Yes, it would. But it would nonetheless be amusing to watch you try.
Do you have a cite for that; some of the framers saying that people shouldn’t let their religion guide them in voting?
Do you have an actual, cogent criticism of my point about the principle of the separation of church and state applying to individuals, or would you rather just keep being a condescending twat?
Can’t I do both?
I’ve never in my life heard your position advocated, much less heard someone claim the framers supported it. I’m asking for a few cites.
You are confused about what constitutes infalliable teachings and what constitutes practice. I’m surprised at this confusion, given my post illustrating the point with a fictional example about priests wearing tuxedos to celebrate Mass. Did you read that post?
I strongly disagree.
Just as the framers saw a difference between the roles of state and federal government, so, too, they saw a difference between the roles of the PEOPLE and the government. Advocacy for a particular point of view - even if religiously based - is guaranteed to the people by the First Amendment. The government itself, in contrast, is forbidden by that same legislation to advocate for a particular religion.
You are looking at the role of government and imputing it to the people - you could not be more mistaken in this.
Advocacy, sure. I’m not talking about the First Amendment. That’s why I was careful to remind TYM that he’s still perfectly free to speak out against gambling, or drinking, or same-sex marriage, or whatever else he’s morally opposed to. He’s encouraged to, in fact.
And there’s nothing legally preventing him or you or anyone else from voting strictly according to your religious beliefs. But there is an ethical responsibility to recognize that your vote affects other people and a moral responsibility to be fair to them. I say that the role of the PEOPLE aren’t so far removed from the role of the government as you suggest.
Otherwise, you get the situation where people are voting based on their religious beliefs, they’re in the majority so the minority suffers as a result of it, and when you ask for a rational basis for this decision, you get no reply. Hmmm… now, why exactly would I, a homosexual man, think this is a bad situation?
That’s the polite version. Since this is the Pit, I can also do this:
Apparently you can’t do both, because although you’re really good at the condescending twat, you’re not so good at coming up with counter-examples other than “says who?”
Another advantage of this being in the Pit is that I just realized I’m under no obligation to keep arguing something when I can just throw my hands up in frustration: you’re absolutely right, furt. Everybody take your Bibles and/or Nietzche books with you to the polling booth and vote exactly how that says with complete disregard for all else.
I mean, you’ve got no civic responsibility; you’ve only got God and/or the lack thereof to answer to, right? There’s no rule that says you have to vote for what’s best for everyone, the only law is that you can vote based on any reason or no reason at all! Fuck your “community” and “fellow citizens;” it’s only what you believe that’s important. And it couldn’t be clearer than it is right there in black and white – it’s wrong to even question it.
No, Counter-example would imply you having furnished an example. You haven’t. Your claim, your burden.
Actually, that’s pretty much the way the system is* designed* to work; see Federalist #10.
Well if you want to say that SOCAS should mean what you want it to, feel free. But what you said was that it did; and I’m asking for support.
You haven’t read the Federalist papers, have you?
<gasp!> No! furt’s post was the first I’d heard of them since high school! My entire argument is based on nothing more than a pack of filthy dirty lies!!! I’m really nothing more than a transsexual lesbian dating a hot model! And I can’t vote because :
: I NEVER LEARNED TO READ!
I’m at work now; I’m saving the link to read at home. But instead of just trying to make me look stupid (I can handle that at my own, thanks), why don’t you or furt explain to us ignorants why it’s such a foreign and unreasonable concept to say that you do what your religion tells you to do, but you vote according to the common good? What’s this James Madison clown got that I ain’t got?
No, it’s quite simple, Sol:
True religion is what they say it is. (Ratzy is on record that my church is a sham, because in his opinion our clergy don’t have the right to do what they do.)
The Constitution is what they say it is.
And we need to shut up and respect the opinions of our betters.
I debated with several of these people for years with no rancor. Then suddenly there’s this attitude that they are the source of truth and authority, and disagreeing with them is improper at best and generally a case of lese majeste.
If any of them wonder why my former placid disposition has gotten pissy, that’s why.
The Republican Party and the Religious Right are in charge here, and they will tell us what we should believe. Don’t argue with them; they may decide to take away your right to do so if you dare.
Don’t be ridiculous, Polycarp. The SDMB is controlled by the Leftist Homo Agenda and is either overrun with atheists or the bastion of Bible-thumpers, depending on whom you ask.
Demanding somebody put up or shut up when they’re stating something as a verifiable fact and it’s clear they’re talking out of their ass, that’s all well and good. But I swear this message board is the only place I’ve seen where you can say “people should try to respect each other” and somebody responds with “the rules say we don’t have to!”, or you can say “Ideally, we should treat all people fairly” and somebody responds with “Cite?”
There, there.
Seems to me we disagree about what constitutes the common good.
But you won’t propose or accept an objective method of determining the common good. Every time the conversation veers in this direction, I say something like, “We disagree on what the ‘common good’ entails; what method should we use to determine it?”
And every time, it seems, the answer boils down to, “The common good is what I say it is.”
I don’t respond in kind. I acknowledge that my views may not always be the ones that win acceptance. But in light of this country’s commitment to self-governance, I agree to accept the will of majority, even if I disagree with its wisdom.
If the will of the majority is not the best way to form public policy – what is? The divine right of kings? An enlightened oligarchy?
I could not agree with you more. And then you are reprimanded for your “bitter tone” and “lack of patriotism”, among other things.
It has gotten so bad, that I have Republican friends that will defend anything, anything! done by this admin…and take me to task for daring to question.
OK, so maybe I don’t see those folks too much anymore.
and now back to dissing the new pope…so much for Vatican 2, eh?
The majority vote of 9 philosopher kings. 
Bricker, I find it quite fascinating that pay so much respect to the Catholic Church, which is the very epitome of undemocratic and unaccountable, yet you so much despise the learned and informed opinions of duly appointed judges in the United States. Both are lifetime appointments and both make decisions without regard for what “the people” think.
What’s the difference here?
You keep asking questions in this thread but don’t provide any answers. Why don’t you go ahead and tell us the objective method of determining the common good and we can disagree from there. I’ll even get the ball rolling, forcing people to conform to my religous views is not the common good.
Okay…Okay.
At his time I’d ask the combatants to retire to their corners and catch their breath. Up to this point this has been a spirited but intellegent exchange with a minimum of name calling and forehead indentations on the keyboards. But when you finally mange to piss of the unflappable Polycarp it’s time for a time-out.
I’d like to say, as a fasinated lurker, that this is a great exchange. Many intelligent voices on both sides. There has been discussion of American and Un-American and I like to say that this is a perfect example of what is truely American. Great warriors on both sides defending personally held convictions openly and honestly.
Okay. Feeling better? Deep breath.
Continue.
Mine too. Is my failure to be threatened by that evidence of some sort of failing on my part?
Me, no. But a healthy respect for the framers isn’t a bad thing. You must have missed this:
Poly, if you want to attack someone or something, do so.
I keep talking about our notion of self-governance. That’s what we have, here in America: self-governance. That’s why unaccountable rulers are anathema, here in the USA.
In the Catholic Church, there is no notion of self-governance. Christ instituted the Church, and the Pope, His Vicar on Earth, rules the Church with full authority.
Why shouldn’t the Catholic church support its own beliefs, even if it must do so by lying?
Just because their views are different than yours?
They believe that using condoms is a sin, and the punishment from God far outweighs even the worst disease on Earth.
So isn’t it natural that they would lie to people, tell them that comdoms have holes which let AIDS through, or that they are actually laced with the AIDS virus?
The ends (large numbers of infected people having sex without condoms) justify the means.