What are society's *real* points of disagreement?

[QuickSilver]

@senoy

The science-y stuff actually came out of the religious belief, not vice versa.

Also, a metaphorical account of the creation story is an ancient belief. Origen and Augustine both believed that the creation story was allegory and not literal. Philo of Alexandria was writing about non-literal creation prior to the crucifixion. It’s not a particularly ‘new idea’ trying to somehow shoe horn science into religious thought. A metaphorical Genesis is nearly as old as the texts themselves and even older than Christianity.

*Edit: autocorrect changed ‘Origen’ to ‘Origin’ changed it back.

I would argue, ‘despite religious belief’. George Lemaître is my cite.

[senoy]

@Akaj

Good point. But would someone who developed the Big Bang theory consider “creationism” to then mean that, after the Bang, the rest of creation proceeded as described in Genesis? I kind of doubt that.

I have no problem with people who believe that the origins of the universe and life, as explained by science, are ultimately the work of God. But creationism (at least as it applies to contemporary policy discussion) denies any scientific explanation in favor of “the Bible says so,” and that’s what I can’t abide.

I think the problem is your wording. ‘Creationism’ is simply the idea that the world/universe was created with intent and didn’t simply ‘happen.’ Almost all Abrahamic religionists are ‘creationists.’

What you’re referring to is ‘Young Earth Creationism’ which is a literal reading of Genesis and posits a world between 6 and 12 thousand years old. This is not the view of most Christians (although in the US, it’s roughly half and half - essentially Evangelicals and conservative Catholics are YEC and Mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics are not.)

[senoy]

@QuickSilver

I would argue, ‘despite religious belief’. George Lemaître is my cite.

Lemaitre is quoted as saying that the theory was directly a result of reconciling science with Thomas Aquinas’s creatio ex nihilo. It was religion that drove the theory and science that had to catch up. Originally, it was dismissed because the scientific thought of the time was that the universe was infinitely old.

[Algher]

Creationism vs evolution: What should be taught in school, and is my child required to learn it. Church & State fight.
Abortion: At what point on the continuum does it feel like death of a child vs death of a clump of cells, what should be allowed, what should be paid for by taxes.
Wedding Cake Baker: Can I choose who to serve, and what to make/create as part of my service. What are my rights as a business provider, vs the rights of others.
Gun Control: Do we want people to own guns, or do we want them just in the hands of the cops and military.
Taxation: What level of taxation is appropriate and best, what should be taxed. How much should taxes be used to drive certain types of behavior.
Voter ID: Do we want any check on voting to verify the voter or not? What level should we check?

[Ashtura]

@k9bfriender

But, anything you can point to and say that “god did it”, you can also say “Leprechauns did it”, or “unicorns did it”, or “Morgan Freeman did it”.

Yeah? I’m fine with that. I’m totally fine with a Christian being able to accept science by thinking God did it.

[Akaj]

You’re correct, and thanks for the clarification. I would hazard a guess, though, that most Americans also equate “creationism” to YEC, and not to the finer philosophical approach you mention.

[kenobi_65]

@Algher

Gun Control: Do we want people to own guns, or do we want them just in the hands of the cops and military.

I think that those points aren’t really the crux of the debate. I’d frame it more as:

What’s the balance between:

• The ability of people to obtain and own guns (as per their Second Amendment right)
  versus:
• The ability of the government and society to minimize the potential for obtaining and owning a gun by people who are likely to use that gun to commit a crime

[k9bfriender]

@kenobi_65

I think that those points aren’t really the crux of the debate. I’d frame it more as:

What’s the balance between:

• The ability of people to obtain and own guns (as per their Second Amendment right)
  versus:
• The ability of the government and society to minimize the potential for obtaining and owning a gun by people who are likely to use that gun to commit a crime

or to use it irresponsibly, even if not criminally.

[Ashtura]

@kenobi_65

I think that those points aren’t really the crux of the debate. I’d frame it more as:

What’s the balance between:

• The ability of people to obtain and own guns (as per their Second Amendment right)
  versus:
• The ability of the government and society to minimize the potential for obtaining and owning a gun by people who are likely to use that gun to commit a crime

Yeah, but people have reasons to believe they should own a gun besides “the Second Amendment says so”.

[QuickSilver]

@senoy

Lemaitre is quoted as saying that the theory was directly a result of reconciling science with Thomas Aquinas’s creatio ex nihilo. It was religion that drove the theory and science that had to catch up. Originally, it was dismissed because the scientific thought of the time was that the universe was infinitely old.

Religion does say that god created the world (heavens and earth) from nothing, that’s true. But where does religion mention an expanding universe?

[Akaj]

@kenobi_65

What’s the balance between:

• The ability of people to obtain and own guns (as per their Second Amendment right)
  versus:
• The ability of the government and society to minimize the potential for obtaining and owning a gun by people who are likely to use that gun to commit a crime

Or, more basically: People’s freedom to own guns vs. govenment’s mandate to protect people.

[kenobi_65]

@Akaj

Or, more basically: People’s freedom to own guns vs. govenment’s mandate to protect people.

Agreed.

[senoy]

I think the unsaid argument in the gun control debate is ‘Black people are going to come here and try to kill me and I want to kill them first’ vs ‘No they aren’t, you’re a racist turd.’

[kenobi_65]

@Ashtura

Yeah, but people have reasons to believe they should own a gun besides “the Second Amendment says so”.

