@mdk

I know what you mean. For whatever reason I don't see it as much. I have friends on both ends of the spectrum but I mean, maybe they like to keep it quiet?

Either way, I'll be away for a while. My hedgehog passed away just a couple of hours ago and I'll probably be here to play and keep my mind distracted, but no so much to discuss politics.

<Snipped quote by Kratesis>

Good.

Why.

Either way, I'll be away for a while. My hedgehog passed away just a couple of hours ago and I'll probably be here to play and keep my mind distracted, but no so much to discuss politics.

Oh no, that sucks :(

Why.

For starters, I'll preface this by saying I wish there were more countries on the list to be banned. However, that may be naive on my part because I understand there are other political factors in play preventing such a decision. I'm interested to see if more countries of predominant Islamic faith will be added, or not.

1) Europe faces the plight of mass Muslim refugees, and refugees of all sorts period. No Go Zones are a real thing, and I think it's wise to be preemptive rather than allow our country to follow the same path of let's say... Sweden.

2) The Muslim faith, until it is reformed, is largely not compatible with western values. Their religion is law whereas the United States has mostly cut religion out of law and governance.

3) Terrorism, plain and simple.

Until we can find a demonstrably effective plan on vetting, no person from a terrorism-laden country should be permitted travel to the States.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>
whereas the United States has mostly cut religion out of law and governance.

Yes, people have the right to refuse to state the parts in the oath/pledge that reference God, but those lines still exist in the texts.

• People who deny existence of a God/Almighty God technically can't run for state office in several states.
• God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution.
• Almost all U.S. presidents, including Trump, have been Christians. Presidential inaugurations are filled with displays of faith, and in many many cases, tilted towards an Almighty Christian God. Trump's inauguration was particularly filled with religious references..
• Many government buildings have religious symbols on them. Including the Supreme Court building, where Moses and his Ten Commandments are front and center.

Depending on the definition of mostly, religion is still very abound in the US government, and it tends to have a Christian tilt.

*snip*

God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution.

Plenty to spin off on here -- most I could summarize by saying "We're a Christian-majority democracy, it's only natural." The laws about who can run for office should definitely go.... but this quote brings up this week's classic mdk rant.

I think the references to God and/or the divine are actually very important.

Not for religious reasons, but for legal ones. It's important, in my opinion, to codify in the highest law (in every law really) that rights do not come from the government. One does not have the freedom of speech because the first amendment says so -- one has that right period, and drafts the constitution in order to forbid the government from interfering. That's a vital distinction. The thirteenth amendment did not grant former slaves the right to vote, it ended the government's ability to trample that right. That right was always there; that's why slavery (and segregation, and denying female suffrage, and so on) was wrong.

Insofar as the references to God and/or the divine accomplish that purpose, they are crucial. Naturally, if we were writing the various constitutions today, we'd describe all these things as human rights, and 200 years from now the glip glops from Traflorkia would think we were xenophobic not to include them.

Anyway.

200 years from now the glip glops from Traflorkia would think we were xenophobic not to include them.

Pretty sure they wont have to go all the way to state constitutions to establish that.

Every day I come here and the topic of conversation has changed at least three times to the point where I don't even know which conversation to currently add to.

Every day I come here and the topic of conversation has changed at least three times to the point where I don't even know which conversation to currently add to.

the best idea is to come here for the memes and not for the discourse because you won't find that here

I think the references to God and/or the divine are actually very important.

Not for religious reasons, but for legal ones. It's important, in my opinion, to codify in the highest law (in every law really) that rights do not come from the government. One does not have the freedom of speech because the first amendment says so -- one has that right period, and drafts the constitution in order to forbid the government from interfering. That's a vital distinction. The thirteenth amendment did not grant former slaves the right to vote, it ended the government's ability to trample that right. That right was always there; that's why slavery (and segregation, and denying female suffrage, and so on) was wrong.

Fundamentally disagree on a subjective basis but feel the need to point it out none the less. Rights are not a natural/divine given 'right'. They are civil (in social terms, not legal) agreements we have made between each other about what we widely consider 'the right thing to do' and therefore the 'right to free speech' is given to people because we, as a people, believe that we, as a people, should have the ability to speak our mind about what we believe in. It's a fundamental principle of democracy yes but then democracy is inherently flawed and so are the rights.

The issue I take with it is that rights are not actual rights. You do not have a natural right to something - they are things that can be taken from you at any moment and theoretically there is nothing stopping your government from taking away all your rights right now if they deem fit to do so in this very moment. There is nothing you could do to stop it except to hope that they won't do it, and that the people who will execute the beatdown on these rights (policemen removing protests, caretakers ramping up prices for life-saving care, landlord and housing companies upping the prices by 200% because they can now legally do that) have a change of heart and will not execute these.

The right to vote is not a natural right - it was not always there, for blacks, for asians, for women, for men. To say it was trampled upon by the government is true but that'd imply the right was always there when it was not. Furthermore, a thirteenth amendment did not end the governments ability to trample that right either. Laws are just laws - dura lex sed lex, of course, but laws can be broken and so can the rights of people.

This sounds a lot like the argument that `you can't do x or y because it's against the constitution` but constitutions are changed, literally all the time, and most often without the people noticing. These amendments are the same and so are rights - they can be taken away from you much easier than they are given to you.

As far as I am concerned you don't have a right to anything, and that goes for literally anyone on this planet.

@Odin

I agree with this. 'Morals' are a human invention, and every society has a different set of morals. You can't call an act of another country or it's citizens 'wrong' just because it breaks the moral code of the United States. In the UK, most people aren't allowed to bear arms at all, period. If an armed gunman broke into their house, they couldn't shoot back. A man from the US might see this as wrong. Conversely a man from the UK sees an average American family owning a gun that the children could possibly get access to as wrong.

