separation of church and state/ thoughts

[HotRod556]

1st amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is how the first amendment is worded in 1791. To me a law respecting an establishment of religion. Would be a law banning gay marriage or any religion based only law. So if im understanding this right. Then what is there to argue about? How can any state not allow gay marriage or refuse same rights any married couple has? I don't know much about anything. So open to learn or look at it differently. I always thought the words separation of church and state was in the amendment. Google has explained who started that believeth. And I have been wrong about the wording. So that means I havent talked to anyone that knew what the first amendment really said. Not that it changes anything.

So any thoughts? Or something to add? I must be missing something cause still going on.


I've been bitching about this for a long time. The rest is just a bunch of rambling. Of said bitching.

In GA. we could not buy alcohol on sunday. A law made in the early nineteen hundreds. It pissed me off so bad. How can this not be church making laws. In 2011 we got to vote on it. We have tried for years to vote on this and was shot down over and over. Sunday alcohol sales was finally allowed. I still told everyone I talked too. It never should have been a law in the first place. And damn sure shouldn't had to vote on the matter. And man the new had all the small towns folks with bibles out upset that people will be getting alcohol on the lord's day.

Then I remember everyone going batshit over gay marriage. How it's illegal or should be. And they expected I would disagree. Every time I say separation of church and state means they can get married and the people should make sure no state even tries to stop it. The state should make sure people don't try and stop it. You like the freedom to voice your opinion about your religion. But the part that keeps religion believeth from becoming a law. Should not be protected and that's ok how? I got a lot looks over this topic. Some say they didn't care. That it should be illegal. Id say "then I guess we should just do away with the first amendment all together along with any other rights that the church don't agree with".

Whats sad to me is. People fighting against gay marriage and what rights go to what people. Are no different than the people that fought to keep blacks out of white's schools. Someone asked rudely "so you support gay marriage then"? I was like there is nothing to support! They have every right to get married. I wish I had also said. The church has no say in the matter nor does anyone else. And if anyone voted in makes a decision based on personal beliefs. They should be removed.If any state passed a law requiring all business to close on sunday. That is the same as no gay marriage law. It's unconstitutional!! Freedom of religion is lost. Cause maybe my god requires work on sunday and only gays can marry. It Also goes for withholding rights. It should never be allowed. And has already been proven by end of slavery, black male can vote, women can vote. It's the same old argument over the definition of We The People. For the same old reason. Hate, fear, and oh the bible said so.

 

[SaffronBurke]

One of the many important aspects of founding this country was to escape the religious tyranny imposed by the Church of England. To base our laws off of religious reasoning is to violate what the founding fathers stood for - the freedom to live free of religious rule (among other things).

 

[eyeteach]

I believe so many people misread the Establishment Clause there in the 1st Amendment. The clause separates state from church, so many people misinterpret that to mean likewise as well. While it is true that constitutionally government interference in organized church is forbidden, the opposite can not be said; the easiest way to explain is that the clause is there to keep government out of the church, not to keep the church out of government. Last week's SCOTUS ruling touched on that somewhat, and it'll be interesting to see not only how the Supreme Court rules on the upcoming gay marriage wedding cake case but also what the split will be...if there is one.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Basically, the first Amendment says that people are free to practice what religion they want without the Gov't dictating which they should. Where it gets messy is when it infringes upon citizen's rights. And, even then, it is far from perfect. But, one needs to understand differences between rights and priviliges.

While the early settlers fled from religious oppresion, it was not because they were opposed to religion. They wanted to worship as they saw fit. Also, the Founding Fathers were quite a mix of religious and non-religious alike.

There's many stupid laws on the books. Not only religious based. But, some which just need to be stricken because we have too many. Why must we make a law for exvery single thing? For example, why are there specific laws regarding the use of cell phones in vehicles? Shouldn't that already be covered under negligent driving? It shouldn't matter if said person is on a cell phone, dropped a Big Mac, smoking, or what not. It is a broad law, which can cover many things. What should vary, is the degree of negligence and the punishment.

