Mercy Kills: Yes, No, Maybe.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I'm not walking a fine line... I'm not discussing religious ideas in themselves. I'm discussing the role and place of religion in society.

And you haven't really addressed my point. I was saying that law in most Western societies are based on rationale not belief.

The laws which tax cigarettes and alcohol higher than the price of food can be justified rationally.

Also... of course I don't expect people to put away their moral compass when making laws. However I do expect (at least in my country)... that my government, (whether I agree with it or not) can rationally justify their decisions in the spirit of the principles it was founded on.

To me that means that religion remain in the domain of the individual.

Oh and what was wrong with my Iran comment? Iran is a society which implements Muslim Shari'a law. I'm sure you can connect the dots.

Oh please, that comments speaks much of what you think about "certain" people.

In essence you want people to think your way to justify themselves when it comes to them proposing ideas and laws. NO go. Religion is not just some behind the closet deal, those who hold such ideas have the same "rational" as you do when it comes them supporting/non ideas and laws. A lot of the government ideas and practices can arguably find themselves based in religion. To say the government needs to justify themselves based on YOUR belief is the same coin. They only thing that matters when it comes to law is the base of the Government of which it is founded i.e. as long as the law doesn't go against those, there's no argument as long as the majority of people agree to it.

did you not see the point in that line? In the context I was connecting to how laws cannot be fair to everyone, to do so would be anarchy.

In what point does " most western societies are based on rationale..." have with this? I'll say again what I'm arguing, each person has the right based on belief of what they will support/non, by that if so the majority agrees that value can be interpreted into law in support of the documents of the government. That is saying government is the extension of the common people right to support that which they fine legal and just. That is not to say all laws are right, and everything that is right is law. Wither the people say based on whatever philosophy that they agree to, it is there right to judge that, and vote/non against what they believe in.

even discussing this matter in the tone that we are, IS walking an fine line.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Oh please, that comments speaks much of what you think about "certain" people.

You want to accuse me of something then say it and back it up. In other words stop being a child.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

In essence you want people to think your way to justify themselves when it comes to them proposing ideas and laws. NO go. Religion is not just some behind the closet deal, those who hold such ideas have the same "rational" as you do when it comes them supporting/non ideas and laws. A lot of the government ideas and practices can arguably find themselves based in religion. To say the government needs to justify themselves based on YOUR belief is the same coin. They only thing that matters when it comes to law is the base of the Government of which it is founded i.e. as long as the law doesn't go against those, there's no argument as long as the majority of people agree to it.

did you not see the point in that line? In the context I was connecting to how laws cannot be fair to everyone, to do so would be anarchy.

In what point does " most western societies are based on rationale..." have with this? I'll say again what I'm arguing, each person has the right based on belief of what they will support/non, by that if so the majority agrees that value can be interpreted into law in support of the documents of the government. That is saying government is the extension of the common people right to support that which they fine legal and just. That is not to say all laws are right, and everything that is right is law. Wither the people say based on whatever philosophy that they agree to, it is there right to judge that, and vote/non against what they believe in.

even discussing this matter in the tone that we are, IS walking an fine line.

The problem you have is that it seems you only believe in the fundamental principles of liberal constitutional democracies so long as they coincide with Christian ideas. I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Such underlying principles (Secularism for one) are supposed to minimise tyranny of the majority. The fact that you are for tyranny of the religious majority makes you a religious extremist where I'm from.

As for my beliefs... I suppose my belief in the moral standing of liberal ideals is a belief in a sense (though I don't consider it the same as religion)... but do you really have a problem with that? I sort of assumed that you being from America held the same beliefs that I did in that sense since we are both from Western countries.

But more specifically I suppose there are many things that I'm against and wouldn't do that I believe are morally wrong that I don't believe should be outlawed. I believe smoking is a disgusting habit and that prostitutes and their customers are empty, soulless people. I don't believe they should be outlawed though. I expect the same of Christians and in fact... most Christians (here at least) respect this. They are FREE for example, to believe that the sanctity of life is so great that only God could take it away or that an embryo deserves human rights and act according to their beliefs. (By choosing not become euthanised or by choosing not to.

And will you PLEASE shut up about walking a fine line? If we do cross the line I'm sure we'll be politely told as such by a mod or someone.

Or are you simply scared of this sort of discussion?

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

You want to accuse me of something then say it and back it up. In other words stop being a child.



The problem you have is that it seems you only believe in the fundamental principles of liberal constitutional democracies so long as they coincide with Christian ideas. I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Such underlying principles (Secularism for one) are supposed to minimise tyranny of the majority. The fact that you are for tyranny of the religious majority makes you a religious extremist where I'm from.

As for my beliefs... I suppose my belief in the moral standing of liberal ideals is a belief in a sense (though I don't consider it the same as religion)... but do you really have a problem with that? I sort of assumed that you being from America held the same beliefs that I did in that sense since we are both from Western countries.

