or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist - Page 2

post #41 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

You guys are killing me. Do you know how painful it is to have to defend BR in a thread about religion?

I'm sure it is, and I appreciate it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #42 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'd have to argue that once again, you are attacking him and his posting history (as you view it) rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of the question in hand. I don't care what his, or anyone else's track record might be - I prefer to consider each post on its content. If you feel that Islam needs some criticism then start a thread on it - don't attack BR for not doing it.

 

You don't take a person't past behavior and statements into consideration when evaluating his opinions? You don't question a person's motivations?  Of course you do.  Sure, if you take this thread as existing in a vacuum, it's not that bad.  But in total, it's laughable.  

 

With regard to Islam, I did not say (write) that I felt Islam needs criticism.  I merely criticized BR for only attacking Christianity.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 167
Thread Starter 
Come now, SDW. Morminism isn't Christianity. It's Christian fan-fiction AT BEST.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #44 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'd have to argue that once again, you are attacking him and his posting history (as you view it) rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of the question in hand. I don't care what his, or anyone else's track record might be - I prefer to consider each post on its content. If you feel that Islam needs some criticism then start a thread on it - don't attack BR for not doing it.

 

You don't take a person't past behavior and statements into consideration when evaluating his opinions? You don't question a person's motivations?  Of course you do.  Sure, if you take this thread as existing in a vacuum, it's not that bad.  But in total, it's laughable.  

 

With regard to Islam, I did not say (write) that I felt Islam needs criticism.  I merely criticized BR for only attacking Christianity.   

 

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't. I will give any argument an equal opportunity, irrespective of who posts it. If the argument is wrong, then dismantle the argument rather than taking the lazy route of dismissing the poster, which is, by definition, an ad hominem response.

 

And, as I said earlier, should I criticize you for only attacking Democrats?

post #45 of 167

I say what I feel in my heart .There are reasons what I say about this religion which pertains to my own religion of being Jewish.It is to complex to state here on these posts.I say what I mean and mean what I say.
 

post #46 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'd have to argue that once again, you are attacking him and his posting history (as you view it) rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of the question in hand. I don't care what his, or anyone else's track record might be - I prefer to consider each post on its content. If you feel that Islam needs some criticism then start a thread on it - don't attack BR for not doing it.

 

You don't take a person't past behavior and statements into consideration when evaluating his opinions? You don't question a person's motivations?  Of course you do.  Sure, if you take this thread as existing in a vacuum, it's not that bad.  But in total, it's laughable.  

 

With regard to Islam, I did not say (write) that I felt Islam needs criticism.  I merely criticized BR for only attacking Christianity.   

 

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't. I will give any argument an equal opportunity, irrespective of who posts it. If the argument is wrong, then dismantle the argument rather than taking the lazy route of dismissing the poster, which is, by definition, an ad hominem response.

 

And, as I said earlier, should I criticize you for only attacking Democrats?

 

 

The point remains though that you've given BR a fair opportunity in this thread to explain his reasoning, he hasn't provided good cause or a good rationale for his conclusions. You even gave him the benefit of the doubt and nudged him in the right direction several times. He didn't go there. At that point, when a person is clinging to a bad bit of reasoning, you have to move into why they cling to it.

 

I did just that and it wasn't addressed. BR has a clear religious bias so deep that it reflects outright hatred. It clearly moves him from rational to completely irrational. You tried to nudge and cajole him into a rational position. He won't go. The reason he won't go is blind hatred and his history shows that.

 

Now UNLIKE what he accords the Mormon church, if BR denounces his prior hatred and moves forward from there, we could do as you do and give him the benefit of the doubt. We could, as you note, even consider only his actions if the denouncement of prior actions seems especially slippery or weak. However none of those items have happened. Instead you've gone straight up and asked him to be rational and he's excused himself from reason due to his religious hatred.

 

Now BR hasn't even presented a credible rationale for why the religion or members are racist. His argument for it is irrational. You asked about the absence of evidence for racism. His reply was....Prop 8!

 

Now we can even go a step further and show how he has MISREPRESENTED Mormonism and ask why he would do this. The answer again is irrational hatred. We know it is irrational hatred because when asked to be rational, he can't go there.

 

BR made declarations about the text of Cain and Abel that are simply not true. The story of Cain and Abel may have been understood in a certain fashion by certain church leaders in Mormonism but the story itself about the two brothers exists in all major religions, including Islam. So then you move on to Lamanites and realize this book, no matter how BR considers it, still represents a claimed history of North America. One would still have to ask him, what the hell that has to do with African-Americans who clearly are NOT originally from North America.

 

Finally BR claims the text is infallible and that is not true either. Mormonism keeps a living prophet. The church claims new revelations from that prophet. The book represents prior prophecy from prior prophets. If God make a clarification or reiterates given the nature of men and their inability to understand him, then that is his prerogative.

