Jimmy-
Thank you for your response Zarove. Not everything was intended to come across argumentative, I was genuinely seeking your opinion on some matters.
Tis the Internet, and thus the Nature of the Beast.
I suppose it matters because this movie claims there are people limiting our progress/freedoms and religion is a big part in that obstacle. Not that I believe this movie in it's entirety.
The argument is one that’s a staple of the Atheist movement, and originates in the 18th Century. This is also why all the arguments aim at Christianity as the greatest of evils, because all of the Enlightenment thinkers were attacking it exclusively, most particularly Catholicism in France. To them, Christianity
was Religion.
Generally the same language and basic arguments carried on into the 19th Century, with the beginnings of Humanist Philosophy, which culminated in formally creating Humanism in the 1920’s, thought he basic concepts ( and even the name) existed in the late 19th Century.
It was part of the overall desire to reshape Human culture and society on the belief that how we act is based upon cultural ques, and that Humans are born as Tabula Nulla, or Blank Slates, whose Characteristics are determined by Cultural Values. The assumption was that if we could overthrow the existing Cultural order of the Monarchy, and the Christian Faith, and replace it with Reason ( which naturally meant the conclusions held by the Philisophes of the Enlightenment ) then we could basically rewrite how Humanity behaves and interacts and create a perfect world of equals.
This idea was the basis of the Socialist and Communist ideologies, and a large part of why they don’t work is because Human Nature is Hardwired, not simply the product of Culture, and Religions like Christianity emerge in large part based on observed Human Nature that pre-exists, not as a mean to create conformity.
Why the opposition to embryonic stem cell research? try give me a non-generic response, the life of a few cells in a vial of blood can't compare to the life of an actual person.
But, the “Few cells in a Vial of Blood’ is not what’s being opposed. What your describing is not Embryonic Stem Cell research. If someone drew my blood in a Hospital and then extracted Stem Cells form it and use those for research no one would find anything to object to Morally. In fact that sort of Research is carried out all the time with no protests at all from anyone. Your right, its not Morally objectionable.
But Embryonic Stem Cell research attains the Stem Cells it uses from Embryos, which have to be destroyed to harvest the Cells. Therefore the Moral Objection is to the Destruction of the Viable Embryo, which is seen as a Human Life. It would thus be killing a Human Person to acquire the Cells, not extracting a small amount of Blood. It’d be the Moral Equivalent of killing one 30 year old man to make a Cure for a Village, should the Cure require all of his blood to synthesise. It ties in with the Abortion debate because Aborted Foetus’s are the source for the Embryonic Stem Cells, hence the name Embryonic Stem Cells.
I'm not saying religious people don't have a right to vote or to express their beliefs but why the need to enforce it over the rest of us? Why do they have the power to do so?
Isn’t this really a matter of Framing though?
For instance, you make a distinction between Religious people and others, but as I’ve said numerous times, what’s the distinction base don? Who, exactly, qualifies as nonreligious?
I’ve debated Baroness Murphy over on Lords of the Blog, and she thinks like you. Religious people should not force their views onto others. But her views are perfectly acceptable, and when she forces them onto everyone else, guess what happens? Its perfectly OK. She’s a Rationalist, and is only trying to create a society of Equality and Justice.
So she advocated the Sexual Orientation Regulations which makes it against the Law to discriminate on the basis of Sexual Orientation and said that such Discrimination is just like Racism, since being Homosexual is a Trait one is born with and can’t help.
Never mind that she couldn’t prove this. There isn’t an ounce of evidence that Sexual Orientation even exists, it’s a Politically correct Phrase to describe Homosexuality. No Scientific evidence suggests its immutable or unchangeable, this too is just Politically correct to believe.
My Views were those of a Libertarian Though. The exact debate was if they should allow Clergy to perform Same Sex Civil Partnerships, with the fear being that it may interfere with Religious Freedom as now they can be sued if they don’t perform them. There was also a fear that if a Provision of law allowed them to opt out then maybe private companies would wan tot opt out too. It was a huge, sticky mess to them.
