Could a "bottom up" approach version of Socialism work?

[Strangelove]

My religion says I must not swear and must not burn suspected witches at the stake.

I thought your religion said you must burn suspected witches at the stake...

Exodus 22:17 "You shall not suffer a witch to live".

Thanks Per, that pastor of mine must be lying witch in disguise!

Gotta go.....

[Strangelove]

Lol.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that legality should take complete precedence over one's religion.....and that "religious repurcussions and/or implications" should not be taken into consideration in Government decisions. (if that makes sense). The whole concept of not being able to do something because it's "not religious" and/or "upsets religious folk" should be abolished in my opinion (i.e. freely allowing one to choose to have an abortion without bible thumpers like John Agnew throwing a hissy fit. Or having a greater investment into Scientific research, such as stem cell research, without worrying about whether religious folk will be upset by it).

Having said that - I think there should be some principles........or "thought"..........that successfully unite people. I think Conservatives have tried to achieve that through religion, but I think that often does more 'harm' than 'good' (i.e. the creation of 'pretentious bible/scripture thumpers that use religion as a platform to judge others in a condenscending way).

GM, everone gets their sense of right & wrong... good & bad... from somewhere.

(parents, Koran, Bible, ass, wotever)

And everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

Live and let live?

Unless they're witches of course.

[Per]

GM, everone gets their sense of right & wrong... good & bad... from somewhere.

(parents, Koran, Bible, ass, wotever)

And everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

Live and let live?

Unless they're witches of course.

I'd love to hear Gingrich just once exclaim "she turned me into a newt!"

[Farhan Lalji]

GM, everone gets their sense of right & wrong... good & bad... from somewhere.

(parents, Koran, Bible, ass, wotever)

And everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

Live and let live?

Unless they're witches of course.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong......I agree.

I also feel that everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that religious beliefs should not affect Government decisions (i.e. not allowing a woman to have an abortion because it goes against the Bible. Not allowing Stem Cell Research,.....Not allowing gay couples any rights because God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, etc., etc.).

[Strangelove]

GM, everyone gets their sense of right & wrong... good & bad... from somewhere.

(parents, Koran, Bible, ass, wotever)

And everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

Live and let live?

Unless they're witches of course.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong......I agree.

I also feel that everyone has a right to express their particular set of morals in a democracy.

I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that religious beliefs should not affect Government decisions (i.e. not allowing a woman to have an abortion because it goes against the Bible. Not allowing Stem Cell Research,.....Not allowing gay couples any rights because God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, etc., etc.).

Well ideally those "Government decisions" should reflect the will of the people.

If the majority of the people think it's okay for Adam to legally marry Steve then make it so.

If not then not.

Whether a person is "religious" or not has no bearing here

... the government should take the morals of ALL the people into account.

Hey, one need not be "religious" nor "non-religious" to take a certain stance on an issue

(for example I have met non-religious folk who think abortion is murder).

But listen up Farhan: the opinions of religious folk matter just as much as yours do!

No offense but you're starting to sound a little ChairmanMao-ish here buds.

[Farhan Lalji]

But listen up Farhan: the opinions of religious folk matter just as much as yours do!

No offense but you're starting to sound a little ChairmanMao-ish here buds.

Lol.

I didn't mean it like that. Of course the opinions of religious folk matter and of course everyone is free to believe what they want (without being persecuted for it).

I just don't think religion and politics/Government should ever be mixed.

I dunno......my head hurts, lol.

*yawn^

*farts*

[Strangelove]

Well what if 99% of the population of a country were against Stem Cell Research and the government funded a Stem Cell Research lab anyway.

That wouldn’t be right, would it?

“The will of the people” = Democracy.

Church folk, like every other segment, have a say in what their government does.

Separation of church and state does not mean what you think it does.

Take two of the red pills and call me in the morning.

[Farhan Lalji]

Well what if 99% of the population of a country were against Stem Cell Research and the government funded a Stem Cell Research lab anyway.