 

A few others have hit on these points but not to this depth and really given BR's irrational hatred and willing to generate endless threads about it, why should they give HIM the benefit of the doubt. His actions have not changed and he deserves no benefit of the doubt. He clearly is just trolling on religion. I linked to several examples of this, all recent. Ignoring and dismissing trolls is smart because they seek attention, not discussion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'd have to argue that once again, you are attacking him and his posting history (as you view it) rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of the question in hand. I don't care what his, or anyone else's track record might be - I prefer to consider each post on its content. If you feel that Islam needs some criticism then start a thread on it - don't attack BR for not doing it.

You don't take a person't past behavior and statements into consideration when evaluating his opinions? You don't question a person's motivations?  Of course you do.  Sure, if you take this thread as existing in a vacuum, it's not that bad.  But in total, it's laughable.  

With regard to Islam, I did not say (write) that I felt Islam needs criticism.  I merely criticized BR for only attacking Christianity.   

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't. I will give any argument an equal opportunity, irrespective of who posts it. If the argument is wrong, then dismantle the argument rather than taking the lazy route of dismissing the poster, which is, by definition, an ad hominem response.

And, as I said earlier, should I criticize you for only attacking Democrats?


The point remains though that you've given BR a fair opportunity in this thread to explain his reasoning, he hasn't provided good cause or a good rationale for his conclusions. You even gave him the benefit of the doubt and nudged him in the right direction several times. He didn't go there. At that point, when a person is clinging to a bad bit of reasoning, you have to move into why they cling to it.

I did just that and it wasn't addressed. BR has a clear religious bias so deep that it reflects outright hatred. It clearly moves him from rational to completely irrational. You tried to nudge and cajole him into a rational position. He won't go. The reason he won't go is blind hatred and his history shows that.

Now UNLIKE what he accords the Mormon church, if BR denounces his prior hatred and moves forward from there, we could do as you do and give him the benefit of the doubt. We could, as you note, even consider only his actions if the denouncement of prior actions seems especially slippery or weak. However none of those items have happened. Instead you've gone straight up and asked him to be rational and he's excused himself from reason due to his religious hatred.

Now BR hasn't even presented a credible rationale for why the religion or members are racist. His argument for it is irrational. You asked about the absence of evidence for racism. His reply was....Prop 8!

Now we can even go a step further and show how he has MISREPRESENTED Mormonism and ask why he would do this. The answer again is irrational hatred. We know it is irrational hatred because when asked to be rational, he can't go there.

BR made declarations about the text of Cain and Abel that are simply not true. The story of Cain and Abel may have been understood in a certain fashion by certain church leaders in Mormonism but the story itself about the two brothers exists in all major religions, including Islam. So then you move on to Lamanites and realize this book, no matter how BR considers it, still represents a claimed history of North America. One would still have to ask him, what the hell that has to do with African-Americans who clearly are NOT originally from North America.

Finally BR claims the text is infallible and that is not true either. Mormonism keeps a living prophet. The church claims new revelations from that prophet. The book represents prior prophecy from prior prophets. If God make a clarification or reiterates given the nature of men and their inability to understand him, then that is his prerogative.

A few others have hit on these points but not to this depth and really given BR's irrational hatred and willing to generate endless threads about it, why should they give HIM the benefit of the doubt. His actions have not changed and he deserves no benefit of the doubt. He clearly is just trolling on religion. I linked to several examples of this, all recent. Ignoring and dismissing trolls is smart because they seek attention, not discussion.

That's well argued. I guess my only doubt is regarding assigning a motive so strong as hatred. I certainly see a high level of obstinacy though.
post #48 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

The point remains though that you've given BR a fair opportunity in this thread to explain his reasoning, he hasn't provided good cause or a good rationale for his conclusions. You even gave him the benefit of the doubt and nudged him in the right direction several times. He didn't go there. At that point, when a person is clinging to a bad bit of reasoning, you have to move into why they cling to it.

 

I did just that and it wasn't addressed. BR has a clear religious bias so deep that it reflects outright hatred. It clearly moves him from rational to completely irrational. You tried to nudge and cajole him into a rational position. He won't go. The reason he won't go is blind hatred and his history shows that.

 

Now UNLIKE what he accords the Mormon church, if BR denounces his prior hatred and moves forward from there, we could do as you do and give him the benefit of the doubt. We could, as you note, even consider only his actions if the denouncement of prior actions seems especially slippery or weak. However none of those items have happened. Instead you've gone straight up and asked him to be rational and he's excused himself from reason due to his religious hatred.

 

Now BR hasn't even presented a credible rationale for why the religion or members are racist. His argument for it is irrational. You asked about the absence of evidence for racism. His reply was....Prop 8!

 

Now we can even go a step further and show how he has MISREPRESENTED Mormonism and ask why he would do this. The answer again is irrational hatred. We know it is irrational hatred because when asked to be rational, he can't go there.

 

BR made declarations about the text of Cain and Abel that are simply not true. The story of Cain and Abel may have been understood in a certain fashion by certain church leaders in Mormonism but the story itself about the two brothers exists in all major religions, including Islam. So then you move on to Lamanites and realize this book, no matter how BR considers it, still represents a claimed history of North America. One would still have to ask him, what the hell that has to do with African-Americans who clearly are NOT originally from North America.

