Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

[_EAllusion]

Unfortunately they live in a country which enshrines inalienably their right to make life difficult for other people, who then complain that they are doing so.

Are you being sarcastic?

No I am not being in the least sarcastic. What might be sarcastic is Chap's post, in which he explained why it's important to enshrine inalienably the right to make life difficult for other people.

What he supported is the right of Americans to express their beliefs and lobby the government on behalf of their political views. This is important for reasons he expressed.

[_Fortigurn]

No modern democracy is remotely likely to legislate for a religious test for exercising political rights, and in any case such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce due to lack of certainty in ascertaining who holds religious convictions and who does not. You are not talking anything like practical politics here.

It's entirely practical. It has been done before. How much difficulty do people currently experience in ascertaining whether or not certain lobbying activity is religiously motivated or not? Very little. How much difficulty do people currently experience in ascertaining whether or not certain suggestions for educational curriculum material are religiously motivated or not? Very little. It's not so hard.

When you say it's not practical, what you really mean is that it's not popular, and specifically 'It's not what I was brought up to believe is right'. But practical, it certainly is.

I find the former irritating, and would find the latter pernicious.

Great, so you can see the difference. The former may be said to be simply freedom of speech, the other is coercion. One is relatively harmless propagandizing, the other is extremely harmful propagandizing. I have no problem with people being permitted to engage in the former. But legislation should utterly prevent them from engaging in the latter.

Unlike you, on the other hand, I am only interested in the possibilities of opposition to the latter open to us in some political system that either presently exists, or can be reached from here with a reasonable amount of effort, and within the bounds of likelihood.

You are not being realistic. You want to have your cake and eat it too. The only way to restrict certain people from having a political influence is to restrict their access to political involvement. And that is entirely practical. The US political system already restricts certain people from having a political influence, by restricting their access to political involvement. This is a historically well recognized and implemented device which has been in standing for what, around 400 years now? The machinery already exists, and is already being applied. You just have to broaden its application.

[_The Nehor]

The best way in this particular case would be to pass legislation preventing those holding religious convictions from active political involvement. That includes voting and holding political office. Without any lobbying power, religious fanatics would have no political voice, and weak and corrupt politicians would not fear them or exploit their support.

And people with no political voice have never, ever turned to violence to get one.

I don't think you've thought this through at all.

[_Chap]

The only way to restrict certain people from having a political influence is to restrict their access to political involvement. And that is entirely practical. The US political system already restricts certain people from having a political influence, by restricting their access to political involvement. This is a historically well recognized and implemented device which has been in standing for what, around 400 years now? The machinery already exists, and is already being applied. You just have to broaden its application.

What individual US citizens are currently, as individuals, restricted from having a political influence, and by what machinery is this restriction enforced?

I see you are one of those posters who has a tendency to claim that his opponents are in some way of too weak an understanding to grasp his points. Well, I certainly admit to not understanding you so far. Please explain more, in practical and specific terms, referring to specific legal and constitutional provisions presently operating in the US.

I do not think, by the way, that the USA was in existence in 1608. But maybe I am misunderstanding again. Are you referring to the laws of some other country?

[_EAllusion]

I think he means people like felons being restricted from voting Chap. Historically that also included groups like blacks and women. Of course, there are other ways to influence the political system. I think he is just advocating that the religious not be allowed to vote or possibly do things like form PACs. If you are discovered holding religious views or being a part of religious organization, he thinks you should be stripped of your basic right to participate in the political process. People would have to go into hiding regarding their religious views if they want political influence.

On a practical level, it is not obvious what political advocacy is religiously motivated and what is not. It is true that in instances like this it is obvious, but many political views people have are entwined with their religious views. It's hard to tell to what extent a person favoring certain environmental regulations is doing so because of their religious motivations and to what extent it is their secular motivations.

But that practical problem with enforcement is far from what makes this so menacing.

[_Fortigurn]

What he supported is the right of Americans to express their beliefs and lobby the government on behalf of their political views. This is important for reasons he expressed.

No, also he supported the right of Americans to have their religious beliefs taught in educational curriculum materials as fact. The Fundamentalist Christians responsible for all the things people are complaining about in this thread are not lobbying the government on behalf of their political views, but on behalf of their religious views.