This may be the case (I’m not a gun owner, so I don’t really know), but my point is that gun supporters consistently argue that laws that might make it more difficult to easily obtain a gun (increased background checks, waiting periods, bans on sales at gun shows), and laws that ban or restrict certain types of guns (large magazines, assault weapons) are, on their face, unconstitutional infringements on their Second Amendment rights.

[k9bfriender]

@senoy

I think the unsaid argument in the gun control debate is ‘Black people are going to come here and try to kill me and I want to kill them first’ vs ‘No they aren’t, you’re a racist turd.’

Who is “unsaying” that?

[Velocity]

@senoy

I think the unsaid argument in the gun control debate is ‘Black people are going to come here and try to kill me and I want to kill them first’ vs ‘No they aren’t, you’re a racist turd.’

I have never encountered the guns-protect-me-from-blacks angle you speak of. It seems to be more about criminals, period. Numerous YouTube videos show gun supporters exulting in the comment sections as the footage shows some bad guy - of any skin color - being mowed down by the “good guy’s” gunfire. Indeed, such schaudenfreude seems to be remarkably race-free; it’s all about cheering as the white/Hispanic/Arab/Asian/black perp gets nailed.

[Akaj]

@kenobi_65

This may be the case (I’m not a gun owner, so I don’t really know), gun supporters consistently argue that laws that might make it more difficult to easily obtain a gun … and laws that ban or restrict certain types of guns … are, on their face, unconstitutional infringements on their Second Amendment rights.

Just because they consistently say that doesn’t make it true. By that logic, libel and copyright laws would be unconstitutional infringements on their First Amendment rights, but you never hear that argument.

Even Scalia agreed with "'the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

[DavidwithanR]

@Velocity

IMHO, with most political disputes, there is a stated, *official *reason for something - which is often just window-dressing - and underneath that, there is the un-stated, *real *motive or point of friction that causes the rub. And although there may be a hundred points of disagreement in a debate, it often really just boils down to one or two “irreconcilable differences” - the one or two things that the disputing parties cannot compromise or agree on.
For instance, with regards to creationism vs. evolution, I think this is very often not about the science of it - just window dressing - but rather, in fact a proxy “Does God exist?” debate raging underneath the surface, with creationists overwhelmingly on the side of “God exists” and evolutionists overwhelmingly on the side of “He does not exist.” (Notably, it is easier for a Christian to be an evolutionist than it is for an atheist to be a creationist.)

With regards to abortion, the true point of friction seems to be, “Does the mother’s right to do what she wants with her body surpass the fetuses’ life?” I do *not *think this is about “Does life begin at conception?” or “Is a fetus a person?” because many pro-choicers would still support abortion rights even if a fetus is a person. (Thread, for example.) The talk about whether a fetus is alive, viable, a person, etc. is really just window dressing and not the true point at hand.

The gay-wedding-cake baker issue is largely one of “Should the baker obey God or man?” The baker - *assuming *that he/she believes that it would be a violation in the eyes of God to support/endorse a gay wedding by providing his business services for it - which is a long train of assumptions - is essentially saying “I must obey God rather than man.” The gay couple - regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, or other factors - are essentially saying, “Man’s law trump’s God’s.” Of course, there are Christian bakers who would have no qualms about catering to a gay wedding whatsoever and don’t see it as a violation against God, and there are no doubt some bakers who don’t want to serve a gay couple for reasons having nothing to do with religion at all, but by and large this seems to be a “Obey God (or, at least, my beliefs or assumptions about God) or man?”

Gun control - not sure about this one - seems to be a twofold, “Does the Constitution outweigh numerous gun deaths,” and also, “Do guns do more good than harm?”

Taxation - seems to be, “How much is one’s fair share to pay in taxes?”, with much of the disagreement all stemming from just what one considers to be fair or unfair, especially with regards to taxing the rich.

Voter-ID: Multiple points of disagreement, but one seems to be, “Is voter fraud a significant threat, or could it be?” Those who support voter ID would probably strongly align with “yes” and those who oppose it would align with “no.”

No.

There is definitely not one core issue behind each of the items of constant unresolved debate.

Not all of the things you’ve mentioned are like this, but some are.

Voter registration in the US, for example, is a pretend issue, a non-issue, cooked up as propaganda to appeal to a certain group of Republican supporters. A little research clears it up for good.

Abortion is a real issue, and the reason it doesn’t get resolved is that people on opposite sides are arguing about completely different things. They can’t agree on solutions because they can’t agree what the debate is even about. THAT’S what is behind the things that are genuine problems to debate, and I suspect it’s what you meant.

[Lamoral]

I believe the divide on gun rights is very much a “real point of disagreement.” For most of the anti-gun people it is very much about safety, protecting children, reducing crime, and generally making society less scary. But for most of the pro-gun people it’s also about those same exact things, except from the perspective that guns help them rather than hurt them. A lot of anti-gun people (I don’t mean “in favor of reasonable restrictions”, I mean outright against the idea of guns) seem to think they’re some kind of death talisman that the very pro-gun (by which I mean, in favor of virtually NO compromise on gun control) people hang onto like it has magical powers. Well, they DO. But they don’t see it as a death talisman, they see it as a vital equalizer and enabler of an individual to defend him or herself from deadly force instead of delegating that ability to the government.

This is a true point of disagreement collectively in America; neither the NRA nor the more vehement gun-control advocates who call for Australia-style bans and confiscations, are helping reduce this polarization. Right now the Democrats have the most to lose from engaging with the issue though.

[DavidwithanR]

(All you need to settle the voter registration thing is a referee who isn’t an American. The whole rest of the world gives the so-called “issue” a big yawn, not because of not being from the US, but because the truth is easy to see.)