 

Finally BR claims the text is infallible and that is not true either. Mormonism keeps a living prophet. The church claims new revelations from that prophet. The book represents prior prophecy from prior prophets. If God make a clarification or reiterates given the nature of men and their inability to understand him, then that is his prerogative.

 

A few others have hit on these points but not to this depth and really given BR's irrational hatred and willing to generate endless threads about it, why should they give HIM the benefit of the doubt. His actions have not changed and he deserves no benefit of the doubt. He clearly is just trolling on religion. I linked to several examples of this, all recent. Ignoring and dismissing trolls is smart because they seek attention, not discussion.

 

Great post.

post #49 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

The point remains though that you've given BR a fair opportunity in this thread to explain his reasoning, he hasn't provided good cause or a good rationale for his conclusions. You even gave him the benefit of the doubt and nudged him in the right direction several times. He didn't go there. At that point, when a person is clinging to a bad bit of reasoning, you have to move into why they cling to it.

 

I did just that and it wasn't addressed. BR has a clear religious bias so deep that it reflects outright hatred. It clearly moves him from rational to completely irrational. You tried to nudge and cajole him into a rational position. He won't go. The reason he won't go is blind hatred and his history shows that.

 

Now UNLIKE what he accords the Mormon church, if BR denounces his prior hatred and moves forward from there, we could do as you do and give him the benefit of the doubt. We could, as you note, even consider only his actions if the denouncement of prior actions seems especially slippery or weak. However none of those items have happened. Instead you've gone straight up and asked him to be rational and he's excused himself from reason due to his religious hatred.

 

Now BR hasn't even presented a credible rationale for why the religion or members are racist. His argument for it is irrational. You asked about the absence of evidence for racism. His reply was....Prop 8!

 

Now we can even go a step further and show how he has MISREPRESENTED Mormonism and ask why he would do this. The answer again is irrational hatred. We know it is irrational hatred because when asked to be rational, he can't go there.

 

BR made declarations about the text of Cain and Abel that are simply not true. The story of Cain and Abel may have been understood in a certain fashion by certain church leaders in Mormonism but the story itself about the two brothers exists in all major religions, including Islam. So then you move on to Lamanites and realize this book, no matter how BR considers it, still represents a claimed history of North America. One would still have to ask him, what the hell that has to do with African-Americans who clearly are NOT originally from North America.

 

Finally BR claims the text is infallible and that is not true either. Mormonism keeps a living prophet. The church claims new revelations from that prophet. The book represents prior prophecy from prior prophets. If God make a clarification or reiterates given the nature of men and their inability to understand him, then that is his prerogative.

 

A few others have hit on these points but not to this depth and really given BR's irrational hatred and willing to generate endless threads about it, why should they give HIM the benefit of the doubt. His actions have not changed and he deserves no benefit of the doubt. He clearly is just trolling on religion. I linked to several examples of this, all recent. Ignoring and dismissing trolls is smart because they seek attention, not discussion.

 

Excellent post, trumpt. This is why I simply posted a link to resources related to the topic rather than engage BR in yet another of his obvious attempts to incite a flamewar.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #50 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Come now, SDW. Morminism isn't Christianity. It's Christian fan-fiction AT BEST.

 

Got Hatred?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't. I will give any argument an equal opportunity, irrespective of who posts it. If the argument is wrong, then dismantle the argument rather than taking the lazy route of dismissing the poster, which is, by definition, an ad hominem response.

 

And, as I said earlier, should I criticize you for only attacking Democrats?

 

I frankly find that absolutely unbelievable.  In any discussion, debate or argument, the mantra "consider the source" is imperative.  This doesn't mean we dismiss everything a person says simply because of who he is, but I find it essential to consider a person's biases, points of view, etc.  For example, of Bill Clinton endorsed Mitt Romney, that would be bigger than George W. Bush endorsing Mitt Romney.  It would be different--not because of the arguments they made to support their conclusion, but because of who both men are politically.   There are many other examples that come to mind.  Do you consider all arguments regardless of qualification?  If Joe Montana gave you advice on how to be a good quarterback, would you consider it the same as if my trash man did so?  And what about biases?  If a KKK member tells you he opposes affirmative action, do you treat that the same as the African-American who makes the same argument?   The list could literally almost go on forever.  Of course we consider the "who" in statements and opinions.  It's not even a question.  

 

As for me, you are certainly free to opine on my attacking "only" Democrats.  However, if you'd been around longer, you'd know that your observation is inaccurate.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


That's well argued. I guess my only doubt is regarding assigning a motive so strong as hatred. I certainly see a high level of obstinacy though.

 

And I have no doubt that you're unaware of the number of times BR has attacked not only religion, but ALL people of faith.  He has demonstrated a true inability to tolerate anyone with a differing opinion, especially with regards to faith.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't. I will give any argument an equal opportunity, irrespective of who posts it. If the argument is wrong, then dismantle the argument rather than taking the lazy route of dismissing the poster, which is, by definition, an ad hominem response.

