Religious Minority Want a Theocracy to Force Morality on Citizens

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kovnik Obama**

Melissia wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.
Pointless pedantry; not worth reading.

Pedantry? Honestly, if you feel ashamed that you've once again been demonstrated wrong, you could simply admit that you do not know anything about what you're talking about. And your time isn't so precious that you can't find the worth in reading 4 sentences.

For crying out loud, you can't even correctly describe the form of power source of your own government. Before throwing out words like pedantry, you should make sure you've assimilated the material of your 5th grade civic classes.

**Melissia**

You were probably right on a purely technical level, but your post was (and still is) pointless and pedantic rather than actually relevant to the conversation, so I just failed to care. Ergo, "Pointless pedantry; not worth reading." You're welcome.

**Kovnik Obama**

Melissia wrote:
You were probably right on a purely technical level, but your post was (and still is) pointless and pedantic rather than actually relevant to the conversation, so I just failed to care. Ergo, "Pointless pedantry; not worth reading." You're welcome.

I was right on every possible levels relating to the subject.

The part of the conversation being that a democratic country should or not respond to every whims of the majority, correcting the misconception that a representative government isn't democratic is absolutely relevant. You didn't fail to care, you failed to understand.

**Melissia**

And then nobody cared.

So, back on topic.

Goliath wrote:
Amaya wrote:
The fact you actually want temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques to also be forced to do so shows that you are extremely intolerant of religion.

Out of this list, very few of the groups that could be represented by those buildings actually oppose contraception.
Roman Catholics and Orhtodox Jews oppose it, with Islam it varies, and very few other religions have any opposition. So the only objection that many of those groups could have would be the fact that they might have to spend some money.

American Islam especially. I actually wonder what many American Muslims do on the topic, hrm.

Ah, here we go . The stance of modern Muslim scholars is the following:

Contraception is okay, assuming three conditions:
- As offspring are the right of both the husband and the wife, the birth control method should be used with both parties' consent.
- The method should not cause permanent sterility.
- The method should not otherwise harm the body.

**Kovnik Obama**

I did not correct you to generate a popular empathic response. If you fail to care about being right, then that's unto you. Considering this is something just about every 13 years old should know, I would've been surprised if it had generated many responses. Of course, with the exception of your incredulous attempt at diminishing the absurdity of your claims.

**DIDM**

the religious minority want to make it the 1930s again

I mean they don't believe in evolution, so they don't want to evolve at all either. They would rather be scared of a book that open their eyes and look at reality

**Ensis Ferrae**

DIDM wrote:
the religious minority want to make it the 1930s again

I would posit more that the ultra-religious types want the country to go back to an ideal of the 1950s that didn't really exist in the first place, not the 30s.

**Vulcan**

Amaya wrote:
By forcing Christian organizations to provide their employees contraceptives you are infringing on their beliefs. As abstinence has not yet been proven to have killed anyone outside of a few sex addicted followers of Bacchus, I do not see a problem with it. It is as not as if these companies are somehow infringing on their employee's rights.

Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.

While abstinance would not kill my wife, not having access to the pill might well do it. She has a hormone disorder where her body doesn't stop her period after 5-7 days, but instead will let it run for months. And that has almost killed her once before.

So, not having accesss to contraceptives CAN kill someone.

**deathholydeath**

Amaya wrote:

Why you would go work for a private Christian organization when you are not Christian or at least sympathetic to them is beyond me. Forcing them to hand out contraceptives to them is akin to forcing them to condone sexual promiscuity which is utterly repulsive to their beliefs.

There are plenty of clerks, secretaries, groundskeepers, and other personnel that work for religious institutions that do not directly share the beliefs of the organization. As for why you would go to work for them? Good pay, lack of other options, a lot of reasons, really.

**Vulcan**

With the economy in the toilet like it is, very few of us have any real choice about where we work right now.

Which is why things like our local banks hiring MBAs as $8/hour bank tellers can happen. Strictly speaking a bank teller doesn't require anything beyond 2nd grade math; banks are hiring these MBAs for so cheap because they can.

**Mannahnin**

Yup.

It's the power imbalance inherent to the employer/employee relationship which makes it necessary to have protective rules and laws about what an employer can require and can't do with their employees.

Most folks don't have the luxury of freely walking away from an otherwise-good job because it doesn't offer certain benefits, even if the person needs them. Many people go without coverage for economic reasons, even though it's harmful to them.

**Melissia**

It's also why we originally had unions, even if unions probably need some reform themselves.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Totalitarian Republicans are Partei Veräter.

**d-usa**

Always ask yoursel: "Is it good for the company?"

**Chaplain Levitcius**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Totalitarian Republicans are Partei Veräter.

Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good. It would be bad to have a man in control who wants to dictate every facet of your life and force you to do everything he decrees or face punishments. Oh wait, we already have that, Herr Obama!

**Ahtman**

Chaplain Levitcius wrote:
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Totalitarian Republicans are Partei Veräter.

Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good. It would be bad to have a man in control who wants to dictate every facet of your life and force you to do everything he decrees or face punishments. Oh wait, we already have that, Herr Obama!

Poe's Law in action!

**Mannahnin**

Totalitarian in description of any political party is not good.

True. However based on the sentence, it looks like he more likely was referring to Totalitarians who are also Republicans, not labeling all Republicans as being such.

**sebster**

Mannahnin wrote:
They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.

I think you're only really a libertarian when you dedicate time and money to defending the right of someone else to do something you personally don't want to do. Until then you're really just a middle class guy who wants to protect his privileges.

**Melissia**

So basically the ACLU?

**Mannahnin**

A lot of hardcore Libertarians are people who mostly want to be left alone, some of whom have sufficient integrity to eschew using government services as much as they can. They usually wind up living out in the woods.

**Chaplain Levitcius**

1. Religious Conservatives do not want to retro-grade society to 1930/1950. They also do not want jump on the slippy-slide to Sodom & Gomorrah either. How awful to want people to act with dignity instead of what passes for pop culture these days.

2. No access to the pill? I can only imagine this misinformation again comes from the recent media propaganda. You want or need the pill, have at it. Just don't expect someone else to pay for it. You want it, you buy it.

**AgeOfEgos**

20+ days old--I think we've all moved on now.