@Odin @Silver Carrot What makes a good law, then? Or is there even such a thing?

@mdk

If a law's popular it's good. If it's unpopular, it'll make people unhappy and possibly get changed/start a revolt/protest/revolution if there are enough unpopular laws.

Laws aren't morals. Laws are commands from the people in charge.

@mdk

If a law's popular it's good. If it's unpopular, it'll make people unhappy and possibly get changed/start a revolt/protest/revolution if there are enough unpopular laws.

Laws aren't morals. Laws are commands from the people in charge.

Let's say homosexuality is punishable by death in Fakenisia, and not in the Fabulous States of Don't Go There Girlfriend (FSDGTG for short). What, in your mind, should the interactions between these two nations look like? Would the FSDGTG be justified in, I dunno, pulling this out of a hat.... would they be justified in, say, limiting immigration from Fakenisia?

@mdk

If they don't think they have the housing, money or resources to cope, or don't have enough unskilled jobs to keep unemployment from rising drastically, than I think so, but really, it's nt up to me. It'd be up to the government of FSDGTG. Their word is law because that's what law is.

@mdk

The question of how do we decide what is moral without foundational truths (i.e. moral values inherent in nature because God put them there etc) is a problem for lots of ethicists. One solution that his been put forward is using coherence theory, essentially meaning that for something to be true/correct it must be internally consistent. When applied to morality/laws this means that though morality is relativistic and might differ from culture to culture, moral judgements can still be made about a country's morality/laws.

So going back to Fakensia and its death for homosexual laws, there are ways it could be argued that these laws are wrong even if we accept that morality is relativistic when taking into consideration the principles of coherence. Lets say that Fakensia follows a mono-theistic style religion from which its legal system is based and one of the principle commandments of said religion and thus one its principle laws is something akin to Thou Shalt Not Kill. The law that allows for the killing of homosexuals is not coherent with this broader cultural moral framework, and thus can be objected to on more than just a subjective basis.

Alternatively we could take the position of moral subjectivists (morality is only decided at the personal rather than cultural level) or moral skeptivists (that morality does not exist/is unknowable) to contest the unjust law. The former through a position of individual liberty, the latter through some kind of 'might makes right' conception.

@Odin @Silver Carrot What makes a good law, then? Or is there even such a thing?

A good law is a) based on the wishes of a majority and b) measurable and enforceable and c) enforced. Contents are irrelevant. It's for that reason I don't like (but I do understand) your question to the other person.

<Snipped quote by Silver Carrot>

Let's say homosexuality is punishable by death in Fakenisia, and not in the Fabulous States of Don't Go There Girlfriend (FSDGTG for short). What, in your mind, should the interactions between these two nations look like? Would the FSDGTG be justified in, I dunno, pulling this out of a hat.... would they be justified in, say, limiting immigration from Fakenisia?

Self-determination is very important to me (wouldn't call it a right though most countries give themselves this 'right' through political, military or economical prowess). Whether they are justified or not is related to SOLELY the perspective of any given person. For me they would be justified - though I'd also add that I think FSDGTG doesn't have a right to judge the culture of others - and can certainly make that decision. Who is to tell them they can't.

And if Fakenisia disagrees with this they can counter - militarily, politically or economically.

<Snipped quote by Dark Wind>




Yes, people have the right to refuse to state the parts in the oath/pledge that reference God, but those lines still exist in the texts.

• People who deny existence of a God/Almighty God technically can't run for state office in several states.
• God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution.
• Almost all U.S. presidents, including Trump, have been Christians. Presidential inaugurations are filled with displays of faith, and in many many cases, tilted towards an Almighty Christian God. Trump's inauguration was particularly filled with religious references..
• Many government buildings have religious symbols on them. Including the Supreme Court building, where Moses and his Ten Commandments are front and center.

Depending on the definition of mostly, religion is still very abound in the US government, and it tends to have a Christian tilt.

1) Three picture links that say 'God' but doesn't necessarily distinguish which God. As stated before this post, the Constitution was founded on the idea that our rights are inalienable and bestowed upon us by our creator. That's it. In other words, Christianity still does not dictate governance: the Constitution does. And you just said it yourself, you don't have to say 'God' because that is your right to do or not do as allowed by the Constitution.

2) I will concede that the founding of America was strongly about the freedom to believe in one's own religion without being lawfully punished for doing so. So, it naturally makes sense that many of our government buildings would have Christian allusions especially because Christianity was the predominant and still is predominant religion of the country. This is still not proof that Christianity governs the United States. Parts of our framework of laws are certainly influenced by the Ten Commandments (like laws against murder, thieving, being a false witness), but a significant number of other countries also follow such laws.

3) The states you linked are a total of eight which constitutes a minority. Those laws are also unenforceable therefore making them irrelevant. The one thing you and me would agree here is that those laws are unconstitutional and should be immediately abolished.

4) Religious reference does not equal religious governance.

To sum this all up: Christianity is absolutely entrenched in the fabric of our country's foundational history so it makes sense that we'd see such references. However, allusions to the faith are not laws and are not a governing aspect of any relevance outside of the unconstitutional laws that you linked. We could have a long discussion about how we've walked all over the constitution with the ever-growing power of our federal government regardless of religious intervention or non-religious intervention. My point still remains that, in the modern day religion holds no significant sway in governance within the U.S.A. We are not some Christian theocracy, we are a republic with allusions to a higher power and have remained so.

The better question here is: So what?

load a bullshit

wow it mentions God in the writing I guess the US is a theocracy