Personally, I'm not opposed to gar marriages. I think that everyone should have the right to be happy, or completely miserable, being legally bound to someone else (yet, another stupid law IMO).

 

[Teagan]

We all know we don't actually have separation of church and state. There are multiple laws on the books only because of the current dominating religion in the US. There are also ones being proposed every damn day. We're still fighting over abortion for christs sake. And if that's not bad enough even basic birth control is still being debated. I'm not talking about healthcare or employers being obligated to cover it, I mean people actually think birth control should not exist for anyone for any reason. Our asshole vice president is one of these people who fully believes religion, his of course, should be above all else. He believes his religion should rule, and only his because it's the "true" one. He regularly tried to pass bullshit religious crap all the time. Yet people still vote for these asshats. People still regularly talk about what religion a potential candidate is as if it should have anything to do with how they govern. It shouldn't. Pathetically it does though, and until we stop voting in religious freaks nothing is going to change about it. Vote in candidates who will flat out say they will put the law above their own religious and personal beliefs. If they don't they should be laughed out of the room.

I sadly don't see any of this happening and nothing will change. We still have people who think freedom of speech means they can say what they want, when they want, and where they want. As if Twitter is some basic human right or some shit. We have people who swear our founding fathers were devote christians and founded this country based on it. Again, not true, but god forbid you talk any factual sense into them. People scream bloody murder if you mention taking god off of damn money. Someplace it should never have been to begin with, and actually it wasn't to begin with. Allowing any of this shit should not be allowed and churches should be stripped of their power and tax free status IMHO....but people keep voting the same old in every year. People have real power but are way too dumb to use it in reality.

 

[Bocefish]

One of the many important aspects of founding this country was to escape the religious tyranny imposed by the Church of England. To base our laws off of religious reasoning is to violate what the founding fathers stood for - the freedom to live free of religious rule (among other things).

Let us not forget being over taxed.

I was playing golf with a guy who was selling his home because his property taxes surpassed the $60K mark and crook county, il wants to increase the income tax by 32%.

 

[Teagan]

Let us not forget being over taxed.

I was playing golf with a guy who was selling his home because his property taxes surpassed the $60K mark and crook county, il wants to increase the income tax by 32%.

That new budget is gonna pass too. They have enough votes without the governor signing it I guess. Such bullshit in IL. Both sides blaming each other in ads but neither willing to actually give in and make cuts. They raised taxes so people left, leaving them without money, so they're gouging who is left still.

 

[Lucid1]

Just wondering out loud here, but the question that comes to mind whenever I hear about the separation of church and state, is where would the laws that serve man come from if they are not based on a religious philosophy or dogma? In college I was once part of a class where we were asked to form a fictitious country complete with its own constitution, laws, economy..etc, without using a deity/god/whatever as the basis for our existence or guiding principles. The economy was easy, as was establishing the country, name and constitution. The moment we started trying to establish a basic set of laws, the "why" questions started popping up at every turn. Why is it not ok to steal from someone? To kill someone or commit adultery? What is it, that is part of our existence, that determines the concepts of right and wrong? Are we born with it? Should the majority have control, or the right to determine which laws are enacted to protect and represent the population? Needless to say, we failed miserably. The concept of where the ideas of right and wrong come from is what doomed us to fail. Finding the mechanism, document, person or entity to which everyone must submit was the critical point that determined our failure. If something is wrong, someone has to be able to explain why it is wrong, without saying "it's wrong because god/yahwe/allah/buddah...etc. says it's wrong".

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That new budget is gonna pass too. They have enough votes without the governor signing it I guess. Such bullshit in IL. Both sides blaming each other in ads but neither willing to actually give in and make cuts. They raised taxes so people left, leaving them without money, so they're gouging who is left still.

No different than what is happening in CA, and other highly taxed states.

 

[Bocefish]

No different than what is happening in CA, and other highly taxed states.

