Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke says churches should be taxed if they refuse to support gay marriage

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
Ok, but why not? I've seen your other posts on this, and this seems like an odd issue. It's not like other special interest groups don't have disproportate influence, why draw the line here?

Other special interest groups shouldn't have disproportionate influence in the first place, but it would be completely unrealistic to want them gone as well.

Why? Well religion itself has had a very bloody history in politics. Anything that removes undue influence is a plus in my book.

Note that I am rather religious myself, I just realize that people use religion as a weapon when it shouldn't.

and since Joesph Smith has been dead for about a century and a half, I'd be pretty impressed if he managed to get an audience with the president

Slightly off topic, but Mormons believe they have a living prophet.

Source: Me, a Mormon. A jack mormon admittedly, but still one by choice.

What is a politician attending a religious service if not hearing what a preacher has to say?

There is a difference between hearing a sermon for the crowd and speaking privately about what laws to attempt to enact to win the religious vote for example.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
There is a difference between hearing a sermon for the crowd and speaking privately about what laws to attempt to enact to win the religious vote for example.
So you can speak to a gun rights advocate to win the gun vote, an environmental activist to win the green vote, a union leader to win union votes, but it's uniquely bad to talk to a pastor on religious votes?
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
So you can speak to a gun rights advocate to win the gun vote, an environmental activist to win the green vote, a union leader to win union votes, but it's uniquely bad to talk to a pastor on religious votes?
Other special interest groups shouldn't have disproportionate influence in the first place, but it would be completely unrealistic to want them gone as well.

The answer? No.

Gun rights, environmental rights, and union rights are all arguably useful to the nation as a whole.

But what basis is there for hypothetically enacting Sharia law just to get the the Muslim vote?

In real life, what use is there banning porn, or banning gay marriage? Banning violent video games? All these I have seen floated by religious types.

A moral standpoint that the majority may not agree with?

In my opinion, enacting laws to force people to abide by your religious standards is morally wrong.
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
@Lightershoulders you can't separate people from religion, that's the problem. Governments should be realistic about inflaming religious tensions by applying laws across religious communities. Equalism is the bane of republics and monarchies alike.

That is true, and undeniable.

But the reverse is true as well, applying the laws of one religion across everyone could inflame tensions in general across the board if they are not careful.

Regardless, I think we've gone off topic and I apologize for going so far off point.

@FriedCFour , I am willing to continue this if you want to make a new thread? It's actually been fairly pleasant debating with you.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Gun rights, environmental rights, and union rights are all arguably useful to the nation as a whole.

But what basis is there for hypothetically enacting Sharia law just to get the the Muslim vote?

In real life, what use is there banning porn, or banning gay marriage? Banning violent video games? All these I have seen floated by religious types.

A moral standpoint that the majority may not agree with?

In my opinion, enacting laws to force people to abide by your religious standards is morally wrong.
Banning porn, banning gay marriage, banning violent video games all have their arguments to them. You may not agree with those arguments but there are many who do and find them valuable. Why is a moral stance that coincides with religious value worse than a moral stance based on non-religious belief. Why would advocating a living wage because say, you believe your religious teaching proscribe it as a moral good is wrong to impose by law but advocating a living wage because your secular teachings proscribe it to be a moral good is perfectly acceptable? Why is morality derived from religious value different?

@FriedCFour , I am willing to continue this if you want to make a new thread? It's actually been fairly pleasant debating with you.
Whatever you feel like. The feeling is mutual.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Other special interest groups shouldn't have disproportionate influence in the first place, but it would be completely unrealistic to want them gone as well.

Why? Well religion itself has had a very bloody history in politics. Anything that removes undue influence is a plus in my book.

Note that I am rather religious myself, I just realize that people use religion as a weapon when it shouldn't.

Ok, so would you similarly ban communism? It's not like that particular ideology is famously non-violent.
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
Banning porn, banning gay marriage, banning violent video games all have their arguments to them.

