the Right to Vote

[Carcano]

Religion is defined by the WORSHIP of something there is no evidence for. Faith means believing in something without any reason to believe it.

This is quite different from the disposition derived from a spiritual out-of-body experience...as we see often in those who have died and come back to life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM&feature=related

A far better idea would be to extend voting rights only to those who can pass an aptitude test on constitutional law.

 

[lightgigantic]

Religion is defined by the WORSHIP of something there is no evidence for. Faith means believing in something without any reason to believe it.

This is quite different from the disposition derived from a spiritual out-of-body experience...as we see often in those who have died and come back to life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM&feature=related

A far better idea would be to extend voting rights only to those who can pass an aptitude test on constitutional law.

If you insist on running with those definitions of religion and faith, you would probably fail the aptitude test ....
:shrug:

 

[Carcano]

If you insist on running with those definitions of religion and faith, you would probably fail the aptitude test...

Only if it was written by a religious person...such as yourself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Only if it was written by a religious person...such as yourself.

I wasn't aware that the latest dictionaries/philosophical discourses were running with those standard definitions

.... if however we were talking about standard definitions advocated by fundamental atheists who grasp around desperately for simple explanations in a behavior remarkably similar to the fundamental theists they are attempting to critique .....

 

[wynn]

Religion is defined by the WORSHIP of something there is no evidence for. Faith means believing in something without any reason to believe it.

This is quite different from the disposition derived from a spiritual out-of-body experience...as we see often in those who have died and come back to life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSjzY0s0SM&feature=related

This is fallacious, as you are arguing from a caricature of what religious faith and faith as such are.


I am among the first here at this forum to criticize a requirement for a leap of (to) faith.
But taking things on faith - as opposed to in a leap of faith - is essential for daily life. We take things on faith all the time, otherwise, we couldn't function.

A far better idea would be to extend voting rights only to those who can pass an aptitude test on constitutional law.

No, a far better idea would be to critically examine how meaningful the principle of voting as such is to begin with.

Arguably, those "who can pass an aptitude test on constitutional law" would all have the same views, so they would all vote the same, so there is actually no need for voting.


In one sense, voting is actually a leap of faith (!): people who vote are placing their faith in the principle that the best way (for a people) to be governed is based on the result of an arbitrary, biased, uncontrollable and unpredictable process.

Note that contrary to some popular opinions, voting is not about majority rule, but is more complex: because in current voting systems, 1. there are preset, but arbitrary standards for what counts for majority (whether the majority means 51% of voters, or some other quota), 2. there are various quorum standards, which are also arbitrary, and 3. because in voting, there is some measure of strategizing where people vote for a candidate by the principle of "the lesser of more evils" or other forms of strategizing where a person's vote doesn't represent their preferences adequately.

 

[Edward Wechner]

Only if it was written by a religious person...such as yourself.

There is a little old lady living on my neigbourhood, I like her, she is praying for me, because that makes her happy and she says Jesus does love me anyway, there is nothing I can do about, and I do not mind that either.

The trouble is she would only vote for a good Christian candidate, somebody like George W. Bush who has the urge for no other than a religious reason to murder a hundred thousand innocent people by collateral murder.

http://www.alternet.org/story/14022...e"_mid-east_enemies_"before_a_new_age_begins"

Willingly ripping of all four limbs of a child for no reason at all, but to fight Gog and Magog.

We do everything possible to prevent a despot to run a country, but we do nothing to prevent an absurd Christian to run a country. Christanity is protected by a veil of tradition, entrenched in most western countries.

I think we should try to change this.

 

[Carcano]

We do everything possible to prevent a despot to run a country, but we do nothing to prevent an absurd Christian to run a country. Christanity is protected by a veil of tradition, entrenched in most western countries.

Well said...a religious person cannot differentiate between GOD and GOOD.

They believe that one cannot be Good without worshipping God... the specific God they themselves have grown up with by random geographical chance.

This completely deranges their thinking on all levels, and makes them dangerous to the public interest.

One can imagine the horror of living in Germany, where part of your TAX dollars are automatically forwarded to the Church!

 

[river]

The separation of state and church is fundamental to a sane society

 

[Edward Wechner]

The separation of state and church is fundamental to a sane society

I do fully agree with you, the problem is most countries only claim to have a separation of state and church. In my country, Australia we have separation of state and church, yet prior to any parliament session all MP are required to pray to the Christian god to give them guidance and wisdom. We have an atheistic Prime Minister and a Muslim MP. It just does not seem so easy to separate state and church, being part of a traditionally entrenched fundamentalist religious monarchy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well said...a religious person cannot differentiate between GOD and GOOD.

They believe that one cannot be Good without worshipping God... the specific God they themselves have grown up with by random geographical chance.

This completely deranges their thinking on all levels, and makes them dangerous to the public interest.

One can imagine the horror of living in Germany, where part of your TAX dollars are automatically forwarded to the Church!

Differentiating between god and good?
I can't think of a single religious tradition that doesn't have more discourses on that precise subject than you could probably read in a lifetime ...

Atheists paying church tax in Germany?
....Ever since 1803, all Germans citizens registered with the government as Catholics, Protestants, or Jews have paid a “church tax.” 8-9% of the individual’s income tax bill goes to the government, which holds on to the money for a little while before passing it on to the church of which he is a member. ....


until you start gleaning information from sources other than atheist hate-sites you simply won't be able to make an informed decision on the matter

 

[wynn]

Well said...a religious person cannot differentiate between GOD and GOOD.

