NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people on this forum go on about how its fine for people to have religion but not fine for them to legislate it. The reason being is that not everyone subscribes to that religion so issues such as Gay marriage and Abortion should not be decided on religious grounds. However what is the actual diffrence between a Muslim legislating a particular part of their idiology and a Socialist legislating a particular part of their ideology. Not everyone subscribes to either ideology yet one is acceptable to legislate and the other not. Why is this?

EDIT:

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.

"ideology" needs to be clearly defined for the purpose of this discussion, otherwise we are going to have 15 pages of semantic hoo-hah. tell us what definition you want to work with, to save all that trouble.

I agree, there should be no more legitslating.

Legislating is bad. We should allow our courts to decide everything for us. . .oh wait. . .we already do.

A lot of people on this forum go on about how its fine for people to have religion but not fine for them to legislate it. The reason being is that not everyone subscribes to that religion so issues such as Gay marriage and Abortion should not be decided on religious grounds. However what is the actual diffrence between a Muslim legislating a particular part of their idiology and a Socialist legislating a particular part of their ideology. Not everyone subscribes to either ideology yet one is acceptable to legislate and the other not. Why is this?

EDIT:

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.


Political ideologies can be argued from objective viewpoints. Yes, people disagree, but they can be argued in that manner.

Religious viewpoints can only be argued from subjective viewpoints -and it is never ok to force your own *subjective* viewpoints upon another.

Mainly Because
Religions are controlled by unelected leaders, cardinals, ayatollahs, Rabbi's, and whether you like it or not you cannot doubt that these people can influence the believes and so political ideology of their congregations.
That is why because it undermines the point of democracy, by having people effectively told what to vote, because its Christian / Buddhist what ever.

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.

where's totalitarianism on that line?

i wouldn't classify liberalism as "centre" but i suppose it might be in comparison to the alternatives, in some parts of the world.

Cho

where's totalitarianism on that line?
that’s more a category of ideology, both communism fascism and national socialism are totalitarian

Political ideologies can be argued from objective viewpoints. Yes, people disagree, but they can be argued in that manner.

Religious viewpoints can only be argued from subjective viewpoints -and it is never ok to force your own *subjective* viewpoints upon another.
This is also why the definition of idealogy was important. If the political position was being argued from a purely idealogical position, ie simply by appealing to abstract principle*, that (IMHO) is as unjustifiable as legislation on the basis of religion. Equally, there are religious themes, eg the alleviation of poverty and suffering, that can be argued from an objective position.

*For some reason, hard-core libertarians and communists spring to mind here.

*For some reason, hard-core libertarians and communists spring to mind here.

What do communism and libertarianism have to do with each other? The two philosophies are polar opposites. One is about the state and the other is about the individual.

What do communism and libertarianism have to do with each other? The two philosophies are polar opposites. One is about the state and the other is about the individual.
IIRC White Hats isn't from America, and therefore uses libertarian in the way it is used around the world (except North America).

Though I think you have been lied to about communism.

"IIRC White Hats isn't from America, and therefore uses libertarian in the way it is used around the world (except North America).

Though I think you have been lied to about communism."

Oh. Sorry about that. I would also like to note that libertarianism is that way in Australia too.

I was also using the common definition of communism; authoritiarian socialism. I am fully aware of the true meaning of the word, I just don't think it's possible.

Oh. Sorry about that. I would also like to note that libertarianism is that way in Australia too.

I was also using the common definition of communism; authoritiarian socialism. I am fully aware of the true meaning of the word, I just don't think it's possible.

Hmm, same in Australia. Interesting. Thanks.

A lot of people on this forum go on about how its fine for people to have religion but not fine for them to legislate it. The reason being is that not everyone subscribes to that religion so issues such as Gay marriage and Abortion should not be decided on religious grounds. However what is the actual diffrence between a Muslim legislating a particular part of their idiology and a Socialist legislating a particular part of their ideology. Not everyone subscribes to either ideology yet one is acceptable to legislate and the other not. Why is this?

EDIT:

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.


Can we abandon this left/right designation, as it is only capable of describing one dimension? Liberalism/Conservatism is entirely separate from Capitalism/Socialism. As a Liberal leaning Centrist-Capitalist, I am considered "left" by Conservative-Capitalists, and "right" by Liberal-Socialists. So please, for the sake of my sanity, and the lives off all these hostages covered by my machine guns >;o), stop using "left" and "right."

