Banning religion?

trucetheeker said:
He meant, "Banning what people want". Not, "Banning what they don't want!" See the difference a few words make? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, i see. Though the murderer would appreciate the ban was lifted. So i cannot say it is true across the board.

If peas are banned does not mean i will want peas more. I just want my peas, not necessarily more than i did prior to the banning. It is probably more of a personality issue.

Consider two children:

Take away the peas from both children of which both children love peas equally.

Child 1: Accepts the pea banning...and really, though he once loved the peas, the ban has little effect.

Child 2: Cannot accept the pea banning.
 
John99 said:
Consider two children:

Take away the peas from both children of which both children love peas equally.

Child 1: Accepts the pea banning...and really, though he once loved the peas, the ban has little effect.

Child 2: Cannot accept the pea banning.
Click to expand...

then where will they pea?:rolleyes:
 
Any society in which a government has the power to "force" into one mode of thinking is a society in which that government has powers so vast that it will inevitably abuse them. This is why--for all its flaws--democracy is the best of the many MANY bad options we have.

Freedom, in general, is not an end. It is a means.

Only in a society where people are free to be the ultimate authority of how society operates can a society truly be respectful to those people.

~String
 
superstring01 said:
Any society in which a government has the power to "force" into one mode of thinking is a society in which that government has powers so vast that it will inevitably abuse them. This is why--for all its flaws--democracy is the best of the many MANY bad options we have.

Freedom, in general, is not an end. It is a means.

Only in a society where people are free to be the ultimate authority of how society operates can a society truly be respectful to those people.

~String
Click to expand...

And yet it itself is subject to subversion and overthrow, creating openings for fascism.

Democracy merely holds a chair for totalitarianism.
 
GeoffP said:
And yet it itself is subject to subversion and overthrow, creating openings for fascism.

Democracy merely holds a chair for totalitarianism.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for a firewall that protects society from every threat, then I will point out that, THAT is where you fail.

All you can do is set up the best possible government that will, itself, ultimately respect the fundamental rights of human beings. Hope for the best and allow things to progress where they will. There is, of course, the possibility that those people will choose badly (Germany with Nazi's for example), but taken on the whole, democracy has a far better track record than any other type of government, despite its obvious flaws.

Part of the price we pay for being free is that people make some really bad decisions. There is no protecting us from ourselves all the time. We just do our best to maintain an open society and let the chips fall where they may.

~String
 
Michael said:
No, I think we should teach children to think skeptically.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many skeptics it takes to change a lightbulb?
Actually, they won't do it; they're not sure they're really in the dark.


All that skepticism will only leave you in the dark.
 
Signal said:
Unless you have a magic genie to do the work for you (such as lifting heavy things, hammering etc.), you are using force.

But you have probably meant 'aggression', when you first used "force".
Click to expand...

Off topic, but simply defining "violence" (insert lame deconstruction joke here) remains problematic, even for our infinitely wise "authorities," who can't even define "terrorism" let alone trying to pinpoint "domestic terrorism."

Speaking of authorities, United for Communism strikes me as quite the authoritarian type, eh?
 
superstring01 said:
If you're looking for a firewall that protects society from every threat, then I will point out that, THAT is where you fail.

All you can do is set up the best possible government that will, itself, ultimately respect the fundamental rights of human beings. Hope for the best and allow things to progress where they will. There is, of course, the possibility that those people will choose badly (Germany with Nazi's for example), but taken on the whole, democracy has a far better track record than any other type of government, despite its obvious flaws.

Part of the price we pay for being free is that people make some really bad decisions. There is no protecting us from ourselves all the time. We just do our best to maintain an open society and let the chips fall where they may.

~String
Click to expand...

Yet it's possible to protect society from threats to democracy and free speech without becoming a de facto totalitarian state. One of the problems is that the differences between the reasonable protection of liberal democracy and utter fascism are blurred; in the minds of the proletariat and in the speeches of some branches of liberal democrats and conservatives les mêmes. Some movements certainly deserve to be repressed, and ruthlessly; this doesn't impugn the nature of democracy for no more complex reason than good isn't meant to be stupid. The bud must be nipped before torchlight parades at Nuremberg are just another night out for the kids; and I have as much faith in the electorate in toto to veer away from such stupidity as I do that they'll successfully align with Darwinism in a decent plurality...in the United States, for fuck's sake. Love the proles if you want, but for Christ's sake don't count on them.

No sacrifices necessary, no price that we all must pay else X rear up and devour us. Just fix the big stuff and leave the rest to societal selection. And thus I submit that it's possible to have your cake and eat it too.

I leave you to critique the taste never forgetting that taste, like beauty, is subjective.
 
GeoffP said:
Yet it's possible to protect society from threats to democracy and free speech without becoming a de facto totalitarian state. One of the problems is that the differences between the reasonable protection of liberal democracy and utter fascism are blurred; in the minds of the proletariat and in the speeches of some branches of liberal democrats and conservatives les mêmes. Some movements certainly deserve to be repressed, and ruthlessly; this doesn't impugn the nature of democracy for no more complex reason than good isn't meant to be stupid. The bud must be nipped before torchlight parades at Nuremberg are just another night out for the kids; and I have as much faith in the electorate in toto to veer away from such stupidity as I do that they'll successfully align with Darwinism in a decent plurality...in the United States, for fuck's sake. Love the proles if you want, but for Christ's sake don't count on them.

No sacrifices necessary, no price that we all must pay else X rear up and devour us. Just fix the big stuff and leave the rest to societal selection. And thus I submit that it's possible to have your cake and eat it too.

I leave you to critique the taste never forgetting that taste, like beauty, is subjective.
Click to expand...

You make good points. I agree that sometimes the Government needs a bit of leeway in resolving really dangerous situations. I will ponder and offer my thoughts soon.

~String
 
United for Communism said:
...I'm all for principles of freedom of religion and all, but wouldn't it be for the overall good of the people if we just ban it, deal with the whining that comes, and within a generation or two, be free entirely of religion?
Click to expand...

The reason religion exists is heavily rooted in how we genetically adapted to survive. It can't be eliminated by a ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top