Religious People with Political Views

[Apathy]

I welcome you both to a one on one debate on what ever topic you wish however the attacks on my character are inane. Attack the message not the person.

 

[GenSeneca]

You should no better than try to insert this emotional rubbish in the place of actual logic.

You have offered nothing but fallacy and in the process fabricated two claims:

1. That I contradicted myself
2. That I, at some point, argued in favor of legislating based on religion

When asked for proof of these blatant fabrications, you offered the following:

I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications.
​

You only bothered quoting the italicized portion because you knew quoting the entire sentence would discredit your claim.

My statement is not an argument in favor of religion based laws and it does not contradict my consistent message that laws must be logically valid.

So if anyone is substituting emotional outbursts for a total lack of logic and cognative ability, it is you my apathetic friend.

 

[GenSeneca]

Atheism is as much a belief based on faith as are religious views.

I actually do have to disagree with you on this. Anti-Theism is certainly a belief, one deeply held by people who purposefully call themselves "Atheists" in order to falsely claim they have no beliefs, but Atheism itself is not a belief or even a belief system. I say this as an Atheist who is bothered by the fact that so many Anti-Theists feel the need to hide who they are by claiming themselves to be Atheists.

Simply substitute Anti-Theism for Atheism and you're argument is solid.

 

[Apathy]

You have offered nothing but fallacy and in the process fabricated two claims:

1. That I contradicted myself
2. That I, at some point, argued in favor of legislating based on religion

When asked for proof of these blatant fabrications, you offered the following:

I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications.
​

You only bothered quoting the italicized portion because you knew quoting the entire sentence would discredit your claim.

My statement is not an argument in favor of religion based laws and it does not contradict my consistent message that laws must be logically valid.

So if anyone is substituting emotional outbursts for a total lack of logic and cognative ability, it is you my apathetic friend.

The statement contradicted itself. So truly which is it? Should laws be based on faith in the judgment values of a deity that may not event exist?

Again you picked out one statement out of a much larger argument. Do you have any rebuttal for that? Or does that go against your plan of derailing the topic using your red herring?

 

[Dr.Who]

Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other. Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other.

How can we claim to support religious freedom if we allow others personal religious beliefs to influence our legislation? It is an obvious imposition as religious and moral beliefs are of the most personal in nature.

It is impossible for people to influence legislation without their worldview being a factor. People with an atheistic worldview WILL come to the table with that bias just as people with a religious worldview WILL come to the table with that bias just s people who think they are neither WILL come to the table with their own biases. We cannot avoid bringing our worldviews to the process but if we try to restrict only the religious worldview that will be the imposition. The only option is to welcome all worldviews. But you are not welcoming of religious worldviews because you suppose they are the imposition. This is what was introduced in the OP.

 

[Dr.Who]

If one claims that it is invalid then it is that person who is imposing a view.

The most asinine comment I have ever had the privilege of reading on the internet. (which is saying a lot) If you were to claim killing others was a morally acceptable thing to do and I were to disagree saying that cant possibly be moral there would be no imposition. In fact the only imposition here is that asinine comment trying to stifle the voices of those who disagree.

All views deserve to be heard and to be a part of the process. I have consistently said that I would stifle no view yet you have said you think religious views do not deserve to be a part of the process. Who is stifling who?

 

[Apathy]

Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other. Every single person who influences the legislative body of laws in this county will do so based on some world view and a moral one is just as valid as any other.

It is impossible for people to influence legislation without their worldview being a factor. People with an atheistic worldview WILL come to the table with that bias just as people with a religious worldview WILL come to the table with that bias just s people who think they are neither WILL come to the table with their own biases. We cannot avoid bringing our worldviews to the process but if we try to restrict only the religious worldview that will be the imposition. The only option is to welcome all worldviews. But you are not welcoming of religious worldviews because you suppose they are the imposition. This is what was introduced in the OP.

I already refuted this....

 

[Dr.Who]

I never said I would impose my moral view on others. I said that I would vote with my moral view advising me just like anyone else would vote with their views advising them.

What on earth do you think you are doing by voting for those who wish to legislate your morality on others? Every time you attempt to legislate your personal moral views via voting you are imposing your morals on others.

I also never said I would vote for people who wanted to impose morality on others. Again, what I did say was that I would vote with my moral view advising me for whom I would vote. The fact of the matter is that my moral view would advice me not to vote for those who would impose morality on others in many cases for exactly the reason that they would impose it; my religious notions would advise me to vote for people who respected different viewpoints rather than for people who tried to shut out some views.

 

[Dr.Who]

We all use our views of the world to influence politicians who will then write laws that establish justice.

When you use absolutes like ALL you are just begging to be proven wrong. In fact minarchist and anarchist alike simply wish to live their own lives according to their own views and wish not to impose these views on others via a corrupt political system.

When a statement is a truism one can feel confident using absolutes.

Anyone who has a world view (and all people do unless they are unable to think) will show that view to the world in some way (it cannot be helped) and politicians in noticing that worldview will be influenced to some degree or another, whether directly or indirectly.