Religious arguments, the few scientific or logical arguments are rather weak from what I have seen.

You may not agree with those arguments but there are many who do and find them valuable. Why is a moral stance that coincides with religious value worse than a moral stance based on non-religious belief.

Because it's not coincide, it's based. Religion should always be a choice, if you force a person to follow a religion you damage that religion and the population as a whole in the long run. We see this plenty in muslim and catholic religions throughout history.

Why would advocating a living wage because say, you believe your religious teaching proscribe it as a moral good is wrong to impose by law but advocating a living wage because your secular teachings proscribe it to be a moral good is perfectly acceptable?

Well. That sounds like a cult tbh, but there are plenty of logical and mathematical reasons to pay a living wage.

I get your question, so I'll move on.

Yes, wanting everyone to give a living wage just because of your religion is wrong because you are forcing an aspect of your religion on another person.

However, wanting everyone to give a living wage because of logical reasoning such as employees actually having enough money to purchase your products without pushing them into debt or other such rational reasoning.

Why is morality derived from religious value different?

That morality only exists because of their faith, not any logical reasoning behind it. All logical reasoning is done after the fact by the believer, not before. It's not bad to believe or have faith, but it's bad when you extend those rules to others who do not share your faith.

You can live by your morals without forcing others to live by them. What is inherently evil to one may be beautiful and good in the eyes of another, and you should always be prepared for the shoe to be on the other foot.

Ok, so would you similarly ban communism? It's not like that particular ideology is famously non-violent.

I would ban communism because it has, time and time again, proven to not work and is vulnerable.

Not sure how that is even a question.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
That morality only exists because of their faith, not any logical reasoning behind it. All logical reasoning is done after the fact by the believer, not before. It's not bad to believe or have faith, but it's bad when you extend those rules to others who do not share your faith.

You can live by your morals without forcing others to live by them. What is inherently evil to one may be beautiful and good in the eyes of another, and you should always be prepared for the shoe to be on the other foot.

There is so much presumption wrapped up in this.

Do you realize that you are claiming straight-up that there is no logical reason behind the morality that any religion teaches? Do you realize that every morality emerges from a set of religious beliefs?

Do you even realize the hypocrasy of trying to push your morality on others, when that morality is 'don't push your morality on others?'
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
I would ban communism because it has, time and time again, proven to not work and is vulnerable.

Not sure how that is even a question.

Ok, so now we've given the government the ability to ban political opinions and ideologies if the government decides that they're sufficiently bad.

The phrase "cure worse than the disease" comes to mind here.
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
Do you realize that you are claiming straight-up that there is no logical reason behind the morality that any religion teaches?

In their founding, sure they had reasons. But their followers in modern times? You would need to be a scholar or do extensive research to know the exact reasoning behind it.

Do you realize that every morality emerges from a set of religious beliefs?

Modern morality is so far divergent from the morality of the big religious groups that it's meaningless. Modern morals have logic and reasoning behind them before, and even completely lacking, faith.

Morality based off faith first, such as Shariah law, is not logical or compatible with modern society.

Do you even realize the hypocrasy of trying to push your morality on others, when that morality is 'don't push your morality on others?'

No, it's not hypocritical. Because I am saying "Religious Morality." Not "Morality" in general.

Ok, so now we've given the government the ability to ban political opinions and ideologies if the government decides that they're sufficiently bad.

Considering that there wouldn't even be a United States government if communism took over (you would have to throw out the constitution entirely), I think banning Communism is a reasonable choice for a capitalist government to make.

The phrase "cure worse than the disease" comes to mind here.

When the disease is guaranteed to kill you, not really.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Morality is learned from parents and role models when one grows up. With religious people this is couched in religious terms, leading them to believe the morality comes from religion rather than family and other role models, but religion is not needed to have a sense of morality. So, I hate to break it to the people who think you need religion to have a sense of morality, but I have one and I'm not religious. It was learned from people who were important to me.