My response was simple, I said that Clergy who wish to perform the Same Sex Civil Partnerships should be allowed to, but there should be a clear law that says that people can’t be sued over matters of conscience and this would protect the Churches.
As to the fear of Private Companies, though, I said that they too should have the same Protection. If a man owns a Print Shop, and a Homosexual Advocacy Group steps in and wants him to print Fliers about their organisation, and he refuses because he views Homosexuality as wrong, he should not be compelled by Law to do business with them. As owner of the Establishment he should have the inviolable right to freedom of association, including in Business. I thought that any Government Regulation over his choice of Customers, and a demand to treat all Customers equally and to do work for anyone who would pay, was a Violation of his Fundamental Rights as the Owner of the Business and as an individual. For this view I was scorned.
I was mocked, called a Homophobe, and Lord Norton said that I apparently thought Gay Clubs existed but not Straight ones.
Well, no. I think that Homosexuality is a Moral Issue best left for individuals to decide and its really none of the Governments business.
The same Baroness Murphy also wanted to close down Faith Schools. Her reasoning was that they destroyed Social Cohesion because they Taught from a different perspective, and the only way to make sure everyone has Equality in society and are all one is to teach them all form the same platform so they can all get along. This platform would of course be in the form of the State Run Schools.
In other words she wanted to make sure the Students learned what the Governments beliefs and Values are, and as the current UK Government is basically Secularist, the Values they’d learn would be the same as hers. She wants to produce more Humanists by silencing any voice of opposition to her Views.
I was critical and noted that this would simply be doing what she complained that the Faith Schools do. She is Proselytising people into her Faith and Indoctrinating them into her Religion.
Yes she said she had no Religion and tried to make this out to be something different than it was, but remove the whole ”Not religious” rubbish and you get the same thing. She wants all Schools to teach form an explicitly Atheistic standpoint, and for all Students to be compelled to learn from that specific point of View. The point of View of a “Rationalist” like her.
But because she is not Religious its not forcing a Religion down anyone’s throat and no one complains. Well they do but hats because their Religious nutters and should be ignored…
Its all words really.
Any attempt to make society follow your values, morality, and beliefs would be the same to me, whether you admit that your beliefs are a Religion or not, and this is what happens in every “Democracy”. Why should we pretend that Religion has no place in this and allow only secularists to advance their own Agenda?
And would it make those Religious people feel more Free to have to live under the Rule of a Secularist system that goes against what they believe in? This is particularly important to me given that the State is increasingly demanding we conform to its dictates.
Which is why I am a Libertarian.
Monarchy really? People should have power because of their birthright as opposed to what they've accomplished in life? Talk about limitations and unfairness.
There are four problems with the above.
1: You assume all Monarchies are Hereditary. This is not always the case. The Papacy isn’t, and neither was the Holy Roman Empire’s Throne For most of its existence.
It was by Merit that you were elected by Electors.
2: Hereditary Monarchy is not Unfair if the system is built from it. The system is actually more Fair than Democracy. However, in order to understand it you’d have to let go of the Democratic Ideal of “We, the people”, which I never really liked anyway and will explain why momentarily. Monarchy is rooted in Land Ownership, Divine Right, and Familial Ties if it is Hereditary. This means that Land Owners rights will be protected and people will have the power over that which is their own. There will be smaller Government (Unless it’s a modern Monarchy that lets Politicians rule and the monarch is just a Figurehead) because the Monarch will b forced to recognise Property an individual Rights over Communal rights and aspirations, as is true in a Democracy.
And as the Monarch owns he Government ( But not everything in the Nation, we are not Slaves to the King) he will also have a proper, very legitimate reason to hold power other than simply popular appeal.