Oh, really?

Compare your state's bond status/credit rating.

 

[Teagan]

Is California still paying out on the lottery? They paying their workers? Have they threatened to not open schools? Are they talking serious about the entire state going bankrupt? It's quite different how serious Illinois is screwed and the people in it.

 

[Bocefish]

n GA. we could not buy alcohol on
sunday.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

 

[CedricDean]

Lucid, were you at a religious school? Because there aren't that many contemporary philosophers who promote divine command theory. There are a lot of problems with the idea that humanity can't have ethics without a deity telling us what to do.

For one thing, there's the Euthyphro dilemma that goes all the way back to Plato: do the gods command actions because the actions are good, or are the actions good because the gods command them? If it's the former, then we don't really need the gods; if the latter, then good and evil are arbitrary and we live in a universe where might makes right. Both are crummy options to base an ethical theory on.

For another, whose gods should humanity listen to? It sounds like you want your ethics to be universal, but that's not how religion works in practice. Not only are there different religions, but even within the same religion we can expect to see dozens, or even hundreds, of variations in what people believe the divine will is. Religious beliefs are one of the least universal aspects of human culture, not a unifying law.

I think you're starting from presuppositions that take your conclusion for granted. The idea that there is something higher "to which everyone must submit" is part of divine command theory, so of course you couldn't make another ethical system work! There are plenty of reasons for ethical theory and ethical behavior beyond "god said so." In Aristotle's virtue ethics, ethical behavior leads to happiness and human flourishing in the long term. (Why should you care about human flourishing? Because you're a human!) In Kant's ethics, people are ends in themselves (not just slaves of the deity), and the basic test for whether something is ethical is "what if everyone did this thing?" which is a pretty good test if you can plug the right variable into "this thing." Utilitarianism seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, which imo makes it one of the best ethical systems to use for making laws that apply to an entire society. More modern takes on ethics theorize that our moral instincts come from evolution, and that following them leads to successful societies where humans have the resources and well-being to give the next generation the best chance of surviving and thriving. Personally, my ethical theory is a mishmash of virtue ethics and existentialism; I think that ethics follows from our condition as free beings trying to create meaning, and good actions are those that respect the freedom of both oneself and others and promote authenticity and meaningful relationships. When it comes to government, I don't think there are universal principles. Is it working for the citizens? Then it's working. No ultimate moral law needed.

Long story short, there are lots of answers to "why?" that don't require a deity. Let me ask you this, why should anyone obey a god? Why does God/the gods have the authority to make laws for humans to obey? I know dct seems like it gives you a nice place for the "why" to stop, but I think that, even more than other ethical theories, it's still turtles all the way down.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Oh, really?

Compare your state's bond status/credit rating.

I was referring to Teegan's comment about the higher taxes, and how many keep increasing services the gov't can't afford. CA approved a significant tax increase recently. Yet, everyone I know has complained it is too much. They, like many others, are looking to sell and leave the state because it has gotten too expensive for most of them.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Is California still paying out on the lottery? They paying their workers? Have they threatened to not open schools? Are they talking serious about the entire state going bankrupt? It's quite different how serious Illinois is screwed and the people in it.

Gov't shutdown has occurred in other states, though mostly due to not being able to pass a budget. There have been major shortfalls in some states, and cities as well.

People get the gov't they vote for. Chicago politics is one of the most corrupt in the nation, has been for longer than any of us have been alive and will continue for years to come.

 

[Teagan]

Illinois has done more than just the proposed current tax increase. I never said they were the only state to do this stuff either. They aren't currently in a government shutdown. That happens. New Jersey just had one. Big deal. If Illinois files bankruptcy they'd be the first and it's unprecedented though. Of course people get the government they vote for, I already touched on that previously, Illinois is bigger than just Chicago though.

 

[HotRod556]

@Bocefish Thank you for the link!! Helps a lot. And I wrote this reply before reading the link.

