<p>yes! aren’t ALL FORMS OF POLITICS IMPOSING ONE’S BELIEFS ON ANOTHER FOR THE BETTER OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?
so what’s so wrong with this one? i am not saying that it is right; it has not even ‘happened’ yet and therefore we can not judge. however, those statements that prejudge this system are not enough to invalidate it. just because they might impose their beliefs does not make them remarkably bad among other political parties when in fact all parties do the same, correct?</p>
<p>also, regarding theDad’s “you think…then” post, i think the point is that “you can do ‘good’, but you have no right to force others to do ‘good’.” however, i don’t think that’s what we’re here for. we are here to encourage others to do less hurtful things, not to condemn or simply ‘let it be’. And please do not take that as a personal attack this time~</p>
<p>finally, even if let’s say porn becomes illegal for whatever age group, what is that going to do? nothing, just like the ‘liberal’ parties are doing now. people will still watch it. BUT, for it to be illegal may have other positive effects.</p>
<p>You miss the point entirely. <em>Your</em> conception of doing good may include everything from preventing gays from marrying, preventing women from having an abortion, promoting a particular kind of prayer in public schools, etc. </p>
<p>I do not agree that these are “good”. If you so believe, fine. But I will not let you impose your views on me or my fellow citizens. I don’t take this as a personal attack. I do take this as an attack on fundamental American freedoms. No “liberal” is forcing you to participate in a gay marriage, have an abortion, view pornography, or any number of other things which you–or in some instances I–find distasteful.</p>
<p>Driver, there is nothing “drooling” about confronting and resisting any attempts to impose their anti-Choice homophobic anti-science narrow-theology views on our society. Your previous posts indicate that you are in sympathy with the would-be ayahtollahs that do so.<br>
If you wish to make your political bed with the likes of James Dobson and Gary Bauer, it is your inalienable right to associate with that muck.
It is also an inalienable right for those beliefs to fought and regarded with jeering contempt. If you don’t like it, go pound sand. The Religious Right’s sense of entitlement from the past couple of elections is misplaced.</p>
<p>FountainSiren you miss the point…In a democracy Laws must protect everyone, but not limit freedom. So if something is truly harmful…letting people shoot others with guns…we should have laws protecting others. But when we’re talking about gay marriage…it hurts no one, so you leave it unrestricted and let PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. In abortion, you are not forced to have one…so you let people decide for themselves. I know you religious people believe it’s hurting innocent souls, but many of us believe, IF THERE EVEN IS A SOUL that it enter right before birth, but certainly if a baby can not survive outside the womb (without intense medical intervention) it is not a real person yet. When the bible was written they didn’t have intensive care units that can help you survive after you’ve died or help you live well before you really can survive yourself. If you really follow the religious books religiously then we are basing our beliefs on when it was written than trying to interpolate into the modern world is ridiculous. Especially about the Schiavo case when she died years before. AND God let her die only to be resurrected by people who played God…badly. YOU NEVER have to have an abortion, but I have known so many people who were not ready for motherhood who had abortions, or who could not afford another child. The truth is, that if a baby is not wanted, there is danger of abuse WHEN IT IS OLD ENOUGH TO BE BORN. It’s a life sentence for both parent and child. (But at 17 you missed the era of coat hanger abortions. I know many who were rendered infertile by having one. The male wasn’t so abused…just the woman. Do you really want to go back to that???)
We need things to be loosely legislated so everyone is protected, That’s why marriage for homosexuals is none of our business. It hurts no one. Drugs, if legal would make it not worthy of being sold underground by dealers…who are dangerous and push others to take drugs. Making them legal would end that trade. I for one would not like to be legislated by Sharia…or Sufi or any religion, least of all far right Christians, where the death sentence and war is great, but homosexual marriage is not. It doesn’t even make sense. Only a mystical non-appearing apparition called God could make people believe it all makes sense.</p>
<p>I find it really scary the in some states pharmecies can deny birth control and even condoms, because it goes against their beliefs…I would think that preventing unwanted pregnancies would be a good thing…yeah, and even married couples have been denied their birth control and must drive hours away…</p>
<p>theDad, exactly why i put ‘good’ as ‘good’ and not good. i know people do not think these things as ‘bad’; but in one way or another these things can cause negative impacts to people. (you can check previous pages if you like)</p>
<p>the point is to not just ‘let it be’. for example, let’s talk about abortion, the key here is not just to let people have abortions, but to advocate premarital sex can have negative impacts. maybe that is too daunting a task, and it is; but people are saying we cannot advocate abstinence because it’s one’s right to do whatever they want, and that sounds like a very bad excuse for not doing anything. </p>
<p>is freedom simply ‘letting it be’? if so, then why are we putting kids in schools?</p>
<p>and to laura50, what is the difference between truly harmful and not truly harmful? i think one would rather be shot dead than endure life with AIDS. </p>
<p>and regarding drugs, getting rid of all drugs sounds hard, but that statement itself cannot support that making it legal will be the best solution. it is the easiest solution. it seems like most people have given up on making changes the obvious but extremely difficult way. </p>
