What if you owned your own country...?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

As I explained. When human definitions are involved (as they always are) error is inevitable. Therefore, the "truth" you wish to embody in law is flawed, because the only way you have to embody it is in flawed language, and not in the direct apprehension of God.

I think that human understanding comes to all kinds of contradictory conclusions on religious texts, but when the Holy Spirit illuminates the meaning of an inspired texts for the human mind, this problem is eliminated. Also, doctrines in the Bible are repeated in multiple places, so the possibility of misunderstanding is further reduced by that. There is also a lot of exposition on the meaning of Biblical doctrine in the Epistles.

There may be some errors, as you say, but in my view it's much easier to go wrong when you're going on human understanding than it is when you are listening to and applying God's understanding.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Interesting, but not relevant. I wasn't saying God used analogies, I said that men did, in trying to explain their slice of direct perception.

Fine, well the same thing I said still goes if contradictions between religions are the result of men's analogies. If basic statements of fact in religious texts and whole passages that are contradictory are actually analogies of various kinds, then religion itself would be essentially worthless. For if that's the case, then we could not understand a thing God's talking about from those religions and would be forming all of our decisions and ideas about religion on our own without any assistance from any religion. Then it would be subjective, in the human mind, and comes down to being imagination. We'd be believing in our imaginings.

Besides, that's a ridiculously broad generalization when applied to all religious writers.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No. Opinions about the truth is not the same as perceptions of the truth. I think there is one truth, like one elephant for the blind men. Their inability to perceive it in total doesn't mean it's not an elephant, but it doesn't mean they weren't perceiving something true, either.

Okay, well I believe something similar to that. I believe that most religions involve blind men feeling an elephant, or people knowing part of God's truth and making a lot of mistakes in other ways (and partly being led astray by demons), but I would go a step further and say that through Christ one's eyes can be opened so that he or she can see the elephant.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If reality is not independent of the human mind, it is not reality but imagination.

That is a nice one for a signature

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'd compare the evidence for their view with the evidence for my own and see which one stands up better. And if there isn't any evidence either way, then maybe I'd look for one that does have some evidence supporting his existence and explaining his nature.

My feeling has always been that we humans are very good at getting things wrong on our own, so we should try to work out what's right about religion not so much through our own intuition but rather through prayer for God's guidance as well as perhaps research into the available evidence that exists. And then, I think after we find out what's right by seeking God on it, God will take us the rest of the way to the place he wants us to be and the understanding he wants us to have.

Ah I see. To each his/her own. I'll trust to end up where I am supposed to end up. One of my fellow churchgo'ers once said that: "Giving your life to God is like riding in a car on an unkown, perhaps dangerous road. You gave the steeringwheel of your car to God. When you see obstacles or troubles along the road, you are naturally inclined to try and grab the wheel, for you do not know exactly how well God is at driving. But if you truly give your life to God, you'll have to let go of that steeringwheel completely. God will drive you to the destination He wants you to go." She ended with saying that all you had to do for this to happen is to open up your heart and make room for Him. I felt it is very impressive to be able to really do so. I don't know if I'm able to do that. But that is the whole point of what I've been trying to say I think. I think I see religion or faith more as an individual thing whereas you are trying to look at it as a thing bigger then one person. Or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In Sri Lanka there are plenty of Buddhists killing each other and persecuting Christians.

I didn't know. I mean, I knew there were people killing eachother there, but I didn't know it was yet another religious thing.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Mari

I didn't know. I mean, I knew there were people killing eachother there, but I didn't know it was yet another religious thing.

A frightening large part of the conflicts in the world have a religious root.

Then again, we're getting definitely side-tracked into religion-debate here, let's take it over to the theology thread.

[Mari]

Yes I know, sorry

[Lief Erikson]

I'm responding in the Theology Thread.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Mari

That is a nice one for a signature

I didn't know. I mean, I knew there were people killing eachother there, but I didn't know it was yet another religious thing.

Well, religious/ethnic. The fighting is between the majority Sinhalese, who are mostly Buddhists, and the minority Tamils, who are Hindu- they are largely descended from immigrants from India who were brought over by the British to work on the plantations.