Also, Owners have far greater motivation to take care of what is there’s than do transitory office Holders. President Barrack Obama does not own the White House, nor does he own the Executive Powers he holds to. Nothing he does has direct personal impact on him, so he can destroy the Country if he wants to. A Ling on the other hand is a Property Holder, and Owns the Palace and Government, and it would be in his Best Interest to maintain it.
Further, Monarchy has the advantage I will list below.
3: In our Democratic System, we believe the People Rule. But do they? How? Supposedly we vote for our leaders, which means we, the people, pick. But I didn’t vote for Obama. You may have, but if so I bet you didn’t vote for Bush.
Its not like we all get together in a big room and come to a consensus of who will lead us, rather, there is an election, which is inherently divisive, and the Candidate that wins is the one who gets the most votes. The roughly half the population who did not vote for him can then complain for however long he is in office, and this will inevitably lead to dividing the Nation along Political Lines. Social Unity is impossible.
Worse, the idea that the people themselves Rule is a joke. The Politicians Rule us, they hold the offices of power and execute power however they will. And as to the Man getting in o Merit, that too is rather a Joke. People hold office in a Democracy based on Popularity, not Merit. Look at O’Donnell.
Politicians are an aggressive and ambitious lot, who encourage the divisiveness in society as it motivates Voters. Raw Passion will make sure voter turnout is high and they can claim a proper “Democratic Mandate”, even if they win by just 51% of the Vortex. They accomplish this by demonising the other party. Don’t vote Trecumberlan Party for they are evil and will make sure you die poor and sick, ect…And all they need is 51% of the Vote, Not Merit, to win. Its just popularity, not how worthy or competent you are.
This social disharmony leads to a security of power for the two major parties who act as bulkwarths against each other but also play off of each other, keeping the populace in constant tension and competition.
A Unifying Democracy cannot exist, nor can a cooperative society emerge form it, because by its very nature it is competitive and divisive.
And whoever runs for office will always be one who seeks power, so it will nearly always fall to the ambitious, willing to make backroom deals and to modify an agenda in favour of wealthy backers.
And despite the Theory that we, the people, think as individuals and for ourselves, the population at large is easy to manipulate, and those wealth backers, ad the politicians they support, know this. That’s why they fight over the schools and what they teach, and why certain corporations fight so hard to put out media detailing exactly why they are right or, most often, the other side is wrong.
In a Monarchy, we can be United under a King, who may not be elected so no one voted for him, but no one voted against him either.
He rules by right over the property he has, or by merit and not by merely winning a Popularity contest that pit’s the whole society against itself.
And I can support a King who rules by Right and remain loyal to him even if I disagree with everything he does as Policy, because he is my King. I cannot feel Loyal to a President I did not Vote for, because the Democratic Mandate he rules under determines his Legitimacy and because I don’t support the Presidents policies, I’m not really Loyal to him in any meaningful way. Likewise, in what way ids my elected representative really representing me if I voted against him?
Kings are not swayed by Popularity, do not owe their power to corporations or large political activist groups, and are independent. They can also make unpopular decisions, because they don’t need to worry about the next Election. And whoever said that the Majority was always right? Another Drawback to Democratic Theory.
4: Aristotle said Monarchy was the only form of Government established for the good of all. Justice emanates when there is a fair standard, unmoved by Politics and ideology, and to this end a King, who does not owe wealthy ideological backers for his position and doesn’t have to appease voter blocks or win approval, can judge much more impartially than can any Elected Politician or judge appointed by them.
The only thing that is unfair in a Monarchy is the fact that it contradicts the Democratic Ideal, and is usually demonised today.
But if you’d like I can send more information in PM to you regarding this issue, or anyone who asks.
Your right it fails across the board. Organised religion should admit to this.
But, it already does. I don’t know why you thing “Organised Religion” doesn’t. Heck, event he Pope admitted that some Priest fail to live up to the examples they are suppose to be setting, and most other Churches don’t try to present a Mystique around their ministers.
I know of few who don’t admit this.
reply
share