<p>we all know what each other is trying to say… and i am sounding foolishly optimistic about all the changes that can be made. but i would rather be foolish. it is obvious enough that these things can be hard to change, if not impossible, and why? if they were easy things they’d be done now. But with an optimistic attitude, at least we have one hope that can strengthen us to simply try.</p>
<p>TheDad, I share your views (and your feelings). However, the don’t-impose-your-views-on-me argument doesn’t work for the following reason: if someone doesn’t believe in abortion, it’s not enough to tell them not to have one. After all, I don’t believe in murder or armed robbery, and my view extends beyond my personal intention not to commit one of those crimes – I don’t want other people to do so, either, because I believe they are harmful to individuals and to society as a whole. People who are anti-choice see their view just this way. Frankly, I’m not sure how to engage…</p>
<p>If you can excuse the fact that I am 17, or a Sufi (a sin to be sure), I might say that I have not seen that I have missed any point that seemed worth catching.</p>
<p>But let me give it a try:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You disagree with certain policies and favor others (the correct ones). </p></li>
<li><p>You think your beliefs are right; but as it turns out, even the stubborn wrong people do…but you know that your beliefs are in fact right and good, whereas others simply think they are right but are in fact wrong, bad and stubbornly unaware of their being wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>Therefore, your view of democracy, would lead us to conclude that differing views are in principal nice and democratic but only the “right” view, in a democracy, is really worth considering. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Laura,
Khomeini and Castro took a not dissimilar stance on “democracy”; and by the way, they thought they were absolutely right too what a conundrum this is for all those who believe democracy, in principal, is the way to go and yet are condemned to be right. This must be quite a burden to bear. Though I cant claim to suffer from it, I sympathize with those that do.</p>
<p>But dont ALL views, no matter their metaphysical origin, affect everyones legal rights when they are expressed politically?*</p>
<p>I will pick one issue- the limiting of rights to GLBT people.
Allowing society to restrict gays from marrying, doesn’t stop them from forming long term relationships, but it stops them from acting as the others “next of kin” even in situations where they may have been extranged from any “next of kin” for decades.
Gays may be legally descriminated against in housing- in the workplace- & in the military- this is not just and shouldn’t be legal.</p>
<p>How does refusing to rent to a gay couple next door interfere with my legal rights? My sensibilities might be rattled, I might not like the idea that a gay couple exists, but why should I be more sensitive to that than an obese couple, a couple with more than the PC # of 2. children,a couple who drive gas guzzling SUVs, a mixed race couple,a couple that rips out their grass and paves their parking strip, a couple who is racist and loudly rants about the immigrants in the neighborhood,a couple who allows their dog to defecate in my yard.
Only in the last I am being harmed legally but at least there is legal action against allowing dogs to poop without picking it up.</p>
<p>That was well argued; however, I would probably be interested in hearing other and contrary views on the same subject. In the end, I may even disagree with you…and I might be wrong in so doing. Nonetheless, that is democracy, I guess, and one of the better things about it is that you can be wrong. You do not HAVE to be right to have an opinion and have it accepted and acted upon. </p>
<p>The only good judgment we have in this situation is that of the governed (divine federal judges aside)…God doesn’t vote and even those who believe their opinion to coincide with God’s do not get to count for more than those who make their best fallible guesses. The irony here, of course, is that it is the secular posters who are arguing for infallibility, not those who wish to align their beliefs with a divine entity.</p>
<p>“I for one would not like to be legislated by Sharia…or Sufi or any religion”</p>
<p>Lauras,
Not that it matters much, but Sufi’s don’t have laws as such, simply what is called “adab” (as SBmom referred to in an earlier post) which means etiquette or manners. Therefore, theres not much for you to loose sleep over if Sufis ever become a big voting block in the USA, unless you have particularly bad table manners ;)</p>
An excellent point. In fact, it is a remarkable feat of political jiujitsu by which the left casts the political views of religious people as illegitimate–tainted by belief in a deity–and therefore inferior to their own political views, the legitimacy of which resides only in their own high opinions of themselves.</p>
<p>“these backcounty hicks are running the country, as marx remarked [and STALIN and MAO enacted] religion is the opium of the people”</p>
<p>Perhaps there really are those on the Left who long for the good ole days of Stalin and Mao…and I thought it was no longer intellectually fashionable…I need to get a subscription to “[Politically] IN STYLE” or I will never fit in with the intellectually “beautiful” people…I wonder what Paris Hilton will be wearing to the next International Congress?</p>
<p>The rather odd wording of the First Amendment also is worth noticing: . . . respecting an establishment of religion. . . . Here, respecting is a preposition that means regarding or about. Congress shall make no law about the establishment of religion. We now know that this curious phrasing was a revision of the draft text of the amendment. An earlier draft said only that Congress could not establish a religion: But at that time, there were established churches in several of the states, notably in Massachusetts. Delegates from these states worried that simply preventing Congress from establishing a religion would not rule out the federal government disestablishing the state churches. The language of the First Amendment, therefore, is the way it is in no small part to protect the established churches of states. The Massachusetts Puritan church remained established in that state until 1833.</p>