French/Greek elections (1 Viewer)

[qawe]

Furthermore, we have this oversensitivity to religion where we "can't do anything that might upset them" - namely Christianity because of it's prevalence in our society - for example, we can't legalise gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion etc. because it might offend the Christians. As a society we are too familiar, comfortable and sensitive to conservative Christian values, which does inhibit social progress. And because of our heritage stemming from Christian values we place a lot of value on asceticism which inhibits individual fulfilment (drug and alcohol laws, sex laws such as age of consent and statutory rape).

I don't think anyone cares about Christians being offended. Source: most pro gay marriage posts on BoS.
The point is that more votes are won by shunning gay marriage than introducing it.
For those who support it, it is not as much of a game breaker.

 

[Lolsmith]

I think if you have a look at the beatitudes, you cannot contend that they are a cogent endorsement of the ideas of compassion, peace, selflessness which forms the bedrock of modern left of centre politics.

NOPE

 

[Lolsmith]

NOPE

and even if it was the means are fucking moronic and do more damage than good

 

[qawe]

By the time we have a substantial majority of Muslims in our country (which will take a LONG while) many of them will likely be accustomed to our culture. But I see your point.

How do you know? Fertility rates are MUCH higher among the Muslim population.

How do you know? Many of them live in enclaves so this is not necessarily the case. A group is a powerful thing. A large enough group can weather cultural currents.

 

[Lentern]

and even if it was the means are fucking moronic and do more damage than good

Well no, you're assuming some sort of "Jesus said these things, therefore they are good" whereas I come from the perspective that they are intrinsically virtuous principles and that's why Jesus promoted them.

 

[Lolsmith]

Well no, you're assuming some sort of "Jesus said these things, therefore they are good" whereas I come from the perspective that they are intrinsically virtuous principles and that's why Jesus promoted them.

I wasn't talking about your religious beliefs

 

[qawe]

I think if you have a look at the beatitudes, you cannot contend that they are a cogent endorsement of the ideas of compassion, peace, selflessness which forms the bedrock of modern left of centre politics.

Or this is just a facade. Consider the weasel word "tolerance": its explicit meaning is quite benign and laudable from a Christian perspective. However, it may imply the acceptance of ideas which are just plain wrong from an absolutist moral pspective. Those who resist this are accused of rejecting the first definition of "tolerance".

 

[Lolsmith]

an absolutist moral perspective huh

 

[Annihilist]

I don't think anyone cares about Christians being offended. Source: most pro gay marriage posts on BoS.
The point is that more votes are won by shunning gay marriage than introducing it.
For those who support it, it is not as much of a game breaker.

I missed the memo where BoS was a reliable source of statistics. Besides, I was referring to politics and political leaders - they don't want to offend Christians because, as you rightfully pointed out, they will lose votes. Which on a completely unrelated note, clearly illustrates the amazing lack of integrity of our political leaders.

Christianity is prevalent enough in our society to create a political slant against anything they disagree with. Additionally, Christian politicians (of which we have no shortage of) are often slaves to their doctrine. So of course, the Christian doctrine has enough (and in my opinion, too much) influence to make a difference in our country's political direction.

I'm going to stop bashing religion before I get even more hate for it.

How do you know? Fertility rates are MUCH higher among the Muslim population.

How do you know? Many of them live in enclaves so this is not necessarily the case. A group is a powerful thing. A large enough group can weather cultural currents.

One child policy for Muslims is clearly the way to go.

Seriously though, I don't know. That post was merely speculative and without grounds in facts or research.

 

[Lentern]

I wasn't talking about your religious beliefs

I thought you were talking about my claim that the beatitudes align with left of centre politics.

 

[Annihilist]

I thought you were talking about my claim that the beatitudes align with left of centre politics.

Jesus said the rich should give to the poor.

Therefore he was a socialist.

 

[qawe]

an absolutist moral perspective huh

"there are some things that are right, some that are wrong. No room fLr different perspectives or change. This is because it is usually god ordained"

 

[Lentern]

Or this is just a facade. Consider the weasel word "tolerance": its explicit meaning is quite benign and laudable from a Christian perspective. However, it may imply the acceptance of ideas which are just plain wrong from an absolutist moral pspective. Those who resist this are accused of rejecting the first definition of "tolerance".

Did I use the word tolerance when referring to the beatitudes?

 

[qawe]

I missed the memo where BoS was a reliable source of statistics. Besides, I was referring to politics and political leaders - they don't want to offend Christians because, as you rightfully pointed out, they will lose votes. Which on a completely unrelated note, clearly illustrates the amazing lack of integrity of our political leaders.

Christianity is prevalent enough in our society to create a political slant against anything they disagree with. Additionally, Christian politicians (of which we have no shortage of) are often slaves to their doctrine. So of course, the Christian doctrine has enough (and in my opinion, too much) influence to make a difference in our country's political direction.

I was talking about an undue influence Christians may have. Obviously it is all part of the democratic process, not out of an irrational fear of Christians.


If any group, it is Muslims who have undue influence, people are quite scared of speaking out against them. Although I guess you would disagree because u don't have a problem with them in the first place.

 

[Annihilist]

Or this is just a facade. Consider the weasel word "tolerance": its explicit meaning is quite benign and laudable from a Christian perspective. However, it may imply the acceptance of ideas which are just plain wrong from an absolutist moral pspective. Those who resist this are accused of rejecting the first definition of "tolerance".

Therefore, tolerance goes against the absolutist moral perspective, because if it agrees with you then there is no need to tolerate it. So if you believe in absolute morals, you fail to tolerate anything which goes against your absolute moral values. If you are tolerant of other ideas of morality then you don't believe in strict morals.

 

[qawe]

Did I use the word tolerance when referring to the beatitudes?

Tolerance was merely an illustration of the facade I was describing.
Of course not all leftists have these ulterior motives: some do, some are tricked by others, and some trick themselves.
This does not inhibit IMO a Christian voting for the left. But it is my argument in the framework of a political rather than a chruch/religous discussion, using Christianity as a cogent point for those who are Christian.

 

[SylviaB]

Well no, you're assuming some sort of "Jesus said these things, therefore they are good" whereas I come from the perspective that they are intrinsically virtuous principles and that's why Jesus promoted them.

intrinsically virtous

based on what exactly

 

[qawe]

Therefore, tolerance goes against the absolutist moral perspective, because if it agrees with you then there is no need to tolerate it. So if you believe in absolute morals, you fail to tolerate anything which goes against your absolute moral values. If you are tolerant of other ideas of morality then you don't believe in strict morals.

I agree

 

[Annihilist]

I was talking about an undue influence Christians may have. Obviously it is all part of the democratic process, not out of an irrational fear of Christians.


If any group, it is Muslims who have undue influence, people are quite scared of speaking out against them. Although I guess you would disagree because u don't have a problem with them in the first place.

You are right, except that there's no "fear of Christianity", except the fear of losing votes from the Christian mass. There is an irrational fear of Islam because of 9/11 and that other one, and so the influence of Islam is due to a fear of violence and terrorism. So...maybe if we didn't have so much contempt for Islam then we wouldn't be so scared and we wouldn't submit to their "influence". Maybe.

 

[qawe]

Jesus said the rich should give to the poor.

Therefore he was a socialist.

No. Socialists say the govt should force the rich to give to the poor. There's a difference.