Question Regarding Politics and Religion

[Siro]

That's what constitutions and bills of rights are for. They set up inalienable rights that every individual has and the state defends those rights, those don't depend on the majority and the majority is not allowed to touch those(usually). And from there on majority rules... usually... kind of*... as long as they don't step on those basic human rights. If they do, the state needs to act to defend those rights and seek remedies to the situation.

*the asterisk is there because even though in theory majority rules, there might be influences that overtake the political process in a country(oligarchies or lobbyists pushing and succeeding to enact policies that go against the will of the majority but are in favor of certain influential minority).

The constitution can be amended by a large enough majority.

Also, people hide behind the "will of people" only when it advances their own agendas. Otherwise, in the words of Tocqueville, it is the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Siro]

I found out that nothing triggers me worse than liberal secularists making religious proclamations about the exclusivity of their Truth. Specially when accompanied by the oh-so-typical bewilderment at heathen unbelievers.

 

[olden_undercover]

That is a false dichotomy. It is like saying "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others". By definition a democratic republic will end up with mostly representatives that reflect the majority view, unless you legislate that minority views are somehow worth more than the majority view to make things "equal". I agree that minorities need to have representation that can help protect their interests, but not at the expense of anyone else's interests. But therein lies the rub, especially with groups with conflicting interests (religious/atheist for example).

Agreed. And it doesn't matter who is in power-- some special interests will always be over-represented, and their opponents will see the inequity in it, and make a lot of noise about the injustice of it all. Our democratic republic has elected a government, for example, that seems rather committed to protecting the interests of "minority groups" such as big oil or pharma, conservative religious groups, the wealthiest 1%, etc. I can promise you those "minorities" have no problem with that. But have no fear: Some day, when the green, homeopathic, pansexual, socialists have established lobbies with greater influence in DC, those other people will probably be really unhappy, and sweet will be the karmic retribution of that age.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I am not religious, and I mostly do not care what someone's religion is when deciding to vote for them. However, I will not vote for someone whose ideas of "religious freedom" differs vastly from my own. Anyone who believes that they can discriminate against another person because of their religious beliefs will not be getting my vote. Religious freedom to me means being able to worship and believe and live in whatever fashion you choose as long as it does not harm others. If a candidate believes that all should live as that individual believes, and wants to make laws consistent with that belief, that's when they have crossed the line.

So for example, if there's a person running for office that believes their way is the only way to God/Allah/Spaghetti Monster, should that disqualify them from office? And for this example, we'll say there's no prior evidence of true discrimination.

 

[colton]

I figured why not combine two hot topics that get everybody heated, generate some real uproar. But seriously, I'd like this to be a discussion without reading insults, of which I am guilty. Basically, act like Siro and Colton, not like Dutch and Thriller.

A lot of people here are religious, some are not at all. I think this applies to any and all groups, whether a fundamentalist or a loose rules kind of person.

Are we ok with people whom we have theological differences with, having rule and dominion politically over us? As in, as a fundamental Christian, am I ok with having a Muslim as my senator? Or an atheist as my president? And same goes the other way. Would somebody's belief system, and solely their belief system, impair you from voting for them?

I've never voted for or against someone because of their religion. So, certainly I'm OK having a Muslim/atheist/whatever as my President.

That being said, religion certainly impacts people's views, so depending on their VIEWS I may not be OK with them.

I ask partially because of Bernie essentially saying that a fundamental Christian should not be approved because of his religious beliefs, but more from a principal standpoint on where we should stand on this. At what points are a persons beliefs too extreme for office? I would really prefer to avoid the typical Dem/Con hissy fits that happen here (that I am guilty of), and just talk about the principals. And I don't want to make this about Bernie either. His reaction just made me think about this topic, and I figured it would make for a good discussion.

"At what points are a persons beliefs too extreme for office?" --> Excellent question but nearly impossible to answer in general terms. I'd probably have to consider people on a case by case basis.

 

[colton]

I hate trump. Have no idea what religion he is or if he is even religious. (Anyone know?)

If I recall correctly he claimed to be Christian in the primaries but there's little evidence he ever went to church, read the Bible, etc. Personally I think it's most likely he's not religious at all. Maybe not an atheist, probably just someone for whom religion is not an important question. That's not the reason I didn't vote for him, though.

 

[Rubashov]

LOL. No. Aside from the innate human capacities for empathy, justice, or what have you, there is nothing that we must inherently agree upon. And that includes what you call personal choice.

In the example of abortion, if someone agrees that murder is wrong, and they view a fetus as a human, then killing the fetus is murder, and thus wrong. There is nothing "unreasonable" about it.