Sri Lanka (known to the west as Ceylon) was colonised by the Portuguese, who fiercely suppressed the Buddhists and "encouraged" conversion to Catholicism. Many lowland Sri Lankans converted, while the inland highlands fought for independence. The Portuguese were followed by the Dutch, who, while still favouring Protestants, reserved the fiercest persecution for the Catholic converts.

After the British took over, many Catholics reverted back to Buddhism, but various Christian denominations established schools and a small number converted to Christianity. The Brits also had to fight to subdue the kingdom of Kandy.

Buddhism in Sri Lanka thus came to be identified with Sri Lankan nationalism and independence, with the result that other groups, particularly the Tamils, were oppressed, leading to the current war (it was the Tamil Tigers, incidentally, who first developed the art of the suicide bomber).

Buddhism in Sri Lanka has thus become quite militant- the Buddhist clergy are the most opposed to peace agreements being negotiated, and their militance has extended to Christians.

There's a common development in many Third World countries- Western Evangelicals (largely American) come in offering food, education, and opportunities for advancement for converts, and the local religious/nationalist establishments are antagonised- the Saudi Wahabbists do the same thing, pushing their more extremist brand of Islam.

Currently some Buddhists in Sri Lanka are trying to push laws restricting or, the extreme version, even forbidding conversions.

Unlike Lief, however, they don't actually propose to ban other religions from their country.

70% Buddhist, 7% Hindu, 7% Muslim, 6% Christian, 10% (perhaps wisely) don't say.

[Mari]

I see. Thanks for the info.
All you hear in the news is that the Tamil tigers are at it again, but you don't really get much background. And I must admit that I don't really watch the news or read it if I can help it, so off course it's my own fault.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Mari

That is a nice one for a signature


Ah I see. To each his/her own. I'll trust to end up where I am supposed to end up. One of my fellow churchgo'ers once said that: "Giving your life to God is like riding in a car on an unkown, perhaps dangerous road. You gave the steeringwheel of your car to God. When you see obstacles or troubles along the road, you are naturally inclined to try and grab the wheel, for you do not know exactly how well God is at driving. But if you truly give your life to God, you'll have to let go of that steeringwheel completely. God will drive you to the destination He wants you to go."

She ain't getting a license in my country.

[GrayMouser]

And I've decided that people like Lief can't hold office in my country- call it the Weimar or Algerian clause.*

Everyone who is elected to an official position has to take an oath that they do not believe in restricting the rights of their fellow citizens- you can't run on a platform of making Jews, blacks, women or any other group second-class citizens.

Weimar, because the Nazis took power by democratic means with the intent of destroying democracy; Algeria, because the Islamic Salvation Front won an election but there were doubts about their commitment to democracy- the old "One Man, One Vote- Once" that has plagued countries that have elections without having developed a culture of liberal democratic traditions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And I've decided that people like Lief can't hold office in my country- call it the Weimar or Algerian clause.*

Everyone who is elected to an official position has to take an oath that they do not believe in restricting the rights of their fellow citizens- you can't run on a platform of making Jews, blacks, women or any other group second-class citizens.

So I guess anyone who opposes homosexual marriage can't hold office either, right? It's not that I think they are trying to make homosexuals second-class citizens, but I suspect you'd think they are.

What about the restriction of the rights of children in your country too? They don't have voting rights and only get the right to drive or have sex after a certain age. They're a group that's discriminated against on biological grounds.

One thing about your proposition that confuses me is what "restricting of rights" means. Does that mean that any freedoms anyone has right now cannot be restricted on no matter what?

So martial law is banned? Any move the government might take to counter terrorism that encroaches on anyone's rights at all is automatically banned?

I'm curious about some more of the cases aside from me that this would apply in .

[Mari]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

She ain't getting a license in my country.

haha! Well, I only have public transport in my country, so it won't really matter

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So I guess anyone who opposes homosexual marriage can't hold office either, right? It's not that I think they are trying to make homosexuals second-class citizens, but I suspect you'd think they are.

That's more of a toughie- I was basically thinking of your objection to women's suffrage.

Let's see:

1)Jews cannot marry whomever they wish.
2)Blacks cannot marry whomever they wish.
3)Homosexuals cannot marry whomever they wish.
4)Minors cannot marry whomever they wish.

Nope, gays fall in with groups 1 and 2, not 4- they're responsible adults, so yea, no to opponents of gay marriage. Of course, you can run for and accept office while saying that you disagree with gay marriage and you won't recognise it in your personal or religious life, but you still have to take the pledge not to try and strip that right away from homosexuals.

What about the restriction of the rights of children in your country too? They don't have voting rights and only get the right to drive or have sex after a certain age. They're a group that's discriminated against on biological grounds.

Yes, on grounds of mental capacity. Similar restrictions apply to mentally handicapped people, depending on the level of their handicap.

One thing about your proposition that confuses me is what "restricting of rights" means. Does that mean that any freedoms anyone has right now cannot be restricted on no matter what?

So martial law is banned? Any move the government might take to counter terrorism that encroaches on anyone's rights at all is automatically banned?

Well, moves that specifically target groups, like the internment of Japanese in Canada and the US during WWII are out, but martial law or lesser restrictions in a time of war or insurrection that directly threatens the existence of the country will be allowed, but much tougher to impose then in most modern states.

For example, neither the various restrictions imposed due to the War on Terror, or the War Measures Act in Canada during the FLQ crisis in 1970 would pass the test.

I'm curious about some more of the cases aside from me that this would apply in .

So far, on the Moot anyway, it's you. In fact, I might call it the Lief Erickson Amendment.

Seriously though, these problems often arise in cultures which transition to democracy without having a background of tolerance- even look how long it took to get Catholic Emancipation passed in Britain.

BTW, I should make it clear that I personally would not want to liveoin my island- I'd much rather live in BoP's - what I'm trying to do is create a sort of (non-religious based ) Society of Virtue, like the ideal of the Greek city-states ,the Roman Republic, or indeed the America envisioned by Jefferson.

I'm far too decadent to be a good citizen of my own country.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Nope, gays fall in with groups 1 and 2, not 4- they're responsible adults, so yea, no to opponents of gay marriage. Of course, you can run for and accept office while saying that you disagree with gay marriage and you won't recognise it in your personal or religious life, but you still have to take the pledge not to try and strip that right away from homosexuals.

Okay.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yes, on grounds of mental capacity. Similar restrictions apply to mentally handicapped people, depending on the level of their handicap.

Interesting. Those are the grounds on which I'd create biology based laws in my state. Women would make far better decisions than children or the mentally handicapped, but I don't see them as psychologically equipped for leadership (generally speaking) in the same way as men are. So my argument is made on the same grounds as yours.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Well, moves that specifically target groups, like the internment of Japanese in Canada and the US during WWII are out, but martial law or lesser restrictions in a time of war or insurrection that directly threatens the existence of the country will be allowed, but much tougher to impose then in most modern states.

For example, neither the various restrictions imposed due to the War on Terror, or the War Measures Act in Canada during the FLQ crisis in 1970 would pass the test.

So restriction of rights is allowed when it's warranted by the situation, or when it's warranted by biological condition, or when it's warranted by the desire to establish a harmful ideology (like anti-Semitism and such) in law.

I completely agree with your having laws that do those things. I try to arrange my laws to properly do the same.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

So far, on the Moot anyway, it's you. In fact, I might call it the Lief Erickson Amendment.

This stings some of course, but it's necessary for some people to feel a sting of that kind in order that the country may be better off. And people's implementing a false ideology's perspective in law is something that definitely should be prevented, for the consequences will only be harmful.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Seriously though, these problems often arise in cultures which transition to democracy without having a background of tolerance- even look how long it took to get Catholic Emancipation passed in Britain.

BTW, I should make it clear that I personally would not want to liveoin my island- I'd much rather live in BoP's - what I'm trying to do is create a sort of (non-religious based ) Society of Virtue, like the ideal of the Greek city-states ,the Roman Republic, or indeed the America envisioned by Jefferson.

I'm far too decadent to be a good citizen of my own country.

Hmm. Well, I think your Lief Erickson Amendment probably brings you closer to my way of thinking than any of the other non-Christians on Entmoot are. So maybe it's well named for more reasons than one . The new similarity between our perspectives that I'm now seeing is largely in your new willingness to ban what you see as false ideologies from having their views established in law.

The biggest problem I have with your view may be that you don't seem to have a solid standard as to what the rights of humanity are that must not be restricted. The standard presently seems to be your own belief system which is based upon your interpretation of the available evidence. Yet other belief systems might actually be more correct interpretations of the available evidence. So how do you know what to ban and what not to ban?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What about the restriction of the rights of children in your country too? They don't have voting rights and only get the right to drive or have sex after a certain age. They're a group that's discriminated against on biological grounds.

This is partly why children can vote in my country, though I feel that (equal human beings though they are) kids under the somewhat arbitrary age of twelve don't have the mental capacity to vote, so their parent/s or guardians will vote by proxy for them.

No taxation without representation! And as I expect everyone to pay sales tax, that means a five year old who buys a pack of gum deserves the right to vote as well.

Would you consider implementing this new voting age in your country?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

BTW, I should make it clear that I personally would not want to liveoin my island- I'd much rather live in BoP's -

It's cos I rock, right?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

It's cos I rock, right?

Yo still da one.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is partly why children can vote in my country, though I feel that (equal human beings though they are) kids under the somewhat arbitrary age of twelve don't have the mental capacity to vote, so their parent/s or guardians will vote by proxy for them.

No taxation without representation! And as I expect everyone to pay sales tax, that means a five year old who buys a pack of gum deserves the right to vote as well.

Would you consider implementing this new voting age in your country?

Having three kids, that means I'd get four votes. Yay!

Wait! My youngest is just going to turn twelve, and his brothers are 13 and 14- and they don't even get to decide how late they can stay up or what TV shows they can watch. Sorry, NO WAY!

Come to think of it, there's something to be said for allowing one to have proxy votes for your children- you've invested in the future, and you're making decisions they'll have to live with- like no more polar bears
(OK kids, Daddy's sorry he had that '69 396 Firebird that got two miles to the gallon)

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The biggest problem I have with your view may be that you don't seem to have a solid standard as to what the rights of humanity are that must not be restricted. The standard presently seems to be your own belief system which is based upon your interpretation of the available evidence. Yet other belief systems might actually be more correct interpretations of the available evidence. So how do you know what to ban and what not to ban?

I probably base it on John Rawls's "Theory of Justice", which pretty much single-handedly revived political philosophy in the post-WWII era.

He basically does what we've been doing here- you get to make up any society you want, but then he introduces the idea of the Veil of Ignorance.
You will be assigned totally at random to any position in your society, without prior knowledge of your race, sex, religion, social position or your own intelligence, talents or personality.

So, if you design a Nazi state- hey, you might be a Jew or Slav. If you set up a Communist state, you might be born with that prickly individualism that winds you up in a labour camp.

Or, in your case, you have a greater than 50% chance of ending up a member of a group with inferior rights, without a voice in how your life is run.

[Mari]

That sounds very interesting! I should read that.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Having three kids, that means I'd get four votes. Yay!

Wait! My youngest is just going to turn twelve, and his brothers are 13 and 14- and they don't even get to decide how late they can stay up or what TV shows they can watch. Sorry, NO WAY!

You bring up a good point. Can someone not deemed responsible enough to decide their own bedtime be responsible enough to vote? The logical reaction seems to be no, but when I think about how grotesquely irresponsible voting adults are as a group, I think the 12 and ups deserve a chance to excercise their franchise and impact their own futures.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Come to think of it, there's something to be said for allowing one to have proxy votes for your children- you've invested in the future, and you're making decisions they'll have to live with- like no more polar bears
(OK kids, Daddy's sorry he had that '69 396 Firebird that got two miles to the gallon)

Haha! (See above.)