That wouldn’t be right, would it?

“The will of the people” = Democracy.

Church folk, like every other segment, have a say in what their government does.

Separation of church and state does not mean what you think it does.

Take two of the red pills and call me in the morning.

Let me put it this way:

Using your example ("Well what if 99% of the population of a country were against Stem Cell Research"), the Government should not go ahead with it......out of the simple fact that 99% of the people were against it.......as opposed to not doing it because the bible supposedly forbade it.

Majority rules.

[Strangelove]

Yes butt wot if that 99% were against it because the bible supposedly forbade it?

[Farhan Lalji]

Yes butt wot if that 99% were against it because the bible supposedly forbade it?

lol dammit doc.

Government would still say no out of "majority rules"..........and would completely ignore the reasons as to why they feel that way.

I WIN.

[Per]

Wouldn't it be terrible to live in a place where 99% agree on something?

I sort of envision North Korea... Marching children... The Horst Wessel Song...

If 99% agree on anything, it sounds like a society with massive indoctrination, government controlled media with draconic censorship and a massive fear for sticking out and not toeing the line.


One would hope that at least 5-10% would be thinking outside the box on pretty much any issue.
Society thrives on differences and the willingness to discuss options.

Where's the :ph34r: smilie when you need it?

[dbr]

Yes butt wot if that 99% were against it because the bible supposedly forbade it?

Who cares why they are against it (in this scenario)?

What would be wrong would be for the government to decide that maybe they should just start formulating policy based on the good book, or based on the opinions of folks who spend their lives reading and interpreting it - seeing as how 99% of the people agree with what it [supposedly] states in this case.

[Per]

Wouldn't it be terrible to live in a place where 99% agree on something?

I sort of envision North Korea... Marching children... The Horst Wessel Song...

If 99% agree on anything, it sounds like a society with massive indoctrination, government controlled media with draconic censorship and a massive fear for sticking out and not toeing the line.


One would hope that at least 5-10% would be thinking outside the box on pretty much any issue.
Society thrives on differences and the willingness to discuss options.

Where's the :ph34r: smilie when you need it?

I mean, even in an open and shut case like global warming, a mere 97% of scientists polled in a 2011 survey agreed that it is happening, and only 84% were convinced the main reason is human activity, and a full 5% (mainly employed in the geological field, ie mines and dilling and such ) claimed it is not manmade.

I really do not think it's possible - in a free society - to have 99% agree on anything.

[Strangelove]

Wouldn't it be terrible to live in a place where 99% agree on something?

I sort of envision North Korea... Marching children... The Horst Wessel Song...

If 99% agree on anything, it sounds like a society with massive indoctrination, government controlled media with draconic censorship and a massive fear for sticking out and not toeing the line.


One would hope that at least 5-10% would be thinking outside the box on pretty much any issue.
Society thrives on differences and the willingness to discuss options.

Where's the :ph34r: smilie when you need it?

I mean, even in an open and shut case like global warming, a mere 97% of scientists polled in a 2011 survey agreed that it is happening, and only 84% were convinced the main reason is human activity, and a full 5% (mainly employed in the geological field, ie mines and dilling and such ) claimed it is not manmade.

I really do not think it's possible - in a free society - to have 99% agree on anything.

Okay okay OKAY... we get it already!

It's extremely unlikely anyone would argue with what you are saying about folks tending to disagree in a free society.

In fact no doubt 99% of free society folk would agree with you!

Hopefully though you didn't miss the point.


.

[Strangelove]

Yes butt wot if that 99% were against it because the bible supposedly forbade it?

Who cares why they are against it (in this scenario)?

What would be wrong would be for the government to decide that maybe they should just start formulating policy based on the good book, or based on the opinions of folks who spend their lives reading and interpreting it - seeing as how 99% of the people agree with what it [supposedly] states in this case.

ummmmm...... WHAT??