Now that thats out of the way, I believe the difference lies in what the ideologies stand for. Most religions use ideologies based on intangible concepts; those which can neither be proved or disproved (eg. catholic belief that anyone who dies unbaptized will go to hell - they may have lightened up on this one, I'm not an expert). Political ideologies represent tangible concepts; those which can be tested and proved one way or another (eg. welfare promotes social parasitism). I can argue with a catholic over whether aborted fetuses go to hell or not, but I'm not likely to change their mind, nor are they likely to change mine, and neither one of us will be able to prove anything one way or another. On the other hand, I can argue with a socialist over the effectiveness of welfare, using factual data to back up my argument, and I might convince them that welfare is ineffective. Legislation based on religious ideology (eg. abortion should be illegal because the fetuses will go to hell) has no place in a country where that legislation would affect people who do not share the ideology, whereas legislation based on political ideology is acceptable because it can be proven true or false, and it is comparatively easy to change someones political ideology.

What do communism and libertarianism have to do with each other? The two philosophies are polar opposites. One is about the state and the other is about the individual.
That's precisely why I used them; I didn't want to offend anyone. Or, at least, if I offended one side, I'd offend both, thereby cancelling out the effect. ;)

It wasn't entirely a serious point, except that both are strong ideologies by some definitions (hence the need for NC to define his terms), and I can see simularities between them - they both strike me as more principled than pragmatic, (hence) they both appeal to the young (IMO, libertarianism is the communism du jours), and I see adherents of both as being more likely to justify their positions on purely ideological grounds than adherents of more pragmatic political philosophies. However, not necessarily so by any means - hence the 'hard-core' qualification.

Just my POV [/end thread hijack]

(AC was right that I'm not American BTW)

It wasn't entirely a serious point, except that both are strong ideologies by some definitions (hence the need for NC to define his terms), and I can see simularities between them - they both strike me as more principled than pragmatic, (hence) they both appeal to the young (IMO, libertarianism is the communism du jours), and I see adherents of both as being more likely to justify their positions on purely ideological grounds than adherents of more pragmatic political philosophies. However, not necessarily so by any means - hence the 'hard-core' qualification.

Actually, I've been both a libertarian and a socialist, interestingly enough. Young people tend to cling to radical ideoligies.

But, libertarianism really isn't so radical. It's has a large base among old AND young people, and it is largely accepted in the US. It is very practical, and often give the most practical of solutions to obvious problems. It's point is that you shouldn't force people to accept your beliefs at the tip of the governments gun.

I think in the future the main political battle isn't going to be between left and right, but libertarians and socialists. Whether the socialists are the current leftists or the totalitarians is yet to be seen, but libertarianism is obviously going to be for the total freedom side of things. It's getting bigger all the time. It's also interesting to note that in forums, where people often get to debate rationally and are not subject to media, libertarianism tends to spread like wildfire, and socialism tends to disappear.

Legislating Ideology is unacceptable practice in a free society, at least as unacceptable as legislating Religion, because many ideological systems serve their proponents in the same manner that Religious ideas serve others. This is particularly true of Communists and Fascists-both of whom place the Moral in the hands of the State (or "The People") as highest authority (much like dogmatic religiousity places it in the hands of a god or goddess.)
It's not right to impose one person's religious preferences on another-even when that preference is "No Religion" it is wrong.

Only by letting the damned fools speak, can you separate them from the careful thinkers.

Actually, I've been both a libertarian and a socialist, interestingly enough. Young people tend to cling to radical ideoligies.

But, libertarianism really isn't so radical. It's has a large base among old AND young people, and it is largely accepted in the US. It is very practical, and often give the most practical of solutions to obvious problems. It's point is that you shouldn't force people to accept your beliefs at the tip of the governments gun.

I think in the future the main political battle isn't going to be between left and right, but libertarians and socialists. Whether the socialists are the current leftists or the totalitarians is yet to be seen, but libertarianism is obviously going to be for the total freedom side of things. It's getting bigger all the time. It's also interesting to note that in forums, where people often get to debate rationally and are not subject to media, libertarianism tends to spread like wildfire, and socialism tends to disappear.
Poacher turned gamekeeper, huh? (Or is that vice versa?)

Libertarianism isn't inherently radical, any more than socialism is. However, it's a simple intellectual model and so is attractive to ideological purists in much the same way as socialism. The advantage it has over socialism/ communism is that it hasn't recently been put into practice in a major developed economy, so it's all theory with no messy historical consequences to confuse the issues.

Meh. For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I can't say I find pure political theory very interesting.

But, we really shouldn't continue this discussion in this thread, we're going off-topic.