 

And, as I said earlier, should I criticize you for only attacking Democrats?

 

I frankly find that absolutely unbelievable.  In any discussion, debate or argument, the mantra "consider the source" is imperative.  This doesn't mean we dismiss everything a person says simply because of who he is, but I find it essential to consider a person's biases, points of view, etc.  For example, of Bill Clinton endorsed Mitt Romney, that would be bigger than George W. Bush endorsing Mitt Romney.  It would be different--not because of the arguments they made to support their conclusion, but because of who both men are politically.   There are many other examples that come to mind.  Do you consider all arguments regardless of qualification?  If Joe Montana gave you advice on how to be a good quarterback, would you consider it the same as if my trash man did so?  And what about biases?  If a KKK member tells you he opposes affirmative action, do you treat that the same as the African-American who makes the same argument?   The list could literally almost go on forever.  Of course we consider the "who" in statements and opinions.  It's not even a question.  

 

As for me, you are certainly free to opine on my attacking "only" Democrats.  However, if you'd been around longer, you'd know that your observation is inaccurate.  

 

Perhaps I can phrase it differently then; why do you need to attack the poster? If his arguments are weak or incorrect, is it not more satisfying to demonstrate that than to resort to an ad hominem retort? Consider the source is an essential screening consideration for assessing whether to trust information provided, but not the validity or otherwise of an argument.

 

As for  your examples, they are true, but they are not really applicable because they reference expert opinion; this is an anonymous forum, and so we have no knowledge of the qualifications of any particular poster, and most posters do not try to use their qualifications to win arguments. There is no legitimate appeal to authority option, and conversely there is no legitimate dismiss through lack of authority option. I've discussed issues on this website a number of times where I am genuinely a subject matter expert, but I know that there is no point trying to use that advantage (other than to construct good arguments) because I cannot authenticate those qualifications.

 

Do I consider all arguments regardless of qualification? I certainly try to, and I think my posts bear that out. Any attempt to use one's perception of another's bias simply dilutes one's argument. If you see me doing otherwise then feel free to point it out.

post #52 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Perhaps I can phrase it differently then; why do you need to attack the poster? If his arguments are weak or incorrect, is it not more satisfying to demonstrate that than to resort to an ad hominem retort? Consider the source is an essential screening consideration for assessing whether to trust information provided, but not the validity or otherwise of an argument.

 

 

Let me phrase it even more briefly:  BR has demonstrated himself to be, over a period of years, an anti-religious bigot.  I therefore do not take his arguments on that topic seriously.  Even if there are points in those arguments that are technically accurate (and their often are), his argument is made either in an intellectually dishonest way, or extremely biased.  In that last regard, strong opinions and biases are fine, but not when he presents himself as a neutral quasi-scholar.  

 

 

 

Quote:
As for  your examples, they are true, but they are not really applicable because they reference expert opinion; this is an anonymous forum, and so we have no knowledge of the qualifications of any particular poster, and most posters do not try to use their qualifications to win arguments.

 

BR has repeatedly claimed he knows a great deal about Christianity.  He presents himself as a near expert.  

 

 

 

Quote:
There is no legitimate appeal to authority option, and conversely there is no legitimate dismiss through lack of authority option. I've discussed issues on this website a number of times where I am genuinely a subject matter expert, but I know that there is no point trying to use that advantage (other than to construct good arguments) because I cannot authenticate those qualifications.

 

BR presents his arguments as if he were an expert.  He dismisses other interpretations out of hand.  The fact is we all know BR is not a religious scholar.  Can we agree on that?  

 

 

 

Quote:
Do I consider all arguments regardless of qualification? I certainly try to, and I think my posts bear that out. Any attempt to use one's perception of another's bias simply dilutes one's argument. If you see me doing otherwise then feel free to point it out.

 

First, qualifications and biases are different things.  I'm sure you'd agree there.  Secondly, I never said I don't consider opinions from those I find biased or unqualified.  I simply treat those opinions with different weight.  On this board, BR has become a caricature of himself, particularly with respect to his anti-religious tirades.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 167
Thread Starter 

Enough of the character assassination, SDW.  This ad-hom has been going on long enough.  I am not obligated to respect your magical thinking--especially when it influences policy decisions that affect the whole nation.  Romney is wrong.  We are not all "Children of the Same god".  Once again, the religious think it's just fine to marginalize a significant segment of the population.  Criticizing a lack of critical thought on the parts of believers in magical thinking might be uncomfortable for you, but it is well within my rights--frankly, it is my duty to this country.  It is absolutely patriotic to promote rational thought over magical thinking; our country deserves leadership that doesn't take cues from the voices within their heads.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #54 of 167

If only BR would abandon his "magically thinking."

 

Ah well, one can dream.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 167
Thread Starter 

I'm not the one who believes in a sky fairy and lets two thousand year old desert-dweller mythology govern my actions.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #56 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Perhaps I can phrase it differently then; why do you need to attack the poster? If his arguments are weak or incorrect, is it not more satisfying to demonstrate that than to resort to an ad hominem retort? Consider the source is an essential screening consideration for assessing whether to trust information provided, but not the validity or otherwise of an argument.