Thank you @eyeteach! I saw this in wikipedia but didn't really read through all the clauses links.

So I googled separation of church and state.
Wikipedia had the history about the term separation of church and state along with all kinds of other things over my head that I will need to read. Then see if I am understanding this correctly. Also want to read the Supreme Court cases. I did find this amusing. Form wikipedia "However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate".

I was just going with a common sense point of view on what I thought was the meaning of Separation of Church and State. And it seems common sense or uneducated thinking if you want be butt. Is not allowed and will end up with confused and WTF attitude.

Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. I read what wikipedia said about these terms. I didn't know this is necessary to understand why the first amendment is misread. Silly me thought all that was needed to be read to understand the constitution. Was the original copy of the document. I believed this because. The last time I was arrested. I had to go to the law library for info on our fourth amendment. All I was given was a copy of the declaration of independence with constitution. A lot pages. The free lawyer you get is a joke. Another right that's just bullshit. It should read you have the right to take your dumbass to law library and learn how bad the cops fucked you because you didnt know this info. Sorry back to topic. I see now why I misread the amendment based on how the clauses are explained in wikipedia.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I knew "respecting" was the word causing the whole sentence to be argued I think. Wikipedia has "respecting" meaning one religion or denomination will not be viewed higher or favored over another religion or denomination. IMO. I say this interpretation works just fine back in 1802-1900
I think my meaning of respecting fits with our current time period. The "respecting" in the sentence to me ment. Laws or refusal of rights. Out of respect for the church.

In 1920 when the Jesus knowers. Decided alcohol cause to much sin to happen. And should not be legal in the US anymore. Everyone should have demanded the amendment be discussed and understood the way it needs be. Keep your faith out of the laws. Also Supreme court Judges should be limited to a term of no more than four years. Then replaced. Wtf I never like that shit.

So I am now going to say the amendment needs to be read with the current time period in mind. That way I say I am still correct. I will update my rant and sound like I have read me some wikipedia. Anyone think my meaning of "respecting holds water"?

@Teagan You bring up a great point. About the birth control stuff. This should fit with the outdated understanding of the first amendment. Outdated IMO. I think catholics are alone with the no birth control right? If so that sounds like one religion getting favored over others. But I agree 100% there are way too many bible laws and law in genarll. We got lottary a long time ago. It was years later before alcohol on sunday. Funny how easy gambling was no longer that bad of a sin. I know the amount of money the state would bring in had nothing to do with lottery now ok in Ga. I can't remember if this was voted on. Have to look it up.

@Lucid1 Yes I thought about this also. I was thinking of bible laws that never should be a law. Then thought about how do I justify laws like you mention. Because they are also in the bible. But that just derailed me. And tbh I don't any laws. I would love to live in a world were people are kind. And no need to worry about any bad shit happening. Cause its just wrong and no one can understand why someone would do that. But that will never happen.

 

[HotRod556]

@CedricDean thanks very interesting. Only a little over my head.

 

[Teagan]

Catholics aren't alone in being against birth control. Baptists feel the same. As do many off shoots of both religions.

Many states still have stupid no alcohol on Sunday laws. Indiana being one.

And lotteries are still highly debated and restricted. Many are only things like powerball and even that isn't in every state. Gambling really the laws are strict on. Casinos are only allowed certain places like on water a lot of times. Most times in order to get one they have to make huge promises to get them open. Like funding schools. Ultimately it ends up replacing money allocated for those things instead of adding to budgets. It's pretty messed up.

All these things are considered sins by the big religions in the US. It's something a lot of them agree upon so they vote to keep them in. Why anyone feels their religious beliefs should dictate other people's lives I will never get but they love doing it and have no intentions on just shutting up and worrying about themselves.

 

[Guy]

Catholics aren't alone in being against birth control. Baptists feel the same. As do many off shoots of both religions.

Many states still have stupid no alcohol on Sunday laws. Indiana being one.