But more specifically I suppose there are many things that I'm against and wouldn't do that I believe are morally wrong that I don't believe should be outlawed. I believe smoking is a disgusting habit and that prostitutes and their customers are empty, soulless people. I don't believe they should be outlawed though. I expect the same of Christians and in fact... most Christians (here at least) respect this. They are FREE for example, to believe that the sanctity of life is so great that only God could take it away or that an embryo deserves human rights and act according to their beliefs. (By choosing not become euthanised or by choosing not to.

And will you PLEASE shut up about walking a fine line? If we do cross the line I'm sure we'll be politely told as such by a mod or someone.

Or are you simply scared of this sort of discussion?

How in the world would you thank I would be scared? Firstly I don't want to damage my standing on this forum, so I avoid breaking the rules. Secondly keeping it on Religion will undoubtedly eventually lead into an religious debate to which I don't want to go out of respect for the rules.

You don't understand, how can you say to someone to put away there beliefs/convictions (abortion for example is NOT supported by the majority of Christians) so they can make law according to your standards. That doesn't work, mainly because people won't put away there convictions. Even if you don't belief that something shouldn't be illegal, with respect to the lands law, someone else will have an different opinion.

The very fact that we both have different philosophies, convictions, and ideas is an prime example of how very different we both view law, and government. What I believe to be law, and the same with you is drastically different and thus the same with groups of people. I can set their and say certain stuff should be law, and you can say the opposite, and I can go out and support my cause, (same with you) and if the circumstances allow that could lead elsewhere.

How can you set there and tell me my ideas don't work? Seams an step over an line. Did I not mention in my earlier posts about government protection of minority with respect to whats being proposed?

Yet, again on what basis do you have to say in my religious views that I'm an tyrant, and WHAT basis do you have to say I'm an extremist? Is it because I hold my convictions to an higher standard, or is it because my views don't meet yours (be careful just calling me that does amount to breaking the rules)?

The fact that you used Iran, where there are plenty of more theocracy to use that doesn't have the very major problems that Iran has. The fact that you mention "connect the dots". How is it being an child when you can read into something and see that the comment is negative and thus make an deduction about what the writer is trying to make?

[ozkai]

Maybe, as it depends who exactly it is on the other end of the stick.

[iPhantom]

I agree with solemnclockwork about people having different opinions, but I don't get how religion got in this thread -_-! Religion isn't something to be used in arguments, nor it is an opinion, that is why the JF rule says so.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

I agree with solemnclockwork about people having different opinions, but I don't get how religion got in this thread -_-! Religion isn't something to be used in arguments, nor it is an opinion, that is why the JF rule says so.

I would be the cause of that.

Originally Posted by Hyakushi

(One rule for this discussion like every other debate, No Religious support (Not everyone believes in god or one god so no "Its gods choice when you die").

I brought it up because of this line. I do NOT want to debate religion. I wanted to state an case of why the original poster shouldn't discount an view on an subject that would have an background in belief. In some way that is conflictable (new word for the day), I just wanted all points to be valid in this. Hence why I posted the way I did.

[MMM]

For a conversation not about religion, there sure is a lot of talk about religion.

The points have been made. Let's move forward.

[Hyakushi]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Firstly, why do you think someone who has an religious belief, and voices will spew "fire".

Just read your own posts clearly.
Plus it takes this thread off topic as you can see, its starting already . . . *dun dun dun* "MY GOD CAN BEAT YOUR GOD/BELIEFS SMACK OUT!".

Plus I don't have a problem with any religion its the people I have a problem with, I just asked people not to say something they don't mean just because there reliogion says other wise. To get rid of peerpressure or infinite hell, what ever the punishment would be. Yet it seem YOU have a problem with it, your just like those bible people who come to my door. Even though I politely say "No hank you I'm not intrested" you still rape my ears and fry my mind with your BullS#$%. So if its okay that everyone has there own beliefs then why in all hell do you keep babbling about this Shiv?. I tried to avoid this sort of thing but noooooo people just kept pushing and pushing there beliefs for Fucks sake. This thread is closed

Now back on topic.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

How can you set there and tell me my ideas don't work? Seams an step over an line. Did I not mention in my earlier posts about government protection of minority with respect to whats being proposed?

I'm not saying they don't work.. I'm just saying that they don't work for ME and the many thousands of other non-Christians out there.

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Yet, again on what basis do you have to say in my religious views that I'm an tyrant, and WHAT basis do you have to say I'm an extremist? Is it because I hold my convictions to an higher standard, or is it because my views don't meet yours (be careful just calling me that does amount to breaking the rules)?

First of all I called you an extremist not a tyrant. In that your views are extreme.

The reason being that if you follow the logical conclusion to your ideas, you're talking about the oppression of other ways of thinking which are not "kosher" with Christianity simply because Christians happen to be a majority in your country.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

For a conversation not about religion, there sure is a lot of talk about religion.

The points have been made. Let's move forward.

It's not a talk about religious ideas in themselves so I don't believe I'm violating any rules. It's a talk about the role of religion in society.

I'm arguing that it should be a personal matter and to each their own.
solemnclock believes that there is nothing wrong with the religious majority imposing their beliefs via law.