 

 

Let me phrase it even more briefly:  BR has demonstrated himself to be, over a period of years, an anti-religious bigot.  I therefore do not take his arguments on that topic seriously.  Even if there are points in those arguments that are technically accurate (and their often are), his argument is made either in an intellectually dishonest way, or extremely biased.  In that last regard, strong opinions and biases are fine, but not when he presents himself as a neutral quasi-scholar.  

 

Quote:
As for  your examples, they are true, but they are not really applicable because they reference expert opinion; this is an anonymous forum, and so we have no knowledge of the qualifications of any particular poster, and most posters do not try to use their qualifications to win arguments.

 

BR has repeatedly claimed he knows a great deal about Christianity.  He presents himself as a near expert.  

 

Quote:
There is no legitimate appeal to authority option, and conversely there is no legitimate dismiss through lack of authority option. I've discussed issues on this website a number of times where I am genuinely a subject matter expert, but I know that there is no point trying to use that advantage (other than to construct good arguments) because I cannot authenticate those qualifications.

 

BR presents his arguments as if he were an expert.  He dismisses other interpretations out of hand.  The fact is we all know BR is not a religious scholar.  Can we agree on that?  

 

That may all be true, although I don't think it answers my question. The arguments, however presented, are either right or wrong. I'm saying forget the messenger and deal with the message.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Do I consider all arguments regardless of qualification? I certainly try to, and I think my posts bear that out. Any attempt to use one's perception of another's bias simply dilutes one's argument. If you see me doing otherwise then feel free to point it out.

 

First, qualifications and biases are different things.  I'm sure you'd agree there.  Secondly, I never said I don't consider opinions from those I find biased or unqualified.  I simply treat those opinions with different weight.  On this board, BR has become a caricature of himself, particularly with respect to his anti-religious tirades.  

 

Now I would say that you are conflating opinion with argument. You cannot, by definition, dispute an opinion. You absolutely may choose to give more weight to opinions from people you believe to be qualified in an area, but an argument does not need weight - it stands on its own - and so it should not matter whence it came. And, of course, if you consider a posters contributions (either opinions or arguments) to be consistently worthless, you can simply not respond.

post #57 of 167
Islam has caused the cultural and moral destruction of my birth country, Malaysia. As such Mormonism is off my radar for now. But Islam? I'm going to a Geert Wilders talk early next year.
post #58 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm not the one who believes in a sky fairy and lets two thousand year old desert-dweller mythology govern my actions.  

True dat. I let my heart and mind govern my actions. And my heart tells me there is a Goddess that loves me and everyone a lot.

Cheesy, but what I believe.
post #59 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Enough of the character assassination, SDW.  This ad-hom has been going on long enough.  I am not obligated to respect your magical thinking--especially when it influences policy decisions that affect the whole nation.  Romney is wrong.  We are not all "Children of the Same god".  Once again, the religious think it's just fine to marginalize a significant segment of the population.  Criticizing a lack of critical thought on the parts of believers in magical thinking might be uncomfortable for you, but it is well within my rights--frankly, it is my duty to this country.  It is absolutely patriotic to promote rational thought over magical thinking; our country deserves leadership that doesn't take cues from the voices within their heads.

 

LOL. You complain about ad-homs while trashing believers like it's your job.  Hysterical.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Enough of the character assassination, SDW.  This ad-hom has been going on long enough.  I am not obligated to respect your magical thinking--especially when it influences policy decisions that affect the whole nation.  Romney is wrong.  We are not all "Children of the Same god".  Once again, the religious think it's just fine to marginalize a significant segment of the population.  Criticizing a lack of critical thought on the parts of believers in magical thinking might be uncomfortable for you, but it is well within my rights--frankly, it is my duty to this country.  It is absolutely patriotic to promote rational thought over magical thinking; our country deserves leadership that doesn't take cues from the voices within their heads.

 

LOL. You complain about ad-homs while trashing believers like it's your job.  Hysterical.  

 

Just my take on it, but I don't think that he is "trashing believers", but rather arguing that they should not let their personal religious beliefs dictate their approach to legislative policy. On that point I agree with him.

post #61 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Just my take on it, but I don't think that he is "trashing believers", but rather arguing that they should not let their personal religious beliefs dictate their approach to legislative policy. On that point I agree with him.

 

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to BR's behavior towards those who are believers.  I'm speaking in general terms.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Just my take on it, but I don't think that he is "trashing believers", but rather arguing that they should not let their personal religious beliefs dictate their approach to legislative policy. On that point I agree with him.

 

Even if that were the only thing he is/was doing (and it is not), it is actually probably worse. It's basically saying a person is only allowed to participate in the governing process if they conform to an approved way of thinking. Essentially some people (like BR) are allowed to let their personal values and beliefs guide their involvement in and contribution to the governing process, but others are not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #63 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Even if that were the only thing he is/was doing (and it is not), it is actually probably worse. It's basically saying a person is only allowed to participate in the governing process if they conform to an approved way of thinking. Essentially some people (like BR) are allowed to let their personal values and beliefs guide their involvement in and contribution to the governing process, but others are not.

