steveorino 7 #1451 April 5, 2007 It is a straw men when you bring up the atrocities of state christianity as an argument against a personal choice for christianity. What other limits would you put on one's ability to vote? If Christians can't vote their conscience based on a christian worldview, should animal rights activist not vote based on theirs? What about gay right's activist? Scientist? People of different ethnicity? Or is your restriction simply limited to people with religous convictions. Their is a turd who unfortunately shares my name, and on the behalf of his "christian" worldview he demonstrates against USA at their the funerals of American soldiers. While I detest his message and personally had to restrain my anger when he came to my friend's son's funeral, I believe he has every right to excercise his right to vote his stupid (IMHO) conscience. The second I restrict his rights I open the door to restrict the rights of others. Don't carry this to gay marriage rights as I don't care what they do in so far as marriage. (just heading off that tangient) steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #1452 April 5, 2007 Quote It is a straw men when you bring up the atrocities of state christianity as an argument against a personal choice for christianity. If thats what Phil was arguing (I haven't properly followed your debate) then yeah it's an uneven comparison - but of course hatred and violence is not limited to state christianity, it operates at the personal level too. QuoteWhat other limits would you put on one's ability to vote? If Christians can't vote their conscience based on a christian worldview, should animal rights activist not vote based on theirs? What about gay right's activist? Scientist? People of different ethnicity? Or is your restriction simply limited to people with religous convictions. Their is a turd who unfortunately shares my name, and on the behalf of his "christian" worldview he demonstrates against USA at their the funerals of American soldiers. While I detest his message and personally had to restrain my anger when he came to my friend's son's funeral, I believe he has every right to excercise his right to vote his stupid (IMHO) conscience. The second I restrict his rights I open the door to restrict the rights of others. It is a difficult line to draw. The short (and somewhat inadequate on the practical level) answer is that a person's right to vote their conscience ends when their vote would hinder someone elses rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.* This applies to anyone, regardless of where their morality comes from. * Of course, a persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness also ends when it causes harm to another person, or society in general. Its complicated.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #1453 April 5, 2007 QuoteWhat other limits would you put on one's ability to vote? If Christians can't vote their conscience based on a christian worldview, should animal rights activist not vote based on theirs? What about gay right's activist? Scientist? People of different ethnicity? Or is you restriction simply limited to people with religous convictions. There is a problem with unrestricted democracy and it can be difficult to fix when it goes wrong. Take Palestine for example, they used their vote to elect Hamas which lead to war and some pretty awkward international relations. Then there's that well known (initially democratically elected) German leader who was responsible for the genocide of 6 million jews. The problem is that what you voted for might not be what you actually want. I wouldn't want to stiffle someones ability to vote by restricting the ballot. But that makes it doubly important to get people to think rationally about their choices. You can't stop people from voting any way they choose but I think it's a good idea to try to dissuade them from simply acting on gut reaction, populist momentum or blind faith. The real danger comes when people become sufficiently motivated to ignore any evidence or rational argument against their position. And that is a situation that religion excels at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1454 April 5, 2007 QuoteI wouldn't want to stiffle someones ability to vote by restricting the ballot. But that makes it doubly important to get people to think rationally about their choices. You can't stop people from voting any way they choose but I think it's a good idea to try to dissuade them from simply acting on gut reaction, populist momentum or blind faith. The real danger comes when people become sufficiently motivated to ignore any evidence or rational argument against their position. And that is a situation that religion excels at. You get no disagreement from me there! I'm totally against the propaganda I see form christian watchdogs that tell people how to vote. For instance While I like much of what James Dobson has done for the family in America, I do not like him telling his audience that Newt is better than Thompson, yada, yada, yada. If he feels he needs to inform his audience then do so by telling them how they stand on the issues, and keep personal biases and interpretations of who the better "christian" is out of the mix. While I wish for the vote to remain free and without limitations, just as I wish the same for free speech, I wish those exercising those rights would take more personal responsibility and have less of a sheep mentality. But how in the world would you legislate that? You can't. You must allow the Westboro Baptist folks to speak their ridiculous interpretations along with more "rational" people. The minute you restrict their free speech and exercise of American liberty, you have opened a big can of worms. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1455 April 5, 2007 Good points and I agree with you. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1456 April 5, 2007 QuoteI'm still trying to figure how building buildings like orphanages, tolilets, and digging wells is bad. Do you have problems to figure why crusades, witch hunts, messing with progress in science, supporting slavery and banning interracial marriages on Creator's ground are bad? [Added explanation]: everyone, including atheists, is building buildings like orphanages, tolilets, and digging wells. It is not something only Christians do. However there were no atheist in witch hunts and events like that. Let me disappoint you - this is the other part of the coin. There is no way you could be a "doing only good" Christian. That's why I stopped contributing in 3 of 5 charities I contributed to, because they were pro-Christian. I made my position clear though.