It's also interesting to note that in forums, where people often get to debate rationally and are not subject to media, libertarianism tends to spread like wildfire, and socialism tends to disappear.

is this really your experience with the world?

EDIT:

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.
My dear monsieur or madame, how simply you view ideology as simply left, right, and center. Think in terms of freedom, to choose or have. It is much more accurate.

is this really your experience with the world?

Actually, yes. They may cling to socialism whenever they first come, but after realizing the logical flaws they come to some other philosophy. A lot of them become libertarians, like me, interestingly enough.

Libertarianism isn't inherently radical, any more than socialism is. However, it's a simple intellectual model and so is attractive to ideological purists in much the same way as socialism. The advantage it has over socialism/ communism is that it hasn't recently been put into practice in a major developed economy, so it's all theory with no messy historical consequences to confuse the issues.

Socialism isn't very logical, though. It pays people to do things that aren't worth that amount of pay, and therefore has a large amount of ineffeciency. Free market has been proven before. Laissez - faire has, in places like Hong Kong and Ireland. It doesn't produce poverty, it reduces it.

The libertarian social positions are just common sense.

And if you didn't want to highjack the thread you should've never mentioned libertarians :D . We're diligent in protecting our cause.

Thread Nazi's!!!

I'll vomit back up what was said before; but I feel it helps to reiterate points already made, to show what a majority opinion might be.

Political ideology is not based on divine command or outmoded precepts. Instead, it is based on objective rationalizing, using human reason to reach for the solutions to the problems in our world. The legislation of religion bases itself either on religious text and tradition or the authority of those in the religious hierarchy. To base today's politics on the laws set forth 2000+ years ago in a book that dealt with completely different situations and a completely different society is not only stupid, it's dangerous.

And I think we can all agree that allowing an elite group of un-elected men and women to command our government is a bad idea. Though it happens every day.

Actually, yes. They may cling to socialism whenever they first come, but after realizing the logical flaws they come to some other philosophy. A lot of them become libertarians, like me, interestingly enough.

that's odd.

It's also interesting to note that in forums, where people often get to debate rationally and are not subject to media, libertarianism tends to spread like wildfire, and socialism tends to disappear.
Funny, if you check out the first link in my sig you'll see that leftists are in the vast majority here.

Funny, if you check out the first link in my sig you'll see that leftists are in the vast majority here.
Though how many in the graph are new and how many are old ;)

(Though I agree with you, I've been on these boards over a year and still 'cling' to socialism, of a sort :))

A lot of people on this forum go on about how its fine for people to have religion but not fine for them to legislate it. The reason being is that not everyone subscribes to that religion so issues such as Gay marriage and Abortion should not be decided on religious grounds. However what is the actual diffrence between a Muslim legislating a particular part of their idiology and a Socialist legislating a particular part of their ideology. Not everyone subscribes to either ideology yet one is acceptable to legislate and the other not. Why is this?

If by ideology you mean political ideology than you are confuzzuling (I meant that spelling) yourself.
Religion has no political ideology by itself.

What you mean majority viewpoint of a religion, but this is brtanched oyt miuch.
Fundamentalist (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc) are very Conservative and against modernity. So they vote about keeping things stuck in past believing they were better than. The Pope who declared all Popes shall be considered infallible to fight against modernity. This allowed him to keep things from being changed.

Radicals (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc) are for change, believing it is good, they will not change every detail because even, they admit certain facts shouldn't be messed with (otherwise why are they part of that religion). They are very Liberal and for change is viewed okay. Martin Luthar is close to this because he changed expathesis from work and good deeds to just belief (though the Scriptures don't exactly agree totally agree with words, " Faith without works is dead")

Progressives (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc) are okay with change, but only when neccessary. They do like their churches teaches, but won't change things to accomodate people without reason. A example is Buddha was very progressive. He changed characteristics in the Hindu faith like Atman into Anatman (soul into no soul instead), but helps most of beliefs in gods(he did after all meet them), etc.

There are many groups into between, but these sum of religious groupology.

By Ideology, I mean political ideology, Socialist (left) Conservative (right) Liberal (centre) Facisim (far right) Communisim (far left) Libertarianism (dead centre). Basicly political ideals. People are allowed to work with those but not religions. By legislating religions I am not talking about forced practise (Eg it becoming a Law to pray at least once a day) but legislating based on religious morals.
Why are Liberal and Libertarianism both center? If you did'nt noticer LIbertaians are very conservative too. So they are half left and half Right, not center(you don't add them up)

Fascism is very right and captalist, but also allows you to rtun own business but remembering you are workig for betterment of state so leftist woith freedom. Left + Right do not equal center or Fascism is center.