 

I was going to say something very similar.  How are personal religious beliefs really any different in terms of their effect on legislative policy than any other personal beliefs?  Can you be opposed to gay marriage or abortion or prostitution on purely non-religious grounds and be able to advocate against these policies, or is religion the only source of personal opposition to these issues?  I know that it works better for liberals if they could exclude religion entirely from the political arena, but it just doesn't work that way. 

post #64 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Even if that were the only thing he is/was doing (and it is not), it is actually probably worse. It's basically saying a person is only allowed to participate in the governing process if they conform to an approved way of thinking. Essentially some people (like BR) are allowed to let their personal values and beliefs guide their involvement in and contribution to the governing process, but others are not.

I was going to say something very similar.  How are personal religious beliefs really any different in terms of their effect on legislative policy than any other personal beliefs?  Can you be opposed to gay marriage or abortion or prostitution on purely non-religious grounds and be able to advocate against these policies, or is religion the only source of personal opposition to these issues?  I know that it works better for liberals if they could exclude religion entirely from the political arena, but it just doesn't work that way. 

In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.

For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.
post #65 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.
For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.

 

First, the primary responsibility of elected officials at the federal level is to defend and uphold the constitution. I suspect that state and local officials have similar oaths as well. If they do nothing else, they ought to at least do that and if they do anything else, it ought not conflict with that responsibility.

 

So much for that fantasy. Oh well. 1hmm.gif

 

Second, you ran right for one of the more controversial and extreme issues to make your point. Not sure why. The real question here though is what is the key principle at play? Does it matter that the basis of opposition to homosexual marriage is religious? If not then religion is a red herring here. If the issue is infringing upon someone's right to marry whomever they wish, then it doesn't really matter the basis of that infringement.

 

Third, BR has not limited his staunch opposition to religious activity to merely elected officials. His opposition is broader to the point of wishing for or arguing for people who are guided by their religious faith to abstain from including those in their contribution to the political process. He wants people to empty themselves of the values he opposes before they contribute to the governing processes. Granted we live in a constitutional republic in which any matter or issue should be constrained by that constitution* (lol.gif) or amend it. But it's fallacious to claim that any and every issue that those of religious faith support or oppose would fail to meet this constraint.

 

Finally, let me say again that religion here is a red herring. The fact is that BR (et al) wishes to impose his values and views upon others even though he does not have a religious faith or belief and he merely wants to exclude those with whom he disagrees from the political process. Let's take homosexual marriage as an example:

 

1. Personally, I oppose homsexual marriage and believe it is a sin (no better or worse than any other sin) before God according to my faith.

2. Politically and governmentally I am not opposed to it at all. I believe everyone has the right (i.e., they already HAVE it, it is not and need not be granted by the state) to "marry" whomever they want (assuming consenting adults here) and that I have no right to prevent this.

3. I believe the state has no business whatsoever involving itself in private relationships of this kind.

 

But here's the difference. BR (et al) want the government to grant the right for homosexuals to marry (I say they already) have it. Why is this? The primary reason is then to be able to use the force of the state to compel others to acknowledge and honor these marriages whether they agree with such unions or not. So this is BR trying to impose his views and values upon others.

 

*I suspect BR doesn't really care about being constrained by the constitution either when it gets in his way of imposing his values on others. So I doubt he's holding to principle there. I don't really think BR holds very consistently to any principle except that things ought to go his way and religious people are nuts and should get out of the way. That's all fine (if a bit hypocritical) except where it violates the basic rights of life, liberty and property of every person.


Edited by MJ1970 - 10/22/12 at 2:05pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.
For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.

 

First, the primary responsibility of elected officials at the federal level is to defend and uphold the constitution. I suspect that state and local officials have similar oaths as well. If they do nothing else, they ought to at least do that and if the do anything else, it ought not conflict with that.

 

Well, that didn't last too long. Oh well. 1hmm.gif

 

Second, you ran right for one of the more controversial and extreme issues to make your point. The question here though is what is the principle at play here? Does it matter that the basis of opposition to homosexual marriage is religious? If not then religion is a red herring here. If the issue is infringing upon someone's right to marry whomever they wish, then it doesn't really matter the basis of that infringement.

 

Third, BR has not limited his staunch opposition to religious activity to merely elected officials. His opposition is broader to the point of wishing for or arguing for people who are guided by their religious faiths to abstain from including these in their contribution to the political process.

 

Finally, let me say again that religion here is a red herring. The fact is that BR (et al) wishes to impose his values and views upon others even though he does not have a religious faith or belief and he merely wants to exclude those with whom he disagrees from the political process. Let's take homosexual marriage as an example:

 

1. Personally, I oppose homsexual marriage and believe it is a sin (no better or worse than any other sin) before God according to my faith.

2. Politically and governmentally I am not opposed to it at all. I believe everyone has the right (i.e., they already HAVE it, it is not and need not be granted by the state) to "marry" whomever they want (assuming consenting adults here) and that I have no right to prevent this.

