User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 52

  1. #41
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    You mean like in campaigning?

    why would you want to restrict campaign speech? It's political speech and the supreme court generally views it as high value speech which gets to the very core of the free speech clause.
    I'm not saying to restrict anything. I am talking about ideology. The most consistent positive trait for the US across it's history has been how it has welcomed diversity. (And some of the worst cases in US history come from when we've failed to welcome diversity.)

    Ideologically, saying someone shouldn't be elected simply because they are Muslim is not much different than saying someone shouldn't be elected simply because they are black. However in today's political climate the latter statement would be political suicide, while the former statement would probably win votes. If there is any difference ideologically it's that the First Amendment is explicitly promoting tolerance based on religion, while it isn't promoting tolerance based on race.

    Obviously you can't pass a law saying Episcopalians can't become mayors.
    I would not be surprised to find some city or other local community try to pass a law preventing Muslims from holding office.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  2. #42
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Christians say this all the time too. But, I have to wonder... is preserving pluralism really that important. I would rather die for what I actually believe in than die so that others can propagate what I believe to be false.

    Allowing for the free exercise of religion is important... but it's not the first thing on my list for which I would die.
    I kind of see it differently. In my view if I die to preserve someone else's freedom, then I am dying for what I believe in.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #43
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I'm not saying to restrict anything. I am talking about ideology. The most consistent positive trait for the US across it's history has been how it has welcomed diversity. (And some of the worst cases in US history come from when we've failed to welcome diversity.)
    I would disagree. I would say it's moral fiber. Tocqueville and the founding fathers (Adams, Franklin, Washington, etc.) would agree with me. To the extent that americans have increased their immorality the country has diminished in greatness.


    Ideologically, saying someone shouldn't be elected simply because they are Muslim is not much different than saying someone shouldn't be elected simply because they are black.
    What?!?!?
    No, race and religion are different classes. There are specific beliefs pertinent to a candidates political philosophy which will be affected by their muslim faith.

    There are no beliefs associated with race.

    Saying someone shouldn't be elected because they are arab would be a little different... but, still protected speech.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #44
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    I would disagree. I would say it's moral fiber. Tocqueville and the founding fathers (Adams, Franklin, Washington, etc.) would agree with me. To the extent that americans have increased their immorality the country has diminished in greatness.
    Moral fiber is true but not specific enough. Specifically the morality of the US is most tested by how it treats differing peoples. To our country's merit it has always welcomed people of other nations into it's borders, and that has strengthened our country. For example before WWII we accepted several brilliant Jewish scientists who were no longer welcome in Germany. Even today the US is known as a "brain drain", because the brightest from all over the world want to live here.

    On the other hand the worst moments for the US have come when it didn't treat differing peoples well. (Black or Native or Japanese Americans, etc...).

    What?!?!?
    No, race and religion are different classes. There are specific beliefs pertinent to a candidates political philosophy which will be affected by their muslim faith.
    If there are specific issues that people are concerned with, then they should ask about those issues specifically. For example if a person is concerned about a Muslim's stance on Israel relations, then they should assess that person's stance on that specific issue?

    Or is there some other reason that actually has to do with morality? What terrible thing would a Muslim do, that would be worse than any of our previous presidents who have all been Christian?
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  5. #45
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Moral fiber is true but not specific enough.
    I'm talking about morality on an individual level. America has succeeded because americans in the past have generally restrained themselves and have not behaved like animals. This enables the government to give the people more liberty. The less self-restrained people are the more the government has restrain them and take away liberties.

    If there are specific issues that people are concerned with, then they should ask about those issues specifically. For example if a person is concerned about a Muslim's stance on Israel relations, then they should assess that person's stance on that specific issue?

    Or is there some other reason that actually has to do with morality? What terrible thing would a Muslim do, that would be worse than any of our previous presidents who have all been Christian?
    I don't know that much about islam. But what I do know is that all religious views have core axioms that have political implications. And religions like any philosophy demand consistency in their maturation. Of course this is not always true experientially. In fact people act in disparity with their beliefs quite often. Nonetheless, I reserve the right to judge someone's ability to serve in political office based upon their fundamental religious beliefs and the natural implications of those beliefs.