And lotteries are still highly debated and restricted. Many are only things like powerball and even that isn't in every state. Gambling really the laws are strict on. Casinos are only allowed certain places like on water a lot of times. Most times in order to get one they have to make huge promises to get them open. Like funding schools. Ultimately it ends up replacing money allocated for those things instead of adding to budgets. It's pretty messed up.

All these things are considered sins by the big religions in the US. It's something a lot of them agree upon so they vote to keep them in. Why anyone feels their religious beliefs should dictate other people's lives I will never get but they love doing it and have no intentions on just shutting up and worrying about themselves.

You should see what they just did in the Mormon state. https://avn.com/business/articles/l...harm-suits-against-porn-companies-734319.html

 

[Teagan]

You should see what they just did in the Mormon state. https://avn.com/business/articles/l...harm-suits-against-porn-companies-734319.html

So basically another bullshit law to shirk personal responsibility. In this case it would be parents not watching what their kids are doing.

 

[eyeteach]

@Bocefish Thank you for the link!! Helps a lot. And I wrote this reply before reading the link.

Thank you @eyeteach! I saw this in wikipedia but didn't really read through all the clauses links.

So I googled separation of church and state.
Wikipedia had the history about the term separation of church and state along with all kinds of other things over my head that I will need to read. Then see if I am understanding this correctly. Also want to read the Supreme Court cases. I did find this amusing. Form wikipedia "However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate".

I was just going with a common sense point of view on what I thought was the meaning of Separation of Church and State. And it seems common sense or uneducated thinking if you want be butt. Is not allowed and will end up with confused and WTF attitude.

Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. I read what wikipedia said about these terms. I didn't know this is necessary to understand why the first amendment is misread. Silly me thought all that was needed to be read to understand the constitution. Was the original copy of the document. I believed this because. The last time I was arrested. I had to go to the law library for info on our fourth amendment. All I was given was a copy of the declaration of independence with constitution. A lot pages. The free lawyer you get is a joke. Another right that's just bullshit. It should read you have the right to take your dumbass to law library and learn how bad the cops fucked you because you didnt know this info. Sorry back to topic. I see now why I misread the amendment based on how the clauses are explained in wikipedia.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I knew "respecting" was the word causing the whole sentence to be argued I think. Wikipedia has "respecting" meaning one religion or denomination will not be viewed higher or favored over another religion or denomination. IMO. I say this interpretation works just fine back in 1802-1900
I think my meaning of respecting fits with our current time period. The "respecting" in the sentence to me ment. Laws or refusal of rights. Out of respect for the church.

In 1920 when the Jesus knowers. Decided alcohol cause to much sin to happen. And should not be legal in the US anymore. Everyone should have demanded the amendment be discussed and understood the way it needs be. Keep your faith out of the laws. Also Supreme court Judges should be limited to a term of no more than four years. Then replaced. Wtf I never like that shit.

So I am now going to say the amendment needs to be read with the current time period in mind. That way I say I am still correct. I will update my rant and sound like I have read me some wikipedia. Anyone think my meaning of "respecting holds water"?

@Teagan You bring up a great point. About the birth control stuff. This should fit with the outdated understanding of the first amendment. Outdated IMO. I think catholics are alone with the no birth control right? If so that sounds like one religion getting favored over others. But I agree 100% there are way too many bible laws and law in genarll. We got lottary a long time ago. It was years later before alcohol on sunday. Funny how easy gambling was no longer that bad of a sin. I know the amount of money the state would bring in had nothing to do with lottery now ok in Ga. I can't remember if this was voted on. Have to look it up.

@Lucid1 Yes I thought about this also. I was thinking of bible laws that never should be a law. Then thought about how do I justify laws like you mention. Because they are also in the bible. But that just derailed me. And tbh I don't any laws. I would love to live in a world were people are kind. And no need to worry about any bad shit happening. Cause its just wrong and no one can understand why someone would do that. But that will never happen.

