Secular Democracy.

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by danielpalos, Aug 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. danielpalos

    danielpalos Guest

    What do you think of morals and ethics in a secular democracy? Should a democracy require that the populace vote on what it considers socially acceptable public morals?

  2. Mecha

    Mecha Guest

    Secular democracies tend to not interfere with people's private lives. The lines between private and public tend to be the subject between sides with different values (ie abortion debate).

    When a government is constructed, it tends to define what it will regulate, thus setting those boundries that are relevant (ie a person is defined at *birth* in the constitution of the US federal government). Hence, in a modern government it tends to be set down what spheres are off limits from government (ie free speech rights) thus voting about the morality of a subject (ie censorship) becomes a moot point or within bounds.

    Thus, if the government was set up right, most "moral" issues should have been addressed.

    Does that address your question?

  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Guest

    Are you implying that if the government wasn't set up right, it should be amended to improve said government?
  4. Mecha

    Mecha Guest

    No, I did not. But it should be amended if it it can be improved.

  5. IntheNet

    IntheNet Guest

    A democracy devoid of morals and ethics isn't worth pursuing... that life secular is that life wasted. The secular agenda, being pushed by the liberal leftists, directly denies the freedom of religion heritage this nation was founded upon. As such it is foreign to the American character; a disease to be cured.
  6. Mecha

    Mecha Guest

    1) "freedom of religion"... You conservatives have the most absurd definition of "freedom", twisted into a meaningless jingoistic phrase. If your view of "freedom of religion" is using the public sphere to shove your religion down our throats and enshrining your religion's "morals" into law, what meaning does "freedom" have?

    2) "...religion heritage this nation was founded upon." How was the federal government NOT founded with secularism in mind? The word "Creator" was only put into the Declaration of Independence to help the fundies swallow it, and there was no other mention of God, and there was specifically disallowed any religious test for holding public office in the Constitution. See a pattern?

    A government that is without religion is necessary for freedom, of religion and otherwise.

  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Guest

    I don't believe anyone was discussing a democracy without morals or ethics. In any event, it would be difficult to separate morals or ethics from a democracy, in the same manner that it is difficult to separate socialism from a market economy.

    What we are examining is what are ideal morals and ethics.
  8. SenatorB

    SenatorB J.S.P.S

    Why is this in Sub-Talk and not Mature Discussion?? *moved*

    Anyways... I think that to some extent, we have already voted and passed laws based on morals and ethics... in theory, all humans are legally equal, for example. I think it makes sense that in terms of public morality, voting should take place to determine what becomes legally acceptable. However, private morality (what you do in your house doesn't harm me) should not be messed with unless it begins to interfere with others--or otherwise becomes public.
  9. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Okay, here we go again with the damned "liberal leftist are evil sadists BLAHBLAHBLAH" blubbering again. No one is saying that we need a society without morals and ethics. Could you put the flamethrower down for a damned minute? You seriously have some sort of mental illness, this obsession with bashing and complaining about the very redundant phrase "liberal leftists" is getting old fast.

    Cut this continuous bashing and belly-aching about liberal agenda. You're not always right, despite what you think. I'm sick of looking at a thread you've replied to and seeing that religion or liberal bashing has come into play again. Keep doing it and you won't be coming back here again.
  10. IntheNet

    IntheNet Guest

    The Mercenary: Check out the name of this thread; after you do that you will note that it is called "Secular Deocracy". I would also steer you to the initial post in this thread, to wit:

    Those advocating the secular agenda are in fact primarily liberals; leftists in popular parlance by most political scientists and academicians. I am not sure whether you find the idea calling liberals by their names; i.e., "liberal" or mentioning "religion" in a post where it is entirely germane; i.e., the opposite of secular is in fact religious, but nonetheless, if you wish to manipulate opinion on this thread then go ahead and exclude the opinion you personally disagree with. Just be sure we know your intentions. The secular agenda to silence religion is what my post illustrated and what your reply confirmed.

    There was nothing in my prior post antagonistic and it was entirely above board and topical; indeed your post first opens the antagonism door. Indeed my post addressed the point at hand... the fact that you might not agree with it should be immaterial to the subject at hand.

    I suspect that it advances a political opinion that perhaps there are options to a secular pursuit. I didn't say you have to agree with it. Threatening to exclude such opinion reveals more about you than you know...

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page