3. I believe the state has no business whatsoever involving itself in private relationships of this kind.

 

But here's the difference. BR (et al) want the government to grant the right for homosexuals to marry (I say they already) have it. Why is this? The primary reason is then to be able to use the force of the state to compel others to acknowledge and honor these marriages whether they agree with such unions or not. So this is BR trying to impose his views and values upon others.

 

I picked that example deliberately for exactly the reason that you state - it makes the issue obvious. The question of the difference between a religious and non-religious position on a subject is an interesting one. I actually think that there is fundamentally no difference - one's personal opinions should not get in the way of policy no matter what their origin. The problem that I see with the religious variety is that politicians tend to use the fact that their beliefs are religious to legitimize their use of them in making policy in a way that they would never attempt to do with more individual personal prejudices.

 

So, for example, it is widely considered that overt discrimination against gay people is unacceptable, but one can legitimately oppose gay rights by the simple device of hiding behind religious dogma - that's OK because the bible says so.

 

Your stated position is consistent and reasonable - personal disagreement but no governmental objection. We need more of that attitude - have you considered a career in politics?

post #67 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
MJ Says...
 
But here's the difference. BR (et al) want the government to grant the right for homosexuals to marry (I say they already) have it. Why is this? The primary reason is then to be able to use the force of the state to compel others to acknowledge and honor these marriages whether they agree with such unions or not. So this is BR trying to impose his views and values upon others.

 

 

No, I'm just trying to make sure same-sex couples have the same rights as any other loving heterosexual couple.  Your right not to be offended or not to feel icky does not trump the rights of those same-sex couples.  Your right to judge people unworthy does not trump a gay woman's right to visit her wife on her wife's deathbed--something that has been denied to many.  

 

Your right to be a fucking bigot does not trump a same-sex couple's right to say one final goodbye to each other.  Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.


Edited by BR - 10/22/12 at 2:26pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #68 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Your stated position is consistent and reasonable - personal disagreement but no governmental objection. We need more of that attitude - have you considered a career in politics?

 

Thank you.

 

No I have not considered a career in politics.

 

First, I prefer to work in the productive sector of society.

 

Second, I don't have the stomach (or temperament or sleaziness) for it.

 

Finally, there's no way on God's green earth I'd ever get elected. I don't believe in taking things from people and I don't believe in forcing people do what I want. That eliminates about 80-90% of the electorate for me. I could lie and say that I do support those things (to get elected) but then that just makes me a liar.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Your stated position is consistent and reasonable - personal disagreement but no governmental objection. We need more of that attitude - have you considered a career in politics?

 

Thank you.

 

No I have not considered a career in politics.

 

First, I prefer to work in the productive sector of society.

 

Second, I don't have the stomach (or temperament or sleaziness) for it.

 

Finally, there's no way on God's green earth I'd ever get elected. I don't believe in taking things from people and I don't believe in forcing people do what I want. That eliminates about 80-90% of the electorate for me. I could lie and say that I do support those things (to get elected) but then that just makes me a liar.

 

Fair enough. I'd argue, though, that the role of a politician in a democracy is not to force people to do what the politician wants, but to implement policies that the people want. I realize that it doesn't always seem to work like that.

post #70 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.
For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.

 

If one is attempting to legislate his own religious views, than yes...that's a problem.  But what BR has claimed is that people of faith are somehow inherently unqualified to hold office.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, I'm just trying to make sure same-sex couples have the same rights as any other loving heterosexual couple.  

 

Good for you.  Except your doing much more than "just" that.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Your right not to be offended or not to feel icky does not trump the rights of those same-sex couples.

 

There are many who oppose gay marriage on grounds that have nothing to do with either "ickiness" or being offended. Like me.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
 Your right to judge people unworthy does not trump a gay woman's right to visit her wife on her wife's deathbed--something that has been denied to many.  

 

 

Most people who oppose gay marriage support visitation rights and other domestic partner rights.  Including Mitt Romney.

 

 

 

Quote:
Your right to be a fucking bigot does not trump a same-sex couple's right to say one final goodbye to each other.  

 

I am not a bigot, and I oppose gay marriage.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.

 

 

 

And there you go.  You are not attacking those who would impose their religion on others.  You are attacking anyone who disagrees with gay marriage.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Fair enough. I'd argue, though, that the role of a politician in a democracy is not to force people to do what the politician wants, but to implement policies that the people want.

 

In a democracy, perhaps. In a constitutional republic it is, first, to keep the government within the boundaries of the written constitution. I'd argue that most of what politicians do in the US today basically violate that. But maybe it's just me.

 

But even in a democracy, I wouldn't stand a chance if I refuse to do what the people want because I believe it involved violating someone's basic, natural, God-given rights.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #72 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

There are many who oppose gay marriage on grounds that have nothing to do with either "ickiness" or being offended. Like me.  

 

I am not a bigot, and I oppose gay marriage.  

 

And there you go.  You are not attacking those who would impose their religion on others.  You are attacking anyone who disagrees with gay marriage.  