No thanks needed, man; you took me back when I was in the classroom teaching 12th grade AP students...and now that I think about maybe thanks are in order so let me thank you! You started a great topic, not the same ol', same ol' sex chats or "chaturbate screwed me over" topics we seem to get every other day. I would encourage you to continue researching the Constitution and remember the rights held within belong to you as much as much as they belong to any U.S. citizen. Pay special, close attention to those first five words to Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law"...those five words ate extremely powerful and do limit governments encroachment to individual liberties.

Again, thanks man! Outstanding topic!

 

[n_i_c_u]

A little history:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

A lot of seemingly religious laws are brought about because elected officials might make it a point in their campaign for election (to the status of a representative of the people as part of the law making machine) to appeal to voters with their own ideals --many of which might be ideals born from a religious upbringing.I see it a lot these days when a politician uses the phrasing that includes "family." Many people that vote are religious and hyper-focused on whatever they agree with in their religion. It sometimes makes no sense why religious people think the way they think, but I think I understand it from the perspective of people seeing the world as a hostile place and have, in religious observances, a community that accepts you (and also a lot of people always wanting to tell people what to do for the sake of keeping their neighborhood or community from dropping in to lawlessness). The only problem with that is that in most cases of having a congregation, maintaining that unity often means having an enemy. The more specific the enemy, and to actually pinpoint a certain group, is often a rallying call. If there is a lot of ignorance or fear about a certain group of people then it is even easier to make them a target. Religious people also have the ability to congregate easily (thanks to religious freedom) with a vocal shepherd at the pulpit to guide the sheep.

I like Jeffereson's quote in the article: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I think the intentions were true, but, alas, human nature eventually overcomes idealism. Thankfully, these days, idealism has ways to congregate other than at a place of worship.

 

[n_i_c_u]

Also, not sure I understand the "Blue laws" and why they are still around, but, maybe sometimes when a line in the sand is drawn and it turns to concrete, chipping away at it takes time and effort (I do remember a time when stores were closed on Sunday and that is gone now).

 

[Deleted member 37064]

So I am now going to say the amendment needs to be read with the current time period in mind. That way I say I am still correct. I will update my rant and sound like I have read me some wikipedia.

This is a point of contention between many people. Some view the Constitution as a "living document", in that it is open for interpretation at the time of the reading and should be easily modifiable to meet today's needs. Others, will say that it is a static document that needs amendments, which should be hard fought and thoroughly discussed. In some ways, I agree with both views. However, I tend to lean towards it being a statuc docuemnt.

I'd caution you on reading it with the current time period in mind. While this can be beneficial, it cn also cause some contention in terms of viewpoints and differences in wording between then and now. Which will add to the confusion.

Overall, I think our Founding Fathers did a very good job in attempting to make the Constitution cover everyone. There are some exceptions, which have become amendments. Some of whch need to go away (income taxes being one).

 

[Lucid1]

It sounds like you want your ethics to be universal, but that's not how religion works in practice. Not only are there different religions, but even within the same religion we can expect to see dozens, or even hundreds, of variations in what people believe the divine will is. Religious beliefs are one of the least universal aspects of human culture, not a unifying law.

You misunderstand. The reason we were given the assignment was to see if we could set aside/ignore the programming we had received growing up and come up with our own explanations as to "why" something was deemed so wrong that it deserved its own "law", without mention or use of any religious context when forming said law. This is the exact reason I posted my thoughts on this, because throughout history our lawmakers have been shown to have biases in regards to their own upbringing, so to think that there can truly be a separation of church and state is a bit folly. IMHO the core principle here is whether or not a given population can feel safe or adequately protected by whatever form of government they live under, and whether or not the laws of the land have credibility, not only in the ethical sense, but a moralistic one as well.

Long story short, there are lots of answers to "why?" that don't require a deity. Let me ask you this, why should anyone obey a god? Why does God/the gods have the authority to make laws for humans to obey? I know dct seems like it gives you a nice place for the "why" to stop, but I think that, even more than other ethical theories, it's still turtles all the way down.

