Dear
occupied even if a group
Is a registered political group,
I don't see how that gives license to
Violate beliefs of others by abusing govt to pass biased faith based laws.
I've run into others here who don't believe political beliefs are barred from govt, but I see it causes the same damage or worse as religious beliefs pushed through govt against the beliefs of others.
So I find these matters should be resolved by consensus before passing laws to avoid imposing one sides beliefs or another.
Just because political beliefs were imposed by majority rule in the past, doesn't mean this isn't as damaging as religious beliefs imposed by govt.
So I disagree with imposing political beliefs which I argue violates equal Constitutional protections, it's favoring one creed and discriminating against another.
Look at it this way: You keep framing this question as Christians VS Liberals but that is not how it is. There are some religions/christian denominations out there that do not like RW Evangelical beliefs/methods, why do you think conservative Christians should be held above all those others? The only fair and constitutional solution is to not let any of them to be the sole moral compass of the nation. They all have the right to join in the national discussion with the understanding that secular law will cover secular matters and that religious objections cannot be considered if they are unconstitutional.
I'm not saying to let Christians impose.
I'm saying don't let political groups impose those beliefs either!
occupied
What I'm saying is that Christians have to follow the law same as anyone. The government cannot consider your feelings when questions arise pertaining to equal protection, equal rights or anything not specific to religion. I can understand why you feel like these questions do not get a fair hearing but the government cannot withhold constitutional rights from anyone without a sound legal argument. Religious political groups do not make legal arguments, they make moralistic arguments that all too often have no legal legs to stand on.
Dear
occupied I'm not arguing or against anything you've said. I agree.
I'm just saying to apply that Same standard to political beliefs!
The same way you are saying personal beliefs are not justification for denying protections to others, I'm saying hold political parties and beliefs to those same standards.
Treat parties as political religions and it puts everyone's agenda on the same level.
Nobody on left or right should use political party to abuse govt to push biased beliefs that others should have free choice in without penalty of law.
I'm saying don't just stop at checking religious groups from pushing agenda through govt that is subjective and faith based, but also check corporations from abusing govt and check political parties from mandating political beliefs through govt.@pvsi
On issues contested as political beliefs require consensus or separate funding by party. The same way you said religious groups can fund their own practices outside govt. Do the same with political groups that have subjective agenda not everyone supports. Let them get tax breaks for investing and building their own programs instead of imposing on others who believe in funding their own.
Political beliefs are the basis of our political system. There are not just two but hundreds of competing political agendas shaping our national dialog. The first amendment protects the speech rights of all of them to freely participate in the process, even the ones backed by RW Christians. It still seems to me you are seeking some favored position for your particular ideology but in the land of the free it too must compete with all the rest on an equal basis when it comes to secular matters. The process whereby we decide how we will govern ourselves protects your beliefs as much as it puts up barriers to them becoming the last word.
It has been a lovely discussion we have had without recrimination or name calling but dinner awaits and then some heavy holiday drinking, If you still have comments I will address them tomorrow.
HI
occupied and thanks for continuing and clarifying this discussion I find extremely helpful and productive!
A. No sorry, my point is NOT to treat any system A B C with more or special rights than others. It's the opposite. It's to treat them all, whether religious or political, equally as beliefs and seek consent of the governed in policies touching either religious or political beliefs to avoid any bias, for or against, one belief or creed or another.
So if A - atheist or nontheist beliefs B - bipartisan beliefs C - Christian or Constitutional beliefs D - Democrat or liberal beliefs/rights that others call a belief etc
I'm saying to respect all people for these inherent beliefs, and only make laws that satisfy and don't violate anyone's beliefs -- by resolving conflicts and writing laws neutrally by consensus to avoid imposing elements that trigger or violate one set of beliefs or another
This would require, as you say, keeping religiously held relative beliefs OUT of govt instead of giving them "special rights" to impose by majority.
B. As for voting to impose Political Beliefs -- yes and no.
If we agree to put abortion or gun rights up to the whims of majority rule vote, or a 4-5 ruling by Scotus, then sure we can agree to do that.
But I don't see where either side has ever consented to that! We put up with it but live in constant fear the other party will flip the political balance and vote us out while mandating their beliefs at our expense. Nobody I know agrees for govt to exclude or penalize their inherent beliefs, whether religious or political spiritual or personal.
So no, out of respect for equal protection of the laws and not losing rights by whim of majority rule, I have to say no to such practice. I don't believe it adequately equally or ethically protects both sides beliefs but leaves them equally vulnerable to legal abuse or corporate abuse of govt to force an opposing belief that doesn't represent citizens equally as our Constitutional laws require.
C. I happen to have faith in consensus and separating beliefs by party instead of ramming one side through govt at the expense of equal beliefs of other people and parties.
So I would fall under group B that seeks to defend both A C D and all others.
My beliefs also cannot be rammed through govt but by nature onky chosen freely like the others I ask to treat the same way.
If people don't share faith in forming consensus they resort to bullying and majority rule to force a resolution through govt by arbitration or judge ruling.
I believe in conflict resolution and mediation so both sides can win key points instead of one side winning only to be fought by the losing side that never agreed to give up their beliefs this way.
So how can we work toward proving consensus or separation by party will work except to try it.
if we keep bullying, we get the same results back and forth never agreeing until our beliefs or rights are recognised. So why not recognize them to begin with, start the process there, and work out policies that respect these rights and beliefs up front as a given?
If that means working out private policies that will solve the problem instead of ramming them through govt against the beliefs/rights/will/free choice/consent of others.
If we demand this of Christian beliefs shouldn't all beliefs be treated the same to protect all people equally from beliefs of others just like we do with religions.
Isn't that fair and just plain common sense to respect each other's beliefs if we want ours to be respected?
Thanks
occupied