I'm not anti-religion or anything, but it always makes me roll my eyes when someone claims you need religion to have a sense of morality.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Considering that there wouldn't even be a United States government if communism took over (you would have to throw out the constitution entirely), I think banning Communism is a reasonable choice for a capitalist government to make.

When the disease is guaranteed to kill you, not really.


And if it was absolutely certain that this power would only be used for good in cases of clear cut dangers to the country, I might agree with you. But you'd be a fool to believe that's where it would stop, if you give the government that kind of power they can and will abuse it.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Morality is learned from parents and role models when one grows up. With religious people this is couched in religious terms, leading them to believe the morality comes from religion rather than family and other role models, but religion is not needed to have a sense of morality. So, I hate to break it to the people who think you need religion to have a sense of morality, but I have one and I'm not religious. It was learned from people who were important to me.

I'm not anti-religion or anything, but it always makes me roll my eyes when someone claims you need religion to have a sense of morality.
Unfortunately when you argue that, those who think morality only comes from religion start accusing you of being a "moral relativist"; basically invoking the "guilt by association" fallacy to justify why you're wrong, and they're right.
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
And if it was absolutely certain that this power would only be used for good in cases of clear cut dangers to the country, I might agree with you. But you'd be a fool to believe that's where it would stop, if you give the government that kind of power they can and will abuse it.

And how do you believe that it would be abused?

If it includes the idea of "Mercy" as something important it probably has roots in Christianity.

Just because it has root doesn't mean that you need to believe in those roots in order to see logic behind it.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
And how do you believe that it would be abused?

Same way anything like this is (hate speech laws, for example), you start by cracking down on something extreme and indefensible, and then slowly expand from there.

So, let's say this starts with communism, because you can't be running talking about overthrowing the government.

Then you decided that those anti-government milita types are also planning that, so they also get the boot.

Then you decide the milita types who think the government will inevitably turn on them are also too dangerous.

Then you keep going, slowly going after groups that are less extreme, but still close to the last group, until you can go after mainstream groups like the NRA.


And before you say this is some kind of slippery slope, we've already had democrat officials calling the NRA terrorists and trying to lawfare them out of existence, if you gave them open ended authority to suppress extremist political groups I see no reason to believe they wouldn't use it (hell, if you look at the IRS targeting scandal, they already have tried to use the government to go after political opponents).
 

Lightershoulders

Just another, seeking.
Same way anything like this is (hate speech laws, for example), you start by cracking down on something extreme and indefensible, and then slowly expand from there.

Then set up appropriate checks and balances like any sane person would.

Then you decided that those anti-government milita types are also planning that, so they also get the boot.

Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are attempting a violent takeover (as opposed to winning the vote on election day) of the government?

Then you decide the milita types who think the government will inevitably turn on them are also too dangerous.

There are laws already in place that would prevent this, and HAVE prevented the destruction of some.

Then you keep going, slowly going after groups that are less extreme, but still close to the last group, until you can go after mainstream groups like the NRA.

I find myself very skeptical. Do you have anything to support this viewpoint?


And before you say this is some kind of slippery slope,

But it kinda is.

we've already had democrat officials calling the NRA terrorists and trying to lawfare them out of existence,

Ok? The Republicans have called liberals terrorists as well and are trying to lawfare them out of existence as well.

It's petty, but it's not proof of anything except that you think the Dems are fascist in nature, seeing as that is a textbook fascist move to remove a political opponent.

if you gave them open ended authority to suppress extremist political groups I see no reason to believe they wouldn't use it (hell, if you look at the IRS targeting scandal, they already have tried to use the government to go after political opponents).

There is never going to be open ended authority to suppress or remove radical political groups because it will be marred by red tape and bureaucracy.

And don't pretend like the Republicans haven't used the government to try to remove political opponents. They have requested Antifa be put of the terrorist watch list and treated as domestic terrorists. (My personal opinion being that they should be, but still.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top