[_Fortigurn]

The best way in this particular case would be to pass legislation preventing those holding religious convictions from active political involvement. That includes voting and holding political office. Without any lobbying power, religious fanatics would have no political voice, and weak and corrupt politicians would not fear them or exploit their support.

And people with no political voice have never, ever turned to violence to get one.

I don't think you've thought this through at all.

I have thought this through. Millions of women, Africans, and non-citizens (resident foreigners), have historically been without a political voice in North America. But did they respond with violence to get one? No. The likelihood of religious people in North America attempting to use violence to gain a political voice they don't have is extremely low. Can you give me any examples of large groups of people in North America who currently do not have a political voice, but who turn to violence to get one?

[_Fortigurn]

What individual US citizens are currently, as individuals, restricted from having a political influence, and by what machinery is this restriction enforced?

Anyone under the voting age, and historically, women and African Americans. See EAllusion's post.

I see you are one of those posters who has a tendency to claim that his opponents are in some way of too weak an understanding to grasp his points.

I haven't made any such claims at all.

Well, I certainly admit to not understanding you so far. Please explain more, in practical and specific terms, referring to specific legal and constitutional provisions presently operating in the US.

Currently the US does not permit every individual who resides within its political borders to take active part in the political process, despite the fact that they are influenced by it. Resident foreigners for example, and even citizens under a certain age, are by law prevented from taking active part in the political process (specifically, they are not permitted to vote). You will note that EAllusion has demonstrated his recognition of this point. I am suggesting that this currently existing disenfranchisement be extended to another class of people.

I do not think, by the way, that the USA was in existence in 1608. But maybe I am misunderstanding again. Are you referring to the laws of some other country?

I didn't say anything about the US being in existence in 1608. I spoke of the political device of political disenfranchisement, a device which has been around for at least 400 years.

[_The Nehor]

The best way in this particular case would be to pass legislation preventing those holding religious convictions from active political involvement. That includes voting and holding political office. Without any lobbying power, religious fanatics would have no political voice, and weak and corrupt politicians would not fear them or exploit their support.

And people with no political voice have never, ever turned to violence to get one.

I don't think you've thought this through at all.

I have thought this through. Millions of women, Africans, and non-citizens (resident foreigners), have historically been without a political voice in North America. But did they respond with violence to get one? No. The likelihood of religious people in North America attempting to use violence to gain a political voice they don't have is extremely low. Can you give me any examples of large groups of people in North America who currently do not have a political voice, but who turn to violence to get one?

In North America there are very few classes that don't have a vote. I think it's limited to felons and illegal immigrants. I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you. Let's reverse the thought process a bit. What if the Christian majority decided to bar atheists and non-Christians from having any political voice on the grounds that this is a Christian nation, largely founded by Christians and the godless atheists and heathens are a threat to our culture? Would you react with violence or just suck it up?

[_Fortigurn]

I think he means people like felons being restricted from voting Chap. Historically that also included groups like blacks and women. Of course, there are other ways to influence the political system. I think he is just advocating that the religious not be allowed to vote or possibly do things like form PACs. If you are discovered holding religious views or being a part of religious organization, he thinks you should be stripped of your basic right to participate in the political process. People would have to go into hiding regarding their religious views if they want political influence.

Yes. And I don't see participation in the political process as a 'basic right' anyway.

On a practical level, it is not obvious what political advocacy is religiously motivated and what is not. It is true that in instances like this it is obvious, but many political views people have are entwined with their religious views. It's hard to tell to what extent a person favoring certain environmental regulations is doing so because of their religious motivations and to what extent it is their secular motivations.

As already noted, in the cases which actually matter it's pretty easy to tell what political advocacy is religiously motivated or not. This Creationist stuff for example, and the whole issue of gay marriages. The key point here is that numerous examples of religiously motivated political advocacy are regularly complained about by secular North Americans, which demonstrates that they're clearly not incapable of discerning it.

For the record, I am myself a Christian. But I don't believe religious people should take an active part in the political process, and I've always abstained from political involvement in my country of origin (Australia).