CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:42 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
Nope, I want religion to be out of office, not the people who believe it.


And how do you separate the two? People's eligious beliefs are a part of them. The deity part aside it's a moral code, behavioural norms, a way of life. All of which would affect any policy decisions they're involved in. Just as an environmentalist's views would affect his policy making. Can I say I want environmentalism out of office, but not the people who believe in it? Or socialism out of office, but not socialists? Sounds ridiculous to me.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23840
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:43 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
They never proposed taking the religion out of the office holders nor did any of them propose excluding religion from the public dialogue.
But they did propose taking religious dialogue out of the discussions by office holders. That's the important factor. They can hold their beliefs, but they shouldn't be governing based on them.
Quote:
The government was designed to be a secular government for a religious nation and the idea was that the power of government would be held in check by the convictions of the men running it.

Men without convictions know no limits to their behavior aside only from that which they impose on themselves and that rarely ends well.

The implication is one can not have convictions without Religion?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:48 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
They never proposed taking the religion out of the office holders nor did any of them propose excluding religion from the public dialogue.
But they did propose taking religious dialogue out of the discussions by office holders. That's the important factor. They can hold their beliefs, but they shouldn't be governing based on them.
[quote]

What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:49 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
The implication is one can not have convictions without Religion?


Certainly one can. Might one govern according to those convictions? It's ok as long as they're not religiously based?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23840
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:27 pm
 


Unsound wrote:
Tricks wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
They never proposed taking the religion out of the office holders nor did any of them propose excluding religion from the public dialogue.
But they did propose taking religious dialogue out of the discussions by office holders. That's the important factor. They can hold their beliefs, but they shouldn't be governing based on them.
Quote:

What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?

I have no idea what a 2d20 is...

Depends on the area I suppose, for instance, injection religion into this:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09 ... ate-change

is very very bad.

Base governance on rational thought. Should I make this law because killing people is bad or because a book tells me killing people is bad.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23840
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:28 pm
 


Unsound wrote:
Tricks wrote:
The implication is one can not have convictions without Religion?


Certainly one can. Might one govern according to those convictions? It's ok as long as they're not religiously based?

Depends, are they based in nonsense as well?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28437
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:09 pm
 


Unsound wrote:
What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?


In a lot of ways such a system would make for an absolutely awesome world. Roll an 88 and you kill the dragon. Roll under that and you lose all your health care coverage for the next ten years. 8)


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:14 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Tricks wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Then you want religious people excluded from representative office? Hope you have an army to back that up because that's what you'll need.

Nope, I want religion to be out of office, not the people who believe it. So did your Founding Fathers.


They never proposed taking the religion out of the office holders nor did any of them propose excluding religion from the public dialogue.

The government was designed to be a secular government for a religious nation and the idea was that the power of government would be held in check by the convictions of the men running it.

Men without convictions know no limits to their behavior aside only from that which they impose on themselves and that rarely ends well.


Just to get some actual facts out there:



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13800
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:58 am
 


smorgdonkey wrote:
I don't care what people believe in what God...I do care that there appears to be a mannequin in the Prime Minister position (and he won 3 F'ing elections!!! That is just alarming.).


If a mannequin can become PM it just goes to show how plastic and unappealing those other parties leadership candidates are. 8O

Oh that's right, based on your criteria for PM, the Liberals will win the next election because their mannequin is prettier than the Conservative mannequin. :roll:

I'd say there's a good chance you'll be even more alarmed in couple of years. :lol:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:55 am
 


Tricks wrote:

Base governance on rational thought. Should I make this law because killing people is bad or because a book tells me killing people is bad.


If you don't go by a book, what tells you that killing is bad?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:57 am
 


Tricks wrote:
Unsound wrote:
Tricks wrote:
The implication is one can not have convictions without Religion?


Certainly one can. Might one govern according to those convictions? It's ok as long as they're not religiously based?

Depends, are they based in nonsense as well?


Define nonsense. is Elizabeth May's version of environmentalism nonsense? A lot of people would say so. Should she be barred from politics? What about Mulcair's economic ideas? If I think they're based on nonsense can I have him excluded from the political process?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:58 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Unsound wrote:
What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?


In a lot of ways such a system would make for an absolutely awesome world. Roll an 88 and you kill the dragon. Roll under that and you lose all your health care coverage for the next ten years. 8)


I honestly can't say for sure if we would be any worse off.

Can I apply for the DM job? I'd like to get to decide what you have to roll to legalize pot, or bring back the death penalty.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17925
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:14 am
 


Unsound wrote:
Thanos wrote:
Unsound wrote:
What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?


In a lot of ways such a system would make for an absolutely awesome world. Roll an 88 and you kill the dragon. Roll under that and you lose all your health care coverage for the next ten years. 8)


I honestly can't say for sure if we would be any worse off.

Can I apply for the DM job? I'd like to get to decide what you have to roll to legalize pot, or bring back the death penalty.


Ohhhh can I be the Chaotic Evil player even if I lose all my stuff do to my own fault I can steal everyone else's things. Wait would make me a liberal or a politician?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20916
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:17 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Unsound wrote:
What should they base their governance on then? 2d20?


In a lot of ways such a system would make for an absolutely awesome world. Roll an 88 and you kill the dragon. Roll under that and you lose all your health care coverage for the next ten years. 8)


Just goes to show you how long I've been out of that scene - we used to use two 10-sided dice for such rolls...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:59 am
 


Unsound wrote:

If you don't go by a book, what tells you that killing is bad?


Common sense. Basic human dignity. People are able to tell right from wrong without religion.

Religion often clouds the line between good and bad without regard for common sense or basic human rights/dignity.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.