See as long as you hold Lib (both LIbs) as dead center I know your scale is messed up.
----
Bush is a Liberal(Believes govt should interefere in public life in individuals like Terry Shiavo) Republican who is a Fundamentalist Christian.(baptist?)

Kerry was a Moderate Democrat (people try to pretend he was Liberal too funny) who is a progressive catholic.

Why are Liberal and Libertarianism both center? If you did'nt noticer LIbertaians are very conservative too. So they are half left and half Right, not center(you don't add them up)

Fascism is very right and captalist, but also allows you to rtun own business but remembering you are workig for betterment of state so leftist woith freedom. Left + Right do not equal center or Fascism is center.

See as long as you hold Lib (both LIbs) as dead center I know your scale is messed up.
----
Bush is a Liberal(Believes govt should interefere in public life in individuals like Terry Shiavo) Republican who is a Fundamentalist Christian.(baptist?)

Kerry was a Moderate Democrat (people try to pretend he was Liberal too funny) who is a progressive catholic.

BLAM! (one hostage dead). You people really need to read up on your political ideologies. Your left/right definitions are not valid as you are trying to describe two separate dimensions with one term. Let me explain this again: there is a capitalist/socialist dimension, and a liberal/conservative dimension. Libertarianism is the extreme form of liberalism (the idea that all people are equal in that no one has moral authority over anyone else - exactly the opposite of conservatism). You can have libertarian capitalists and libertarian socialists. Neither one is "centrist." Fascism is conservative socialist (not capitalist - conservative capitalism is called fundamentalism), which espouses that the nation is of prime importance and that everyone's efforts must benefit the nation (even private enterprise). Very much not centrist, and in no way capitalist.

Bush is *not* a liberal in any way. He is probably the most conservative president the US has ever had. Kerry most certainly was a liberal. The liberal/conservative dimension does not imply any degree of government intervention, only the ends to which its intervention is aimed.

Your homework assignment today, class, is to read up on your political ideologies, and to write me a 500 word essay on why you shouldn't use the left/right designation when discussing political ideologies. Class dismissed.

I'll vomit back up what was said before; but I feel it helps to reiterate points already made, to show what a majority opinion might be.

Political ideology is not based on divine command or outmoded precepts. Instead, it is based on objective rationalizing, using human reason to reach for the solutions to the problems in our world. The legislation of religion bases itself either on religious text and tradition or the authority of those in the religious hierarchy. To base today's politics on the laws set forth 2000+ years ago in a book that dealt with completely different situations and a completely different society is not only stupid, it's dangerous.

And I think we can all agree that allowing an elite group of un-elected men and women to command our government is a bad idea. Though it happens every day.

That sounds good, but it doesn't work. I'm all in favor of using past experience and reason to help further our goals. But where do we get those goals? We get them from some set of things that we value, or place importance on. But how do we decide that? That's where political ideology, religious principles, etc. come into play. Making just a couple of different assumptions about human nature drastically changes the way that we govern. To see what I mean, I suggest reading Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. Essentially, he states that what we see in politics today in America can be traced to the difference in views of Locke and Rousseau.

That sounds good, but it doesn't work. I'm all in favor of using past experience and reason to help further our goals. But where do we get those goals? We get them from some set of things that we value, or place importance on.But how do we decide that? That's where political ideology, religious principles, etc. come into play. Making just a couple of different assumptions about human nature drastically changes the way that we govern. To see what I mean, I suggest reading Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. Essentially, he states that what we see in politics today in America can be traced to the difference in views of Locke and Rousseau.I'm reading Middlemarch. And Heart of Darkness. I don't have time for this hogwash! ;)

Could you perhaps be more succinct in your point? I'm having difficulty following you here.

I'm reading Middlemarch. And Heart of Darkness. I don't have time for this hogwash! ;)

Could you perhaps be more succinct in your point? I'm having difficulty following you here.

What I'm saying is that political goals will be defined by some sort of basic philosophy about human nature, the role of government, etc. This philosophy will be based on some set of assumptions, for which we would have little to no evidence either way. This would be the case whether we're talking about secular or religious philosophy. There is no real distinction between the two, so it matters not which we base our political operations on.

BTW, Heart of Darkness sucked.

What I'm saying is that political goals will be defined by some sort of basic philosophy about human nature, the role of government, etc. This philosophy will be based on some set of assumptions, for which we would have little to no evidence either way. This would be the case whether we're talking about secular or religious philosophy. There is no real distinction between the two, so it matters not which we base our political operations on.Still, isn't religion based primarily on irrational or, at least, not based on rational, thinking? Shaving your beard or forbidding masturbation or saying women must remain completely covered, for example. These are not laws that are based on rationality; superstition and scripture created these.