 

Yeah, it's interesting how quickly he jumps to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or is offended by it. I am neither, but...well...in BR's world there can be no honest, civilized disagreement.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #73 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.

For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.

 

Our government is not requred to be secular, it is required to be neutral on religion. Secular means free of religion. While legislation must have a secular purpose, it should not advance NOR INHIBIT religion.

 

The very concept of human rights originated from religion. Many institutions including the nation-state had a religious basis in their foundation.  Religion for many people around the world isn't just a choice but an aspect of their culture and ethicity. To say it shouldn't inform views is ridiculous.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yeah, it's interesting how quickly he jumps to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or is offended by it. I am neither, but...well...in BR's world there can be no honest, civilized disagreement.

 

Perhaps my comments don't apply to you if they *gasp* don't apply to you?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #75 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

If one is attempting to legislate his own religious views, than yes...that's a problem.  But what BR has claimed is that people of faith are somehow inherently unqualified to hold office.  

 

 

 

Good for you.  Except your doing much more than "just" that.  

 

 

 

 

There are many who oppose gay marriage on grounds that have nothing to do with either "ickiness" or being offended. Like me.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people who oppose gay marriage support visitation rights and other domestic partner rights.  Including Mitt Romney.

 

 

 

 

I am not a bigot, and I oppose gay marriage.  

 

 

 

 

 

And there you go.  You are not attacking those who would impose their religion on others.  You are attacking anyone who disagrees with gay marriage.  

Yeah, yeah...you put the sanctity of a definition (that has changed many times throughout history, but of which you won't acknowledge) ahead of real people.  Shit, your position is even less defensible.  At least if it were religiously motivated, you'd have the brainwashing to blame.

 

You are on the wrong side of history.  I hope our descendants will look back and remember those who called you people out.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #76 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yeah, yeah...you put the sanctity of a definition (that has changed many times throughout history, but of which you won't acknowledge) ahead of real people.  Shit, your position is even less defensible.  At least if it were religiously motivated, you'd have the brainwashing to blame.

 

You are on the wrong side of history.  I hope our descendants will look back and remember those who called you people out.

 

The definition has been the same in most societies for thousands of years, and certainly the past 500 years.  It's tenant of Western Civilization.  It's a pillar of our culture, a societal institution.  And changing it for gays opens up the institution to a host of other challenges that would eventually render it meaningless.  That is my position.  It's not based on my faith, nor any dislike whatsoever of gay people.  

 

As for history, I'm not really concerned with being in the winning team.  I form my positions through logic, reason and what I believe is morally right.  You apparently base yours on flashes of emotion, from which you seek to impose your vision on others.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In my view the role of politicians in a secular government is to reflect the will of the people while upholding the constitution, and they should base their policies primarily on those considerations rather than on the received wisdom of any particular belief set.

For example - consider the issue of gay marriage. Declaring opposition to it, and thereby attempting to restrict the rights of others based on a particular religious interpretation of the issue is contrary to that principle.

 

Our government is not requred to be secular, it is required to be neutral on religion. Secular means free of religion. While legislation must have a secular purpose, it should not advance NOR INHIBIT religion.

 

The very concept of human rights originated from religion. Many institutions including the nation-state had a religious basis in their foundation.  Religion for many people around the world isn't just a choice but an aspect of their culture and ethicity. To say it shouldn't inform views is ridiculous.

 

I think you will find that your definition of secular is incorrect, at least as applied to government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

 

And in no way is it claimed that religion may not inform views - the point is that religious beliefs have no more legitimacy in terms of defining policy than any other personal opinion, and should not be appealed to as an authority.

post #78 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Fair enough. I'd argue, though, that the role of a politician in a democracy is not to force people to do what the politician wants, but to implement policies that the people want.

 

In a democracy, perhaps. In a constitutional republic it is, first, to keep the government within the boundaries of the written constitution. I'd argue that most of what politicians do in the US today basically violate that. But maybe it's just me.

 

But even in a democracy, I wouldn't stand a chance if I refuse to do what the people want because I believe it involved violating someone's basic, natural, God-given rights.

 

That the US is a constitutional republic does not negate that it is also a representative democracy.

post #79 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That the US is a constitutional republic does not negate that it is also a representative democracy.

 

Indeed, but in the United States of America an elected official's first duty - per their oath of office - is (or should be) to the constitution, not the people who elected him/her.

 

The constitution was intended to prevent individuals or groups of individuals from using government to impose their will on others. This concept has largely been forgotten or ignored.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #80 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That the US is a constitutional republic does not negate that it is also a representative democracy.

 

Indeed, but in the United States of America an elected official's first duty - per their oath of office - is (or should be) to the constitution, not the people who elected him/her.

 

The constitution was intended to prevent individuals or groups of individuals from using government to impose their will on others. This concept has largely been forgotten or ignored.

 

I was not trying to argue that the government is not, first and foremost, constrained by the constitution; just that within that constraint the intent of a democracy is to follow the wishes of the people, not use the position as a license to further one's own agendas.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist