Democracy is about thinking for yourself.

Religious people do not think for themselves, nor are they open to the
thought processes of others.

Therefore, they do not enter into dialogue, which is how democracy works.

Religion in government = theocracy, not democracy.


"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134709150.453359.70510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Question 2:

Does a diverse society include the viewpoint of the religious among
other viewpoints? If so, is a society less diverse to exclude that
position from the public view?

Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com

In article <1134709150.453359.70510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:

Question 2:

Does a diverse society include the viewpoint of the religious among
other viewpoints? If so, is a society less diverse to exclude that
position from the public view?

What society do you have in mind? Not ours, surely: we are
a religion-drenched culture. For example, I can get saved
via my TV set twenty-four hours a day, seven day a week,
365 days a year -- and I don't have cable or satellite. I passed
religious billboards on my way into work this morning. Some
folks trying to sway me to their religion (not yours) may
knock on my front door this weekend. There are religious
preachers, some quite entertaining, out on the mall here
at the University of Arizona. I can go onto the net
and be bashed roundly by religious zealots, and I frequently
do so.


All of this is religious, and all quite public. So
again I ask: what society did you have in mind?


-- cary

The Fool wrote:

Does a diverse society include the viewpoint of the religious among
other viewpoints? If so, is a society less diverse to exclude that
position from the public view?

Include them in what? Discusion? The making of rules to govern all
people? What exactly are you asking here?

I would say, yes, a liberal society includes both the viewpoints of the
religious and the non-religious. But "includes the viewpoints" is
different from "automatically turns them into laws."

You can follow your religion all you want. If your religion says,
"don't eat meat," you don't have to eat meat. If your religion says,
"don't have sex outside of marriage," you don't have to have sex
outside of marriage. Thank liberal society for these rights, because in
illiberal societies, you might not be able to follow your own religion.

But if your religion says, "Nobody is allowed to eat meat," or "nobody
is allowed to have sex outside of marriage," then I'm afraid your right
to practice your religion - even in a liberal society - stops where
the other guy's nose begins, as the old saying goes. A liberal society
that believes in freedom of religion cannot take ANY one relgion - even
a very popular one - and use it to overrule the religious, spiritual,
and/or personal decisions of people outside that religion. Instead,
regulations that the society sets to apply to all people, regardless of
religion, are supposed to be based on general principles, not specific
to any one religion (or lack thereof), such as "don't harm other
people" and "don't abuse children."

Finding and applying these general principles is a very diffiuclt task,
and an on-going process in any liberal society. It's an art and not a
science, and there will always be disagreements. But "my religion says
X, so everybody is bound by X" - without other supporting reasons for X
- is not considered the way to go about things in a liberal society. If
that's what you mean by "including the viewpoint of the relgious" -
that is, lording over others with your religion - then no, that's not
what liberal societies do. Thank God.

The Fool wrote:

Does a diverse society include the viewpoint of the religious among
other viewpoints? If so, is a society less diverse to exclude that
position from the public view?

Include them in what? Discusion? The making of rules to govern all
people? What exactly are you asking here?

I would say, yes, a liberal society includes both the viewpoints of the
religious and the non-religious. But "includes the viewpoints" is
different from "automatically turns them into laws."

You can follow your religion all you want. If your religion says,
"don't eat meat," you don't have to eat meat. If your religion says,
"don't have sex outside of marriage," you don't have to have sex
outside of marriage. Thank liberal society for these rights, because in
illiberal societies, you might not be able to follow your own religion.

But if your religion says, "Nobody is allowed to eat meat," or "nobody
is allowed to have sex outside of marriage," then I'm afraid your right
to practice your religion - even in a liberal society - stops where
the other guy's nose begins, as the old saying goes. A liberal society
that believes in freedom of religion cannot take ANY one relgion - even
a very popular one - and use it to overrule the religious, spiritual,
and/or personal decisions of people outside that religion. Instead,
regulations that the society sets to apply to all people, regardless of
religion, are supposed to be based on general principles, not specific
to any one religion (or lack thereof), such as "don't harm other
people" and "don't abuse children."

Finding and applying these general principles is a very diffiuclt task,
and an on-going process in any liberal society. It's an art and not a
science, and there will always be disagreements. But "my religion says
X, so everybody is bound by X" - without other supporting reasons for X
- is not considered the way to go about things in a liberal society. If
that's what you mean by "including the viewpoint of the relgious" -
that is, lording over others with your religion - then no, that's not
what liberal societies do.

Thank God.

The Fool wrote:

Does a diverse society include the viewpoint of the religious among
other viewpoints? If so, is a society less diverse to exclude that
position from the public view?

Include them in what? Discusion? The making of rules to govern all
people? What exactly are you asking here?

I would say, yes, a liberal society includes both the viewpoints of the
religious and the non-religious. But "includes the viewpoints" is
different from "automatically turns them into laws."

You can follow your religion all you want. If your religion says,
"don't eat meat," you don't have to eat meat. If your religion says,
"don't have sex outside of marriage," you don't have to have sex
outside of marriage. Thank liberal society for these rights, because in
illiberal societies, you might not be able to follow your own religion.

But if your religion says, "Nobody is allowed to eat meat," or "nobody
is allowed to have sex outside of marriage," then I'm afraid your right
to practice your religion - even in a liberal society - stops where
the other guy's nose begins, as the old saying goes. A liberal society
that believes in freedom of religion cannot take ANY one relgion - even
a very popular one - and use it to overrule the religious, spiritual,
and/or personal decisions of people outside that religion. Instead,
regulations that the society sets to apply to all people, regardless of
religion, are supposed to be based on general principles, not specific
to any one religion (or lack thereof), such as "don't harm other
people" and "don't abuse children."

Finding and applying these general principles is a very diffiuclt task,
and an on-going process in any liberal society. It's an art and not a
science, and there will always be disagreements. But "my religion says
X, so everybody is bound by X" - without other supporting reasons for X
- is not considered the way to go about things in a liberal society. If
that's what you mean by "including the viewpoint of the relgious" -
that is, lording over others with your religion - then no, that's not
what liberal societies do. Thank God.