Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:34 pm

The Nehor wrote:In North America there are very few classes that don't have a vote. I think it's limited to felons and illegal immigrants.

And anyone under the voting age.

I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.

The you definitely shouldn't have a political voice. In fact you should be locked up for the safety of society.

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?

I would certainly not react with violence. Why would I? I would object in non-violent ways, but why would I, as a Christian, react with violence? How bestial.

Post by **_EAllusion** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:19 pm

Fortigurn wrote:
No, also he supported the right of Americans to have their religious beliefs taught in educational curriculum materials as fact.

No he didn't. He supported the right of people to advocate for that. There's a difference. I think people should have a right to argue in favor of the government's ability to issue blanket warrants for entire neighborhoods. That doesn't mean I favor the government actually having this right.

Post by **_EAllusion** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:29 pm

Fortigurn wrote:
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?

Religious people make up 80ish % of the population depending on how you define them. The have near total control over the government and its military. They have a long-established right to participate in the political process. I'm not sure what scenario you imagine in which their rights are stripped from them that has any basis in reality. How are they going to lose control of the government in the first place? Not only will they have to lose control, but those sympathetic to their basic rights would also have to. When addressing the practicality of this occurring with or without violence, you first have to propose a remotely plausible scenario to understand if that will lead to violence. (And you couldn't just "pass legislation" even if you forget that no legislature in the US would do such a thing. What you are proposing is explicitly unconstitutional. You'd have to amend the constitution prior to passing a law or stack the Supreme Court with those willing to ignore sound interpretation of the constitution.)

Post by **_The Nehor** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:45 pm

Fortigurn wrote:
The Nehor wrote:I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.

The you definitely shouldn't have a political voice. In fact you should be locked up for the safety of society.

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance. A good way to encourage tyranny, but also odd.

If that means the Founding Fathers of the U.S., the political reformers of Britain, and those who fought (physically or legally) for rights and freedoms throughout the world maniacs that at least I'll have good company in my cell. A lot of them would be bestial Christians.

Post by **_EAllusion** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:51 pm

The Nehor wrote:
That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.

I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:59 pm

EAllusion wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.

I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.

Yeah, I'm getting the same vibe.

Post by **_Chap** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:20 am

Yup. Fortigurn is either:

(a) Serious in his proposal for the political disenfranchisement of US citizens with religious beliefs (and it is now clear that this is his proposal)

or

(b) Not serious in the above proposal.

If (a), he is so far removed from the spectrum of practical politics that he can properly be classified as (colloquially) a nutjob.

If (b), he is a troll.

On the balance of probabilities, and because I dislike concluding that people are (in colloquial terms) nutjobs, I vote (b). Pity.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:26 pm

EAllusion wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
No, also he supported the right of Americans to have their religious beliefs taught in educational curriculum materials as fact.

No he didn't. He supported the right of people to advocate for that. There's a difference.

There is a difference, but I didn't see him supporting mere advocacy. Unless he really meant 'I have no problem with these people being permitted to advocate their views, but the government should prevent their views from being acted on, even if they have overwhelming political support'.

I think people should have a right to argue in favor of the government's ability to issue blanket warrants for entire neighborhoods. That doesn't mean I favor the government actually having this right.

So you are in fact arguing that regardless of their right to advocacy for political change, their actual power to effect political change should be withheld from them? They should, in fact, be disenfranchised from effecting the political change for which they are advocating?

Post by **_EAllusion** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:29 pm

Fortigurn wrote:So you are in fact arguing that regardless of their right to advocacy for political change, their actual power to effect political change should be withheld from them? They should, in fact, be disenfranchised from effecting the political change for which they are advocating?

No. I think they should have the right, for instance, to vote for representatives who promise to repeal the 4th amendment. I think they should be opposed by other people's votes and speech so they are not successful in their attempts. I don't think it is proper to simply strip their right to vote for advocating the government have a power I do not think it should.

Post by **_Fortigurn** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:40 pm

EAllusion wrote:Religious people make up 80ish % of the population depending on how you define them.

I would like to see reliable statistics for this (not that I think it's particularly relevant).

The have near total control over the government and its military.

Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.

I would be very interested to see any relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature that argues and demonstrates that the religious people in the US 'have near total control over the government and its military'.

They have a long-established right to participate in the political process.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

I'm not sure what scenario you imagine in which their rights are stripped from them that has any basis in reality.

The scenario in which the government is prepared to make an unpopular decision. You're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'.

How are they going to lose control of the government in the first place?

You assume that they have control of the government in the first place. You have not demonstrated this.

Not only will they have to lose control, but those sympathetic to their basic rights would also have to.

How many people usually vote in a US presidential election? About 55% isn't it? Hardly an overwhelming majority. So it's clear from this statistic alone that the alleged '80%' of the population who are religious aren't even regularly exercising their political franchise. So much for them having control of the government. What we see is that a very large number of people in the US don't even bother to exercise their political franchise. If voter turnout is around 55%, how many of those are religious? It can't be 100%, and would you claim that it's even the majority?

When addressing the practicality of this occurring with or without violence, you first have to propose a remotely plausible scenario to understand if that will lead to violence. (And you couldn't just "pass legislation" even if you forget that no legislature in the US would do such a thing.

I certainly agree. I have not commented on the plausibility of the suggestion, I have simply presented it as a possibility. The proposal is not impossible.

What you are proposing is explicitly unconstitutional. You'd have to amend the constitution prior to passing a law or stack the Supreme Court with those willing to ignore sound interpretation of the constitution.)

Amending the constitution is not impossible, nor is reinterpreting the Amendments.