Someone really has to tattoo "Possible Next Hitler* on his forehead
Psyshell
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
That's awesome. I get the rest, but what's the tahiti browners a reference to?
Also why isn't mnml a religion? Or is it a common one on here and actually none of the mods are stupid enough to fall for it's blasphemous lies!
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Vivid Boy
so in the end, its not religion you're against. It's democracy that is flawed. Everyone can live in a happy unison if their wasn't power in numbers.
There is nothing wrong with the unison of numbers, it is merely when governments allow themselves to be in any way directed by majorities that operate counter to the secular ideals of their constitution, as well as the power to dictate the basic human rights of their minorities, that I see a problem with.
I am not saying that any current democracies are perfect, nor am I saying that any current religions are absolutely detestable inward of individual practices; but the political nature of every human machination ought be accounted for in the civics that guide our species to any imaginable future; one of either absolute spiritualism or faith in the democratic congruence is likely misguided. But I can tell you which one seeks to further us beyond our abilities to annihilate this demographic or that, due to age old subtleties and sectarian misconceptions.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
That's awesome. I get the rest, but what's the tahiti browners a reference to?
Bas' Tahiti brown tan.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyshell
Also why isn't mnml a religion? Or is it a common one on here and actually non of the mods are stupid enough to fall for it's blasphemous lies!
The latter. No mod is allowed to say Villal****s in public, for example.
Alex
Vivid Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
There is nothing wrong with the unison of numbers, it is merely when governments allow themselves to be in any way directed by majorities that operate counter to the secular ideals of their constitution, as well as the power to dictate the basic human rights of their minorities, that I see a problem with.
I am not saying that any current democracies are perfect, nor am I saying that any current religions are absolutely detestable inward of individual practices; but the political nature of every human machination ought be accounted for in the civics that guide our species to any imaginable future; one of either absolute spiritualism or faith in the democratic congruence is likely misguided. But I can tell you which one seeks to further us beyond our abilities to annihilate this demographic or that, due to age old subtleties and sectarian misconceptions.
How do you expect anyone to come into power if they can't appeal to the majority vote? Politicians will always only care about their next term. This is why I'm not totally against the non bible thumpage. I just think you guys are thousands of years away of having that same foundation that organized religion has.
I totally get what you are saying though, but I still see your problem lies with democracy itself rather then with religion. If you want you're minority voice to be heard at the same volume as Religion, attacking religion itself is the wrong strategy in the fight. It's a bigger monster then yours.
Psyshell
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
That's actually the point.
Vivid Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
There is nothing wrong with the unison of numbers, it is merely when governments allow themselves to be in any way directed by majorities that operate counter to the secular ideals of their constitution, as well as the power to dictate the basic human rights of their minorities, that I see a problem with.
I am not saying that any current democracies are perfect, nor am I saying that any current religions are absolutely detestable inward of individual practices; but the political nature of every human machination ought be accounted for in the civics that guide our species to any imaginable future; one of either absolute spiritualism or faith in the democratic congruence is likely misguided. But I can tell you which one seeks to further us beyond our abilities to annihilate this demographic or that, due to age old subtleties and sectarian misconceptions.
How do you expect anyone to come into power if they can't appeal to the majority vote? Politicians will always and only care about their next term. This is why I'm not totally against the non bible thumpage. I just think you guys are thousands of years away of having that same foundation that organized religion has.
I totally get what you are saying though, but I still see your problem lies with democracy itself rather then with religion. If you want you're minority voice to be heard at the same volume as Religion, attacking religion itself is the wrong strategy in the fight. It's a bigger monster than yours.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Vivid Boy
If you want you're minority voice to be heard at the same volume as Religion, attacking religion itself is the wrong strategy in the fight.
uh, no. attacking religion is the perfect strategy if your problem is that religion is being heard at all in the public sphere. like seriously, i cannot believe you're here defending superstition as a valid source of public policy because "that's what the people want".
atheism wouldn't need to concern itself with anything (haha) if theists just kept their stupidity to themselves, their church, their underage rape victims. but oh no, gotta get them laws passed!
Psyshell
All I'm going to say on the matter is is that saying that one people's source of morality is not allowed in the public space because it is scientifically implausible (superstition) is a fairly authoritarian argument.
So I am against it.
It'd be nice if the majority of people were atheist... but they aren't... so both we and democracy just has to deal with the fallout.
If we're going to be legislating against religion it certainly shouldn't be in terms of what political parties should say, it should be more things like no mentions of religion at school or something like that. Or simply... no priests as councillers, no teachers even mentioning god in science class or anything like that.
Hopefully political parties don't base their policy on religion in the first place... but unless you're advocating a one party state (and inclusive of) saying that political parties can't base their policy on religion or shouldn't is somewhat authoritarian.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
uh, no. attacking religion is the perfect strategy if your problem is that religion is being heard at all in the public sphere. like seriously, i cannot believe you're here defending superstition as a valid source of public policy because "that's what the people want".
atheism wouldn't need to concern itself with anything (haha) if theists just kept their stupidity to themselves, their church, their underage rape victims. but oh no, gotta get them laws passed!
To clarify: Saying a political party is for whatever reason you want: good
Saying that neither party should even mention religion... and maybe laws should be based on this: bad
IMO anyway. I advocate very soft descrimination against religion (like in publicly funded schools) but I wouldn't go any further than that, and certainly it shouldn't disqualify someone from being a politician if the majority of people (or any number that is enough to get that person elected) are that religion.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
uh, no. attacking religion is the perfect strategy if your problem is that religion is being heard at all in the public sphere. like seriously, i cannot believe you're here defending superstition as a valid source of public policy because "that's what the people want".
atheism wouldn't need to concern itself with anything (haha) if theists just kept their stupidity to themselves, their church, their underage rape victims. but oh no, gotta get them laws passed!
That isn't the job of atheists, that's everyone's duty in a democracy.
Vivid Boy
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
uh, no. attacking religion is the perfect strategy if your problem is that religion is being heard at all in the public sphere. like seriously, i cannot believe you're here defending superstition as a valid source of public policy because "that's what the people want".
atheism wouldn't need to concern itself with anything (haha) if theists just kept their stupidity to themselves, their church, their underage rape victims. but oh no, gotta get them laws passed!
i dont think you were listening. We live in a democratic economy. They will get their laws passed because they are the majority. they have the numbers and they will elect who they want because they can. You are outnumbered. Attacking religion won't unbrainwash millions of people who have held on to their beliefs for thousands and thousands of years. That's like going back to the 1800's and calling a slaver stupid and wrong expecting it to change the way the world felt about racism. No matter how right or wrong you are you come across as the lil su barking at the Rottweiler that's about to bite your head off. You're not going to win head to head and doing so you come across just as narrow minded as they do.
I'm not defending "superstition" in public policy. I am explaining to you how the world works. Just like a corporation will do anything to save their shareholders an extra buck, politicians will do whatever it takes to stay or get in office. If that means wearing a pink tie or bringing religion into public policy they will do what it takes to survive in their world. You can yell at Religion all you want but in the end it isn't religion that's in up your battle. It is the system that allows these "aim to please the popular vote" politicians into power.