I'm not overtly religious, but I think it's only fair to counter your questions with a few questions of my own: You mentioned Aristotle, and then you mentioned his ethical approach to happiness and mankind's ability to flourish. Is not Procreation a part of this ability? How do you think Aristotle would view abortion in light of this? Even scholars wrestle with this issue, because at the core, there is the biological imperative aspect of "natural law" that secularists adhere to when making determinations when it comes to the "right" or "wrong" of anything. When you use the term "mankind", you imply everyone, not just a select few who want to live without refrain or to be held accountable for their actions. If mankind is broken down into certain "classes", where laws only apply to certain people, where are the ethics you speak of in such a belief system?

 

[CedricDean]

The point of Church/State separation isn't that any idea that religious people agree with is wrong; it's that religion shouldn't be the basis for laws. I don't care if people's religion gives them a "bias" against murder or theft, but I care a whole lot about religious people's transphobia and disdain for sex workers when those biases lead them to lobby for laws that affect my life. This isn't "folly" (nice condescension there, btw), this is something everyone should be able to agree on. Laws that affect everyone get to be decided on by everyone, not one ideology. This is a central tenet of democracy and shouldn't be controversial.

You didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked, but ok.

Yup, procreation is a part of a society flourishing (though not necessarily for individual flourishing). Eating is a part of flourishing, too, but that doesn't make vomiting immoral, because sometimes you have something in your stomach that you don't want there. If a person has something in their womb that they don't want there, they have the right to remove it.

I'm not aware of any contemporary secular philosophers who argue from Natural Law-- as far as I know, it went out of style at the end of the Enlightenment-- but I'm open to being surprised here.

I didn't use the term "mankind" because I'm not into casual sexism; please don't misquote people you're trying to persuade.

Your use of the term "secularists", belief that ethics can only come from religion, and negative attitude towards abortion makes me think you're coming from a conservative religious community. No offense, buddy, but why are you here? Like I'm not telling you to leave, I'm just wondering how you ended up on a cam model forum. Are you here to convert people or what?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Laws that affect everyone get to be decided on by everyone, not one ideology. This is a central tenet of democracy and shouldn't be controversial.

If you are talking about the United States, we are not a true democracy where everyone gets to decide on Laws. We are a Representative Republic. Meaning, we elect officials whom we think will best represent us.** This was set up since, it has been proven time and time again, that if we were in a true democracy, nothing would ever pass since no one would ever agree and people would feel they won't have an equal say in the matter. Or, they weren't made aware of it.


**We all know that this doesn't exactly happen for all of us. Especially since two people can never agree on everything anyway. But, when we're only given choices of corrupt career politicians, and unpopular people, we kind of get screwed.

Also, given today's attitude where people are more interested in what is going on with entertainers, and have problems pointing out states and countries on maps. Do you honestly believe that a true democracy would even work? There's be more whiners and complainers, as well as far more people whom really don't give a shit, than there would be people actually paying attention to wtf is going on.

 

[CedricDean]

Right, even though we aren't technically A democracy, free countries are based on democratic principles.

 

[Teagan]

I think if we were in a situation where every voice mattered we would be a bit different of a country. Right now after yet another election where majority didn't rule people feel like their voice doesn't matter, so why bother. They don't care about a country that when they do do anything it doesn't fucking matter anyway. If the situation changed where it did then we would see even more people giving a shit and kids would be brought up knowing it mattered and would learn shit a bit better eventually. There's always gonna be slag offs and whiners but that's anywhere. A true democracy would work because it's not about everyone having to agree, it's about a majority which can pretty much always happen. It may not be in the direction a lot of people wish but it'd be there at least. I think there would be a lot less people who wouldn't care if anything they did mattered at all. Plenty of people do care what's going on but are complacent because what the hell can they really do? Nothing. Our system doesn't let anyone do shit now.