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #1457 April 5, 2007 christianity is fascism hitler was supported by both the catholic and protestant churches. he also publicly stated the "jesus is my lord and saviour"we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1458 April 5, 2007 Quote What other limits would you put on one's ability to vote? If Christians can't vote their conscience based on a christian worldview, should animal rights activist not vote based on theirs? What about gay right's activist? Scientist? People of different ethnicity? Or is your restriction simply limited to people with religous convictions. I think I have made it clear several times: you should not be allowed to vote for laws, which purpose is to restrict (or force) others to doing something if the reason you want to restrict others is based only on your beliefs, and not on proven facts. I thought it is very simple logic; don't you understand it?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #1459 April 5, 2007 RELIGION HAS ACTUALLY CONVINCED PEOPLE THAT THERE'S AN INVISIBLE MAN-IN THE SKY- WHO WATCHES EVERYTHING EVERYONE DOES, EVERY MINUTE OF EV ERY DAY. AND THE INVISIBLE MAN HAS A SPECIAL LIST OF 10 THINGS HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO DO. IF YOU DO ANY OF THESE 10 THINGS, HE HAS A SPECIAL PLACE, FULL OF FIRE AND SMOKE AND BURNING AND TORTURE AND ANGUISH, WHERE HE WILL SEND YOU TO LIVE AND SUFFER AND BURN AND CHOKE AND SCREAM AND CRY FOREVER AND EVER 'TIL THE END OF TIME.... BUT HE LOVES YOU - GEORGE CARLINwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1460 April 6, 2007 QuoteQuote What other limits would you put on one's ability to vote? If Christians can't vote their conscience based on a christian worldview, should animal rights activist not vote based on theirs? What about gay right's activist? Scientist? People of different ethnicity? Or is your restriction simply limited to people with religous convictions. I think I have made it clear several times: you should not be allowed to vote for laws, which purpose is to restrict (or force) others to doing something if the reason you want to restrict others is based only on your beliefs, and not on proven facts. I thought it is very simple logic; don't you understand it? I understand it quite well. You wish the USA was more like your USSR, and restricted the right to vote your conscious. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #1461 April 6, 2007 the hell it is, luke 19:27 was exegeted in the name of the ANTI_LOGOS-JESUS to specifically to perpetrate those atrocities. all you offer are denials of this truthwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1462 April 6, 2007 Quotethe hell it is, luke 19:27 was exegeted in the name of the ANTI_LOGOS-JESUS to specifically to perpetrate those atrocities. all you offer are denials of this truth Are you sure you are not Fred Felps? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #1463 April 6, 2007 try matthew 10:34 do not think that i have come to bring peace, for i have come with a sword to set son against father .... but... jesus loves youwe are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1464 April 6, 2007 You ARE Fred Felps! I knew it! We were wondering who you actually were. Lloyd asked me if you actually jumped, and I said he never posted like he did. I guess now we know, because we all know GHF Fred is a whuffo. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #1465 April 6, 2007 dead wrong, stevo! jumping is the only freedom left on this planet.we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #1466 April 6, 2007 Quote I understand it quite well. You wish the USA was more like your USSR, and restricted the right to vote your conscious. I think you should absolutely be allowed to vote your conscience. I also think that state sponsorship of any particular religion is bad. Regardless of how many people vote for a particular piece of legislation, if it attempts to circumvent the constitution or deprive others of their inalienable rights, it should be discarded. Edit to add: And I forgot to say thanks for the kind words in that other post...and likewise. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1467 April 6, 2007 Quote I understand it quite well. You wish the USA was more like your USSR, Well, using your own logic you wish the USA was like your Taliban - the majority votes that women should cover their faces because some old religious book says so, and every woman must do it, including those who do not care about religious books.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1468 April 6, 2007 QuoteQuote I understand it quite well. You wish the USA was more like your USSR, Well, using your own logic you wish the USA was like your Taliban - the majority votes that women should cover their faces because some old religious book says so, and every woman must do it, including those who do not care about religious books. I'd rather have the availability to make dumb decisions than not have the freedom to vote my conscience. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1469 April 6, 2007 Quote I'd rather have the availability to make dumb decisions than not have the freedom to vote my conscience. The problem is that the groups makes dumb decisions, based on group member beliefs, for everyone - not just for the group members. This is what makes you no different than Taliban.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1470 April 6, 2007 Better to be a dumb group than have no say in my government. Man, they have brain washed you! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1471 April 6, 2007 Quote Better to be a dumb group than have no say in my government. There is a big difference between having no say, and having no ability to vote for harmful laws. Actually that's how the system works nowadays. The only difference is that those laws, even if signed, are struck down by the Supreme Court. Therefort wasting everyone's time and government money.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1472 April 6, 2007 Explain to me how you would keep people from voting their conscience. I'm just curious. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1473 April 6, 2007 QuoteExplain to me how you would keep people from voting their conscience. I'm just curious. Aren't there are already laws in place restricting what you cannot vote for?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #1474 April 6, 2007 Name me one that restricts how I can't vote on something that is on a ballot? Or name me one law that says cannot lobby my congressman? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #1475 April 6, 2007 Quote Name me one that restricts how I can't vote on something that is on a ballot? AFAIK the restriction is related to the ballot content. This way it is much easier.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
