I respect you playing the advocate here.

The good news is that America has gotten a lot smarter than the religious right who base their angst about homosexuals on religion and nothing of real significance. Today in America we have openly gay politicians and there is no question that it is only a matter of time before gays enjoy every opportunity to society that every other American enjoys.

The religious right can reject gays in Utah and anywhere else they are the majority, but they cannot keep gays out of American politics or American society. There isn't a shred of evidence that there are any less gay people in America today than there has been in anytime in our history and much evidence to the contrary. They are all over American media.

At one time we burned "witches" .. until we got smarter.

I absolutely do agree with that.

All I'm trying to say is that I agree with Jefferson .. and you on many points in this discussion.

I agree; it sounds like a curious restriction. I'm not quite what religious argument someone would use in defense of it.

I know the US used to have laws against selling drinks on Sunday (some individuals towns still might). I presume that was to keep people "respectful" on the "day of the Lord" or some such. Not quite sure what keeping people from drinking after 8:00 is supposed to accomplish, spiritually or otherwise.

I'm not quite sure what "incestous rules" means. But whatever they are, so long as we remain democratic, we will only get them if they are approved by the majority of the population.

Here's my problem: as soon as we decide that specific types of legislation will not be allowed at all, we have to set up some person or organization with the power to decide whether a potential piece of legislation can or cannot be voted on.

If this person/organization is freely elected, then as soon as a serious majority of the people want an especially religious law they will elect someone who will let religious laws be voted on. We basically have a system like this already in any representative government. If the committees decide a piece of legislation is bunk they can kill it off, but if the people really want it they will just elect commitee members who will approve it.

On the other hand, if the person is not freely elected then he (or they) will exercise massive powers over the people. And I am not willing to trust anyone (except the people themselves) with that much power. If such a person (or group) is given the authority to forbid excessively religious legislation, even when the people demand it, he/they might one day change his mind and decide to start mandating religious justificaiton for any legislation that is to be considered, or personally redefine "religious" in some unfortunatey self-serving way.

So there's my problem. I don't think anyone should be imposing any religion (not even mine) on anyone. But I'm not willing to give anyone outside the people the power to tell the people, "I will decide what laws you may and may not choose from because I know better than all of you what laws are reasonable and sensible."

I'm older than you, and pragmatic to boot. And yet you're right. I too find the thought of making religious people happy by passing laws intended to influence & affect our secular lives a disgusting, revolting thought.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

No, dunno if it is religous arguements even, but it sure as hell is the christian people in Norway that advocate these laws, and more laws to restrict alcohol. The christian democratic party is way over the top when it comes to alcohol politics (I'm not saying they are representative of christians though). It's also illegal to sell alcohol after 6PM before a holiday, which will be hilarious since the stores are open to 8pm and alot of people come and "huh? wtf"...

What if the majority of the population does do this then? I mean, 44% of the population in the US believes the earth will go under within 50 years (and half of those again "knows" it). Lot's of people believe weird things an influences others to do so too. I'm a firm believer of democracy having to be not the tyranny of the majority over the minority. And I think it is wrong for 51% of the population to force 49% of the rest to something they strongly reject to on a rational basis.

I can see how you are worried, but it is simply as easy as this: If a person comes with a proposal to enforce incestous marriages because of a holy book, that'd be wrong. However, if they propose it because marriages in close family is "safer" and people alerady know those they get married to, then it's something else. They will have to justify it somehow, and in a rational way. Quoting a holy book shouldn't be a justification to vote for something. It doesn't take any position to do this, just common sense.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I fully agree with you in principle. That is a very real danger inherrent in democracy, that the many will abuse the few.

All I'm saying is that there is no to to eliminate this danger without eliminating democracy and simply swapping roles. I.E. creating the danger of the few abusing the many.

And if the many can go crazy (religiously or otherwise) and advocate some weird legal crap, then the few which we might empower to rule over the many certainly can as well.

It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Need must it be so, for there are no more queer ones than religion and politics.

Then I guess we agree. I don't really like democracy alot, and that is one of the reasons. But the alternatives are a little blurry and faded...

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I definately think the strongest argument in favor of democracy is simply the lack of a better alternative.