• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Application of religious standards to non-religious people

You can vote for any reason you want, just understand this is a Republic not a pure democracy. You may think it discrimination to demand secular reason for laws; but it's outright oppression to subjugate me to the laws of your god. That's your choice to follow those rules and your god is not the god of others.

I won't demand that you have a secular reason behind your vote, but I will demand secular argument and justification for implemented laws. You cannot force your god on others anymore than I can take yours away from you.

Yeah, I don't see why belief shall be legislated (forced on others). You believe abortion is wrong? Then don't have one. You believe homosexuality is wrong? Then don't do it. And so on.

No need to tell others what they're supposed to do or not do. Jesus even said something about judging others. I take it as a statement that a true believer should foremost be concerned about his own soul.
 
Last edited:
The thing about non-religious dogma is that it can be questioned, reasoned with, and modified if found to be weak or lacking. If non-religious dogma is passed into law and the results are bad, people can be held accountable and the rules can be changed.

What world do you come from? ...are they accepting immigrants?
 
What world do you come from? ...are they accepting immigrants?

Only if you come illegally first *ba dum psh*

I never said it was easy, but it is possible and does happen. Laws with Divine Authority behind them are by nature unquestionable.
 
Looking at the details of the 14th amendment and the rational basis review, I don't understand how DOMA was passed in the first place. Even Newt was against it in recent years. It makes you wonder what else could be passed with enough zealous energy supporting it.



All you have to do is look at all the states with Republican Governors and legislatures and you will see enough zealous energy to gag a maggot.....and the House is full of zealots too.....need I say more?
 
No more arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical or less right than enforcing non-religious dogma which is what the left does. You support freedom or you are an autocrat who doesn't--the rest are just details.


What exactly is non-religious dogma?:confused:
 
What exactly is non-religious dogma?:confused:

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. They can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.

I'd be hard pressed to come up with a non-religious example, but i can accept the theoretical possibility. I'd be interested in seeing any examples Fisher might be able to give.
 
Any rule or idea that a religion proposes should be subject to the same analysis as any other. If it serves a useful purpose and helps people, then it's a good idea. An argument for authority doesn't change that, even if you invoke a god as that authority. Good ideas stand up on their own.

If a person wants to arbitrarily choose other rules for themselves, they're welcome to. But they can't push those rules on others without reason.
 
No more arrogant in the extreme and tyrannical or less right than enforcing non-religious dogma which is what the left does. You support freedom or you are an autocrat who doesn't--the rest are just details.


What "non-religious dogma" is being enforced upon believers?

Darn it! Juanita asked it first
 
Last edited:
I'd be hard pressed to come up with a non-religious example, but i can accept the theoretical possibility. I'd be interested in seeing any examples Fisher might be able to give.


They used to call Progressives "bleeding heart liberals"-----pro-people....Pro Social Security, Medicare, union rights, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, children's rights, Medicare, unemployment compensation and health care.....Moral, but secular.......
 
Back
Top Bottom