    That being said I wouldn't lump all muslims together in my judgment of them just as I would not lump all christians together in my judgment of them. I recognize that there are different strain of islam.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #46
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    But, I have to wonder... is preserving pluralism really that important.
    Well pluralism is not incompatible with Christian social teachings actually, although its understanding does differ signficantly than its secular counterparts(multiculturalism for example). At the time of the founding of this country, there were literally thousands of different Christian sects of varying kinds - as a result of the Great Awakenings. So the argument cannot be made that there was a lack of religious diversity within this country; but one also has to understand that an underlining sense of unity has to exist in order to make such diversity work. That's an issue commonly overlooked by today's advocates for greater "diversity", since they see it as an absolute good without any considerations to its limits.

    But what I do know is that all religious views have core axioms that have political implications.
    Yes, this is commonly referred to as Political Theology.

  7. #47
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well pluralism is not incompatible with Christian social teachings actually, although its understanding does differ signficantly than its secular counterparts(multiculturalism for example). At the time of the founding of this country, there were literally thousands of different Christian sects of varying kinds - as a result of the Great Awakenings. So the argument cannot be made that there was a lack of religious diversity within this country; but one also has to understand that an underlining sense of unity has to exist in order to make such diversity work. That's an issue commonly overlooked by today's advocates for greater "diversity", since they see it as an absolute good without any considerations to its limits.
    Agreed, of course that's pluralism in the modernist sense of respect for the views of all individuals. Not the popular postmodern view of pluralism as respect for all views as equally valid... which is absolutely illogical.

    My point is not that society shouldn't have diversity and the freedom of speech. But, I have to wonder why our society values those things so much that you hear people say that they will die for them far more often then you hear people say that they will die for their family, home or faith.

    Modernist pluralism is compatible with christianity, but it is low on the totem pole of values. On the other hand pluralism is one of the more important values of our government. It seems to me the fact that a pastor is more likely to say he will die for freedom of speech than he is to say he will die for his faith is evidence to a certain degree that statism has been creeping into christian circles of society... I think it's already predominate in other areas. Other evidence would be flags in sanctuaries and the singing of patriotic songs in church services.


    Yes, this is commonly referred to as Political Theology.
    I'm just waiting for someone to call that an oxymoron... or pull the theocracy card. :rolli:
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #48
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Overall I do agree with you, although I would probably use different terminology.

    I'm just waiting for someone to call that an oxymoron... or pull the theocracy card. :rolli:
    Well there are debates over the actual nature or legitimacy of the concept, especially within some religious circles. Although the basic premise of the interrelationship between theological and political precepts is well established. This relationship does not mean a theocracy, which is actually impossible under Christian political teachings.

  9. #49
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    which is actually impossible under Christian political teachings.
    Do you mind explaining to me why that's the case within catholicism. Because within protestantism (or most of it) theocracy is impossible, because we believe the cannon is closed and that God cannot directly lead the state through any means because he does not directly reveal his specific will outside the bible.

    Whereas, within Catholicism the pope can speak for God ex cathedra. I mean according to harold berman the catholic church was the first modern state. Why would you not consider the church under Gregory the VII a theocracy?

    I'm not arguing... I seriously want to know.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #50
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Well the Papal States would certainly constitute a theocracy of sorts, although that was the exception not the rule throughout Medieval Christendom. The Pope having his own state was meant to assure the independence of the Church from interference by secular rulers; in constrast to how it was with the Eastern Church for example. This helped establish the Church as a powerful restraint upon the abuses of the monarchs of the time.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 155
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 12:41 PM
  2. Ideological Makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States
    By Jonny in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2012, 01:11 AM
  3. What Is The Future Of The United States?
    By highlander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 04:20 AM
  4. Separation of Church and State
    By G-Virus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 03:22 AM
  5. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO