Almost. I think banning a viewpoint from public policy decisions before the public has a chance to determine whether that viewpoint should be banned violates fundamental democratic principles.
~Max
I believe your aspirational thinking is illogical, I cannot understand the argument, unless you dispute one of the aforementioned premises or assert that the majority of the electorate does agree with your views. (ETA: this last clause would be illogical too, as it is assuming the conclusion)
I am not sure what my actual position is on that question. What you have written is in fact the fundamental principle democracy. Without assuming there is one true epistemology (or universal morals if you replace “correct” with “moral”, which makes more sense in context), I fail to see any reason to disagree.
Not necessarily un-democratic, but it is a circular argument. The question is whether an argument can be presented regarding whether a particular act is moral or immoral, and you say the argument can be presented so long as it can be argued that the argument is moral.
~Max
Once more with feeling…
Separation of church and state is not a new or novel idea I’ve just introduced. I’m arguing for its stricter enforcement in legislative public policy affairs.
Seperation of church and state also only applies when a law is actually enacted, not during public debate.
Even when a law is actually enacted, I would disagree that separation of church and state extends to laws with purely religious rationale, but the Supreme Court made it clear that this is not the current interpretation of the Constitution.
~Max
Are you asking me to reverse my position until such time as the majority of the electorate agrees with my position?
Now who’s being illogical, Max?
No Max, I mean “correct”. It may be “moral” based on theocratic law, to kill apostates and heretics. I am not playing that game. It is correct not to kill them. And please let’s not have that “axiomatic argument” conversation again. It never goes anywhere.
Does that change anything? I would think “theists” are people who believe in a superhuman controlling power, especially God, which means “theists” is synonymous with “religious people”, a theistic argument is a religious argument, and a theistic axiom is a religious axiom.
So saying theism instead of religion changes nothing, we may as well call a spade a spade. Perhaps you define theism differently?
~Max
Max, you seem like a good guy and I don’t think you’re being disingenuous. But we’ve been around this block more times than I care to count. I just can’t anymore. It’s not you, it’s me. 
Yes I am. It is my understanding that your position is that certain arguments should be disqualified from public debate, and your position if adopted would constitute a public policy. Public policies should be adopted only when the majority of the electorate agrees to adopt them after having a public debate on the matter, but you would have certain arguments disqualified before that public debate occurs.
I do not ask that you reverse every position until such time as the majority of the electorate agrees with your position, only such positions that are inherently invalid as demonstrated above. So you can continue to think religiously motivated policies are harmful for society.
I have not developed a personal philosophy of what is or is not “correct”, so I can’t answer your question. But I think the question is irrelevant. What difference would it make if the majority opinion is “correct”? How does that affect public policy at all? If the majority opinion is that a policy is moral, they will pass a law binding upon the minority and send police to enforce that law.
~Max
I don’t believe that challenged majority views should be banned from the policy decision making discourse, especially not because someone thinks they can out-reason those arguments. If one can argue the minority right is morally right for all, then I also believe that someone should be allowed to argue that the majority right is morally right for all as well - even if that is currently illegal.
You want to argue that slavery should be reinstituted in the halls of Congress, in spite of the 13th Amendment? Well that should be your right to do so.
One can, of course, argue and reason for the moral right of all sorts of things (depends on where you start from). It’s a limitation of ‘rational’ debate - there is not one end that all people who use reason will end up at. People will likely reason themselves into all sorts of contradictory positions.
I also don’t consider myself to worship at the Cult of Reason either… so I’m not a big fan of restricting debates solely to the provenance of reason (or what someone thinks reason obviously leads to)
The compelling reason is that any alternative requires judgement as to which arguments are faulty and thus undeserving of presentation. Who will be the judge, if not the public during public policy debate? Are we going to elect a gatekeeper as to which arguments can be admitted on the senate floor?
Think about our form of government. We already have gatekeepers - we elect our own representatives who do the gate-keeping themselves. We elect a separate set of electors who elect a president, who actually enforces the law. The president nominates and our representatives confirm judges, who interpret the acts of our representatives. The system is designed to “entertain faulty arguments”.
~Max
I don’t think I disagree with anything in your post.
~Max
I would add that it is nigh on impossible to remove your strongly held personal beliefs from the public positions you take. And the notion that I hear from time to time that theists should just leave their personal beliefs at the door when discussing their position on things is dumbfounding. Most of my personal public policy beliefs are deeply instructed by my faith. If you take my faith out of it, my policy beliefs would undoubtedly change significantly (as they did when I converted - and went from a moderate Republican in the McCain/Kasich mold to a progressive Democrat in the Warren mold who shares AOC tweets regularly).
Flat earthers are definitely part of the national debate, their arguments are just so unconvincing and their numbers so small that nobody takes them seriously, and they get no coverage other than the “what, seriously?” factor.
Deep in GOP territory…
Think about what you are saying.
How long has The Straight Dope been fighting ignorance? Surely the motto does not imply there will literally be a time when all ignorance is extinguished.
Do you think there should come a point when a new user asks a bona fide question which has been answered many times before, and the board gives up and starts laughing instead of pointing to the previous discussions?
~Max
Thank you, I really do appreciate your participation and I have learned a lot debating you. If you ever do return to the thread I’ll be glad to pick up where we left off.
~Max
Are you both under the impression that all people who have religious belief systems basically agree with each other, about abortion or about anything else?
That is most certainly not true. It’s not “a” viewpoint, it’s dozens or hundreds or thousands of viewpoints. Nobody (in this thread at least) is asking anybody to abandon any of those viewpoints in their personal life, or even in how they affect their own public positions; we just don’t want Congress to spend its time arguing what the correct interpretation of specific verses is, what the correct translation of specific words is, whether a specific verse even belongs in the book in the first place, which book ought to be the one in use, and whether any book at all is the controlling authority. None of those questions can possibly be settled, all of them are things that religious people disagree on, and none of the opinions based on any of this should be imposed on everyone who disagrees with them.
So what you are saying is exactly that you want to impose your particular interpretation of your particular religion on everybody else, and think that you should be allowed to do so?
For the third time, please see post #340.
Oh. You did see it, and you’re claiming to agree with it.
Since what it says flat out contradicts what you’re saying, I am confused by this.
There are plenty of people who have a similar view on these topics due to something they feel is true in their particular faith tradition. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because no one would care.
And therefore there are a not insubstantial amount of people who have this point of view that derives from what they believe their faith tradition teaches. And so, as per principles of democracy, they should be allowed to discuss those in public policy decisions (applying them upon others may depend on other external factors like the US Constitution in the US).
If a majority of others agree and there is no controlling external force that disagrees, I don’t see an issue with that. Do we believe in democracy and freedom of speech or do we not?
I mean people impose particular interpretations of morality on everyone else all the time. It makes no difference to me if that is a religious or secure interpretation you are imposing. After all, people will come up with all sorts of fascinating things regardless of where they start from - so alt-right members can be Traditional Catholic Steve Bannon or strident Atheist Richard Spenser.
I was under the impression that we also believed in freedom of religion. Apparently you don’t.
Sorry, I can’t let this stand. Would you tolerate, as you had mentioned previously, someone standing up in congress and making a case to restore slavery? I bet you would not and I bet a bunch of money that any person making that argument would receive censure almost immediately. So yes, we have a democracy and freedom of speech. One that (I hope) abhors racism now - which didn’t used to be the case in my lifetime. And one that not only tolerates but encourages discrimination based on selectively preferential religious beliefs.
And how convenient it is to remind people that democracy means majority makes the rules while conveniently forgetting that it also means non-discrimination and protection of rights of minorities.
Which includes the right to push for things that may be important to your religious faith. Now if those things actually end up passing, they may not go forward if they do indeed infringe on other faith (the aforementioned Constitution applies over any law that is passed). But how does simply advocating a policy based on your religious faith infringe on anyone else’s freedom of religion?
I mean does anyone still believe that religion is merely an internal thing for one’s own personal peace and has no external compulsion?
As I said before, yes, I would.
Censure just means the body disagrees strongly with that person and that’s all. What you are looking for is expelling a member. However that is never been done because the body felt what the representative was saying was beyond the pale. Congressmen and Senators have been mostly expelled for taking up arms against the US (the Civil War… one for trying to incite the Creek and Cherokee to assist the UK to invade Spanish Florida, which was considered treason). Or being convicted of a crime.
I mean Hell, even Representative Steve King hasn’t been censured or even reprimanded for his nonsense yet.
Where have you been the last 2+ years?
I have pointed out the controlling external forces (Constitution in the US, etc) more than a few times. And non-discrimination and protection of minority rights have never meant the silencing of discriminatory people. The KKK marched through Skogie, Illinois not too long ago and the ACLU supported their right to do so (which is one of the reasons I give money to them every month).
I mean I’m not the one advocating taking someone else’s rights away here. If someone was to make the case of majority should always prevail (and not merely just have a voice in the policy debate), then I probably would stress the protections from democracy that our republic has put in place.