That's great from a strictly rhetorical point of view, divorced from real value judgements that people have to make every day. I don't live in my university's western philosophy class we can bang on about how can we be certain of anything and so on. Quantifying and pouring over language for hours but I find it as boring now as I did then. The reality is that people are harrowingly similar, that most organised societies in general have similar rules and customs, as do most large organised religions. Whether use choose to accept the value judgements of others is irrelevant, you live in a society of laws and your actions will be judged by the value judgements of others.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I have had religious conversations with 100s of different types of religious people. I have talked to many Muslim people. Not once has this been the approach that a Muslim person has taken with me. Christians have by far been the most aggressive with me but none of them have threatened violence or death towards me. Just the usual fire and brimstone talk and the whole corrupting my family and friends guilt talk.


Oh wait I forgot @<a href="https://jazzfanz.com/member.php?u=848" target="_blank">dalamon</a> definitely did threaten to kill me if I didnt convert when he was in Utah. But he is the exception. Or was he just nice and talked about his religious views in a peaceful manor explaining why he was Muslim, I cant remember which one. It was definitely one of those two though.

the budhist in maldives beg to differ,
the people in indiana beg to differ!
judge it on the ammount of damage the religion as a whole has done!

they take over countries! and build mosque at their holy sites and claim it is their holy site??


this is a HISTORICAL FACT! and still is!

the more extremer a Muslim gets the more he talks about taking over the world etc! these are facts. have you not seen how these people talk about how they wanna make every country a caliphate!

the more extremer a jew get the more isolated he gets!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTweBFyb01w

BLACK FLAG of islam! over DOWNINGSTREET!(their wahsington)

face it thats what a significant amount of islammist want.

throughout history they all tried and succesfully converted entire COUNTRIES through WAR and demolition


sorry but i dont care about your anectodal facts! while i got whole countries who been demolished and converted!

 

[Rubashov]

That is a false dichotomy. It is like saying "all men are created equal, but some should be made more equal than others". By definition a democratic republic will end up with mostly representatives that reflect the majority view, unless you legislate that minority views are somehow worth more than the majority view to make things "equal". I agree that minorities need to have representation that can help protect their interests, but not at the expense of anyone else's interests. But therein lies the rub, especially with groups with conflicting interests (religious/atheist for example).

The aim of good government should be to ensure that minorities whatever they may be do not suffer disadvantage due to membership of that minority group. Its not about promoting their interests but more protecting them from being disadvantaged by the majority. Most states have something along the lines of a Human Rights Commission, and a body of law that penalises discrimination. For the most part these cases are hard to prove and organisation like the HRC are toothless tigers.

 

[Siro]

That's great from a strictly rhetorical point of view, divorced from real value judgements that people have to make every day. I don't live in my university's western philosophy class we can bang on about how can we be certain of anything and so on. Quantifying and pouring over language for hours but I find it as boring now as I did then. The reality is that people are harrowingly similar, that most organised societies in general have similar rules and customs, as do most large organised religions. Whether use choose to accept the value judgements of others is irrelevant, you live in a society of laws and your actions will be judged by the value judgements of others.

If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Not only do human cultures have very different values, but the same culture will have very different values over an individual's life time. What liberals consider natural rights today would seem completely alien to the vast majority of people 50 years ago.

There is nothing inevitable about the current package of progressive ideology. In the future, people who call themselves progressives will look back on us with as much disdain as progressives do to those who came before. And they will do it with just as much fervor and conviction.

 

[fishonjazz]

Agreed. And it doesn't matter who is in power-- some special interests will always be over-represented, and their opponents will see the inequity in it, and make a lot of noise about the injustice of it all. Our democratic republic has elected a government, for example, that seems rather committed to protecting the interests of "minority groups" such as big oil or pharma, conservative religious groups, the wealthiest 1%, etc. I can promise you those "minorities" have no problem with that. But have no fear: Some day, when the green, homeopathic, pansexual, socialists have established lobbies with greater influence in DC, those other people will probably be really unhappy, and sweet will be the karmic retribution of that age.

Great post

 

[♪alt13]

That's great from a strictly rhetorical point of view, divorced from real value judgements that people have to make every day. I don't live in my university's western philosophy class we can bang on about how can we be certain of anything and so on. Quantifying and pouring over language for hours but I find it as boring now as I did then. The reality is that people are harrowingly similar, that most organised societies in general have similar rules and customs, as do most large organised religions. Whether use choose to accept the value judgements of others is irrelevant, you live in a society of laws and your actions will be judged by the value judgements of others.

Western style liberalism is if anything an oddity. It is ignorant to proclaim that our liberal values are representative of humanity.

Perhaps you should have paid better attention to those who tried to educate you on Western philosophy. Your values come directly from that tradition.