Using your example, an anarchist may wish to live his live being left alone, and that is his world view. Others seeing how he lives his life will be influenced by his life. Whether it is by his moving and passionate words or by his simple and charming lifestyle it matters not - it will happen. He cannot help but to be an influence on his fellow men. All of us have worldviews and all of us influence others.

 

[Apathy]

If one claims that it is invalid then it is that person who is imposing a view.

Ok repeating what you said does not make the claim anymore valid.

I already presented an argument for this.

All views deserve to be heard and to be a part of the process. I have consistently said that I would stifle no view yet you have said you think religious views do not deserve to be a part of the process. Who is stifling who?

Buzz words and fluff...

Premise 1) Morals are of the most personal in nature

Premise 2) Personal matters are not the business of any process

Premise 3) If said process legislate aforementioned moral beliefs it is a violation of one's first amendment rights to religious freedom

Conclusion: The morals are for individual to decide for themselves and the state has no place in legislating them. If you disagreed. Argue one of the premises simple disagreement on your part is not a debate.

 

[Dr.Who]

What gives anyone the right to dictate what justice is? No ONE person does. We have a system* that takes input from all of us and weighs it against the principles of the constitution to dictate justice.

Ok first off besides the obvious fluff and total lack of substance the phrase justice is used rather broadly. Define your terms.

When a legislator makes a law intended to establish justice then that is what I mean by justice. It is an imperfect system and sometimes that legislator will be wrong but I am speaking of his intent to do what is right by whatever world view he himself holds or is trying to respect as he sees it in his constituents.

He does not act alone. He is one of many legislators. Together all the legislators and then the judges who weigh those laws will hopefully create an ever closer approximation of justice over time.

 

[GenSeneca]

The statement contradicted itself.

Lets look at your understanding of the English language.

Example:

I don't care if people swim in my pool but they must not pee in it.​

According to your understanding of the English language, that statement is contradicting itself. According to you, I am saying that everyone should be forced to swim in my pool.

In reality, I'm only saying that I don't care if people swim in my pool, I just don't want them to pee in it. Lets look at my other statement again:

I don't care if someone uses their religious views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications.​

Now lets replace the word "religious" with "ideological",

I don't care if someone uses their ideological views as a guide but if they plan on making a law, that law must have logical justifications.​

Will you now claim that I believe ideology should dictate laws? Somehow I doubt it but given your record, I probably shouldn't rule out the possibility. It seems the mere mention of anything religious is what short circuited your cognitive abilities and sent you screaming down your current fallacious path of Anti-Theist hysteria.

Again you picked out one statement out of a much larger argument. Do you have any rebuttal for that? Or does that go against your plan of derailing the topic using your red herring?

Accusing me of arguing for something that I have not is the red herring. The "larger argument" was you going on to argue against a position that I have not espoused, making your "larger argument" a "larger" red herring: I did not suggest anyone should accept fallacious logic and I never argued that religion should dictate laws.

Go fish.

 

[Dr.Who]

* Our system does not all for a theocracy even if all the people wanted one, it does not allow for a Christian, or atheist or any majority to impose their ideas on the rest. But it does allow for all groups to have a voice and to use that voice to influence their fellow citizens.

*cough* prostitution laws *cough* *cough* Drug War *cough* *cough* alcohol prohibition *cough*

I guess what Im trying to say is bullsh1t.

Where that asterisk is I referenced a previous statement in which I said that constitutoinal principles overcome the desires of groups. An exception you were wise enough to point out and I failed to mention is when constitutional amendments would be made as was the case with Prohibition.

Generally our system does not allow one strong group of people to impose their view in minorities becaue principles take precedence over "majority rules". A majority could overrule the principle through amendments but generally our system balances the forces of groups against each other. Not always perfectly and sometimes poorly for a time.

 

[Apathy]

We all use our views of the world to influence politicians who will then write laws that establish justice.

Already refuted.

When a statement is a truism one can feel confident using absolutes.

Your say so is not sufficient proof.

Anyone who has a world view (and all people do unless they are unable to think) will show that view to the world in some way (it cannot be helped) and politicians in noticing that worldview will be influenced to some degree or another, whether directly or indirectly.

A world view is meant to be a personal guide for yourself you cannot force your world view on others.

Using your example, an anarchist may wish to live his live being left alone, and that is his world view.

Anarchism in itself is not a world view faulty premise.

Others seeing how he lives his life will be influenced by his life. Whether it is by his moving and passionate words or by his simple and charming lifestyle it matters not - it will happen. He cannot help but to be an influence on his fellow men. All of us have worldviews and all of us influence others.

Influence is not the same as forcing moral views on others another faulty premise.

 

[Apathy]

When a legislator makes a law intended to establish justice then that is what I mean by justice. It is an imperfect system and sometimes that legislator will be wrong but I am speaking of his intent to do what is right by whatever world view he himself holds or is trying to respect as he sees it in his constituents.

He does not act alone. He is one of many legislators. Together all the legislators and then the judges who weigh those laws will hopefully create an ever closer approximation of justice over time.

argumentum ad numerum the amount of legislators supporting a law doesnt affect whether or not the law is just.