. Why are some horrific acts being performed by some of the people within our society? When I say our society, I mean a society that is seen as reasonably stable, a democratic and first world society like NZ, USA, England, Canada, Australia etc...


It is not directly because of Atheists (as proven by surveys on demographics of criminal offenders in prison) and it is not directly because of devout Catholics (as surmised by Socrates of Phatmass based on his personal definition of what a devout Catholic is)
I'm guessing, but pretty sure it's not because homosexuals are allowed to carryout the act of homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes.

But, yeah, it would be interesting to know why these issues have come about.[/quote]
I don't think the decline of religious practice/belief and the decline of moral standards and increase in senseless acts of violence, etc. are unrelated. There are many people in modern America (probably a majority) who do not care about nor practice religion without being self-identified atheists. For example, a recent nation-wide study showed that about 90% or so of young people who identify themselves as "Christian" are Christian-in-name-only and rarely or never pray, attend Church, or read the Bible.

If religion is to blame for violent and immoral acts in society, we ought to be seeing a vast increase in morality, but that's not the case.

By your prison population remark, you seemed to be trying to imply a causal relation between religious faith and criminal behavior.

Yet you have failed to explain how a Faith which teaches "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods," "love thy neighbor as thyself," "love thy enemy; do good to those that hurt you," "turn the other cheek," "forgive thy neighbor not seven times, but seventy times seven" and to see Christ in their neighbor is to blame for acts of criminal violence.

Your statement about atheists being under-represented in prison (if it indeed has any factual basis) would probably be that those who self-identify as "atheist" tend to be predominantly upper-middle class whites, a demographic category which is under-represented in prison as opposed to those who grew up on the mean streets. The numbers in that demographic in prison tend to be low, whether they are devout Christians or atheists.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Socrates