They believe that one cannot be Good without worshipping God... the specific God they themselves have grown up with by random geographical chance.

This completely deranges their thinking on all levels, and makes them dangerous to the public interest.

One can imagine the horror of living in Germany, where part of your TAX dollars are automatically forwarded to the Church!

Why don't you address my post, no. 85?

 

[Carcano]

But taking things on faith - as opposed to in a leap of faith - is essential for daily life. We take things on faith all the time, otherwise, we couldn't function.

If I put a letter in a mailbox does this mean I have FAITH that it will reach its destination?

No, I have 'evidence' that letters put in mailboxes reach their destination 99.99% of the time...so it is not faith.

Arguably, those "who can pass an aptitude test on constitutional law" would all have the same views, so they would all vote the same, so there is actually no need for voting.

The letter of constitutional law is not a matter of opinion...its interpretation is a matter of opinion.

An aptitude test to earn voting rights would be on the letter of the law.

 

[wynn]

If I put a letter in a mailbox does this mean I have FAITH that it will reach its destination?

No, I have 'evidence' that letters put in mailboxes reach their destination 99.99% of the time...so it is not faith.

You have faith that the letter that you have mailed will arrive. As you mail the letter, you do not have evidence yet that it has arrived.
For this particular letter, you have merely faith, not evidence.

You apparently just intensely dislike the word or concept of "faith," to the point that you refuse to acknowledge it when appropriate.

See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence, for example, for arguments for taking things on faith.

The letter of constitutional law is not a matter of opinion...its interpretation is a matter of opinion.

This is how it is in practice, yes, which suggests that constitutional law is not all that clear-cut to begin with.
So we're back to voting as such and the problems inherent to it.

An aptitude test to earn voting rights would be on the letter of the law.

Who would design such an aptitude test, and what would make sure that it would be relevant?

And again, can you explain why a voting system is an adequate way to choose a governing instance?

 

[wynn]

abc mod queue

If I put a letter in a mailbox does this mean I have FAITH that it will reach its destination?

No, I have 'evidence' that letters put in mailboxes reach their destination 99.99% of the time...so it is not faith.

You have faith that the letter that you have mailed will arrive. As you mail the letter, you do not have evidence yet that it has arrived.
For this particular letter, you have merely faith, not evidence.

You apparently just intensely dislike the word or concept of "faith," to the point that you refuse to acknowledge it when appropriate.

See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence, for example, for arguments for taking things on faith.

The letter of constitutional law is not a matter of opinion...its interpretation is a matter of opinion.

This is how it is in practice, yes, which suggests that constitutional law is not all that clear-cut to begin with.
So we're back to voting as such and the problems inherent to it.

An aptitude test to earn voting rights would be on the letter of the law.

Who would design such an aptitude test, and what would make sure that it would be relevant?

And again, can you explain why a voting system is an adequate way to choose a governing instance?

 

[kx000]

Would it not be superior if we settled all voting here on SF, rather than leave it to the general population?

Hey guys, your all star children.

 

[Edward Wechner]

Separation of church and state is part of the constitution of most western countries. It is however only of token value, people like George W. Bush are still getting elected and sadly base their policies entirely on their religious believe of their "holy script".

http://www.alternet.org/story/14022...e"_mid-east_enemies_"before_a_new_age_begins"

If you believe that is how it should be, then that is ok, we know where you stand. If you however believe that it is wrong to allow a religious fanatic to murder a hundred thousand people on the justification that the Bible has told him so, then I would be interested to hear what you would propose to do about it.

 

[Read-Only]

Separation of church and state is part of the constitution of most western countries. It is however only of token value, people like George W. Bush are still getting elected and sadly base their policies entirely on their religious believe of their "holy script".

http://www.alternet.org/story/14022...e"_mid-east_enemies_"before_a_new_age_begins"

If you believe that is how it should be, then that is ok, we know where you stand. If you however believe that it is wrong to allow a religious fanatic to murder a hundred thousand people on the justification that the Bible has told him so, then I would be interested to hear what you would propose to do about it.

Really? And just WHERE is proof that the leader of any western nation has "murdered a hundred thousand people" on that basis?????????

And if you actually believe what's in the link you provided then you are a FAR bigger fool than we took you to be! :bugeye:

 

[Carcano]

You have faith that the letter that you have mailed will arrive. As you mail the letter, you do not have evidence yet that it has arrived. For this particular letter, you have merely faith, not evidence.

It would be 'faith' if I threw the letter out of a window believing that angels would usher it to the feet of the recipient.

The effectiveness of the mail system by contrast, is something we have evidence of every day.

 

[Carcano]

Can you explain why a voting system is an adequate way to choose a governing instance?

Its currently inadequate...for the reasons I stated.

If you polled voters after an election and asked them to write down three policies of their preferred candidate...I doubt even 50% could manage it.

 

[Edward Wechner]

Really? And just WHERE is proof that the leader of any western nation has "murdered a hundred thousand people" on that basis?????????

And if you actually believe what's in the link you provided then you are a FAR bigger fool than we took you to be! :bugeye:

Well, you have declared your position, so I did not really request your response. I do believe what the French president Chirac has to say and have no interest in your fanatic religious views.