Whilst Utilitarianism, guided by Pragmatism, relies almost completely on rationality and the idea that people want to be happy - a simple and almost universally accepted idea. It seems to have worked for America.

As for Heart of Darkness, I don't have a choice. :(
I should be writing a paper on Ethics right now.

Still, isn't religion based primarily on irrational or, at least, not based on rational, thinking? Shaving your beard or forbidding masturbation or saying women must remain completely covered, for example. These are not laws that are based on rationality; superstition and scripture created these.

Whilst Utilitarianism, guided by Pragmatism, relies almost completely on rationality and the idea that people want to be happy - a simple and almost universally accepted idea. It seems to have worked for America.

As for Heart of Darkness, I don't have a choice. :(
I should be writing a paper on Ethics right now.

Shaving your beard can be seen as a hygiene issue, forbidding masturbation could be seen as not-exposing-vulnerable-bits to certain vermin that may be common in an area, not-eating-Pork is probably a good idea if your fuel supply does not allow for complete cooking, or your environment is dirty enough (also, pork, like fish, spoils quickly in warm environments, and contains many parasites that can make your life hell, if not kill you, if it isn't cooked properly and promptly.), let's see, what else... going with your head-uncovered in the Middle East is a great way to get sunstroke, a Burkha is decent protection in a mild sandstorm (where it's not a good idea to expose your skin), and walking ahead of your women in public is useful if 'in public' means going into an area where someone might jump out and kill the lead.

Some religious rules are based on survival, some are based on superstition.
Most superstitions have a core of truth-whether the truth still applies or not being beside the point.

Adultery is great for triggering someone (the Cuckolded spouse, for instance) to murder-in some cultures, this desire to do in the offender tends to spread throughout the offended partie's family. At the very least, few fathers are willing to raise someone else's kid.

Covetousness tends to lead to theft. Theft, again, tends to leave the victim intent on doing something bad to the offender.

Theft motivates the victim to a desire for vengeance-this can result in a spiral-effect of ratcheting up intensity.

Murder-this should be obvious.

Keeping the Sabbath- Seems irrational, don't it? Imagine limited water-supplies, and the fact that a working body runs through the stuff quickly-more quickly than a body that is 'still'. Over a lifetime, this can stretch available quantities in the community significantly.
Same with food.

Prohibitions on Sodomy: In the modern world, this looks somewhere between quaint, and dreadfully unfair. Think about what lives in the lower portion of your intestinal tract, and imagine a world without Penicillin, or other antibiotics, indeed, without decent soap (antibacterials). there are things that live in your colon, that if they get into your food, can and will kill you. Among the more famous, is E. Coli.

Prohibitions on Promiscuity: Venerial Disease really didn't have much in the way of treatments before the 20th Century, Syphillis has been fingered in at least one case for driving a dictator mad (Hitler), Ghonorrhea will kill you in slow, painful stages too. VD is a bad, bad, thing to get without Antibiotics, and some forms are transmissable from an infected host without sexual contact. (there are forms today, like Herpes Simplex, that are not treatable at all.) Monogamy (or at least, non-promiscuity) is useful because you have a fair idea of the history of your spouse.


Prohibitions on alcohol: In the west, this looks nuts-indeed, in the middle ages, even in the Renaissance, the beer was usually safer than the water.
Except, in the Middle East, because Alky will dehydrate you faster than anything-including salt water.
Death by dehydration and heat-stroke sucks.

Now, further: Most religions are the best answers they could come up with at the time-one of the benefits of monotheistic systems like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, is that they are not reliant on a 'living god' figure to work-they place an authority higher than any man can attain-creating a moral guideline to hold a ruler or leader in check, and a punishment for evil actions that can not be legislated away.

Upon the removal of that higher power, you wind up with something taking its place. Many of the Socialists I have encountered behave towards the STATE in the manner that evangelicals behave towards their god, Politics becomes the Religion, complete with Dogmas and Miracles, not one of which is justified in observation. similarly, many non-socialists do the same thing, with only a slight variation of the dogmas, and a similar belief in miraculous transformation.

when the STATE becomes the Religion, there is no longer adequate separation. when the STate Religion is Atheism, it is still a religion. If your high priest is a scientist, or a priest, it doesn't really matter-the result is effectively the same-an irrational belief founded on some rational rules.