Apparent Disconnect In Debate On Role Of Government

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316776240' post='2308861']
Hmmm, so why are atheists under represented in prisons?
[/quote]
Maybe for the reason blacks are over-represented?

You can rest assured that the murders, robberies, thefts, assaults, and rapes that land people behind bars have absolutely nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Obeying the Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Christ's Sermon on the Mount are certainly not a prescription for prison time (at least not in any just society).

I'd imagine truly devout practicing Christians who regularly attend church, pray, and read the Bible are far more under-represented in prisons than atheists.


So why are atheists over-represented among murderous dictators?

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316812005' post='2309020']
So why are atheists over-represented among murderous dictators?
[/quote]
If you believed in the god of the bible then you would have to define god as the ultimate of all murderous dictators.
I am of course assuming god's reign in heaven is not by periodic vote and hence a dictatorship, and I am of course referring to the event when god flooded the earth and killed very nearly everyone, including amost all of the animals and plants too.
But then again I assume you think god did this because god was good and that this was an act of good.

But in an attempt to keep it real, just for a moment, rather than escallating into a silly argument to satisfy one's personal ego, it may be worth trying to make sense of the state of society today. Why are some horrific acts being performed by some of the people within our society? When I say our society, I mean a society that is seen as reasonably stable, a democratic and first world society like NZ, USA, England, Canada, Australia etc...
It is not directly because of Atheists (as proven by surveys on demographics of criminal offenders in prison) and it is not directly because of devout Catholics (as surmised by Socrates of Phatmass based on his personal definition of what a devout Catholic is)
I'm guessing, but pretty sure it's not because homosexuals are allowed to carryout the act of homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes.

But, yeah, it would be interesting to know why these issues have come about.

[Winchester]

You seem to view democracy as a good.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316882828' post='2309259']
You seem to view democracy as a good.
[/quote]
What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316898530' post='2309347']What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?[/quote]I second this question...

I asked basically the same before but Winchester decided not to answer.

[i]I would give you props for this but sadly I cannot![/i]

Edited September 25, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316898530' post='2309347']
What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?
[/quote]
Democracy represents the will of the majority of the voting body. It does not represent the will of the people and is no assurance of just rule. There are many alternatives, all having their own dangers. Democracy is a means to an end, for me--it is not inherently good to leave rule up to "the people" any more than it is inherently evil to leave rule to one man. Each has its own risks.

Democracy does not allow members to make their own informed adult decisions--it permits a certain group to vote and then uses that vote to inflict the decision of the majority on the minority.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1316922337' post='2309477']
Democracy represents the will of the majority of the voting body. It does not represent the will of the people and is no assurance of just rule. There are many alternatives, all having their own dangers. Democracy is a means to an end, for me--it is not inherently good to leave rule up to "the people" any more than it is inherently evil to leave rule to one man. Each has its own risks.

Democracy does not allow members to make their own informed adult decisions--it permits a certain group to vote and then uses that vote to inflict the decision of the majority on the minority.
[/quote]
Certainly, there is no utopia.
If a government performs badly then they only last one term. The best governments IMHO, only get involved when absolutely necessary. We don't need a nanny state, just opportunity and fairness. I personally value being able to make my own decisions. A government telling me what my job or career would be or telling me what city or town to live in would be horrible.

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316939940' post='2309620']
Certainly, there is no utopia.
If a government performs badly then they only last one term.[/quote]
That hasn't been the case in the US.

[quote]The best governments IMHO, only get involved when absolutely necessary. We don't need a nanny state, just opportunity and fairness. I personally value being able to make my own decisions. A government telling me what my job or career would be or telling me what city or town to live in would be horrible.
[/quote]
None of that is assured by democracy. It is possible to have an authoritarian government using democratic means. In the US, people are regularly imprisoned for having stuff other people have declared they should not have. If you attempt to skirt the law against pseudo-ephedrine, for instance, you can be imprisoned. If you are caught, you will be charged and you will spend a lot of money defending yourself. All because you needed more of an allergy medication than some [i]elected [/i]bureaucrats declared you were permitted to purchase.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316044417' post='2304779']

Your two examples are not alike. I think it is a mistake to try to get the federal government to pass a law in defense of marriage. The federal government should not try to define marriage and if such a law is passed, even in defense of the traditional understanding of marriage, then we lose again because government has just absorbed within its power the ability to regulate marriage. Marriage is previous to and is the foundation for the state. Government can encourage it and the procreation of children, through tax breaks etc. since the government/state needs healthy marriages that produce children, but it should not regulate it since it is prior to and independent of the state. Restricting abortion, however, is a different matter. Yes it is personal, like marriage, and society has a vested interest in whether abortions occur or not, like marriage, but the government does in fact have the power to regulate hospitals and has the duty to punish ,prevent, defend its citizens from murder. As such, abortion does fall under something the government should make laws about.
[/quote]

Pax domine bretheren and others..
abortion iz a consequence of the sexual/drug revolution, most participants in abortion said or unsaid end up with psychotic or emotional disorder.

JESUS = GOD SAVES

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316840567' post='2309161']
If you believed in the god of the bible then you would have to define god as the ultimate of all murderous dictators.
I am of course assuming god's reign in heaven is not by periodic vote and hence a dictatorship, and I am of course referring to the event when god flooded the earth and killed very nearly everyone, including amost all of the animals and plants too.
But then again I assume you think god did this because god was good and that this was an act of good.[/quote]
God is Himself the author of life and death. A God that was subject to rules made up by humans or the whims of human opinion wouldn't be much of a God.

If you want to know God's example for human behavior, look to the life of Christ as recounted in the Gospels, as Jesus Christ is God become man. In fact, if you want to try to debate Christians and scripture, it would be good to familiarize yourself with it, and read it yourself, rather than just read atheistic web sites.

Any sincerely believing serious Christian at least knows that he will ultimately be accountable to an all-just God for his actions, while an atheist, if he believes himself strong enough, may believe himself accountable to no one.


[quote]But in an attempt to keep it real, just for a moment, rather than escallating into a silly argument to satisfy one's personal ego, it may be worth trying to make sense of the state of society today. Why are some horrific acts being performed by some of the people within our society? When I say our society, I mean a society that is seen as reasonably stable, a democratic and first world society like NZ, USA, England, Canada, Australia etc...


It is not directly because of Atheists (as proven by surveys on demographics of criminal offenders in prison) and it is not directly because of devout Catholics (as surmised by Socrates of Phatmass based on his personal definition of what a devout Catholic is)
I'm guessing, but pretty sure it's not because homosexuals are allowed to carryout the act of homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes.

But, yeah, it would be interesting to know why these issues have come about.[/quote]
I don't think the decline of religious practice/belief and the decline of moral standards and increase in senseless acts of violence, etc. are unrelated. There are many people in modern America (probably a majority) who do not care about nor practice religion without being self-identified atheists. For example, a recent nation-wide study showed that about 90% or so of young people who identify themselves as "Christian" are Christian-in-name-only and rarely or never pray, attend Church, or read the Bible.

If religion is to blame for violent and immoral acts in society, we ought to be seeing a vast increase in morality, but that's not the case.

By your prison population remark, you seemed to be trying to imply a causal relation between religious faith and criminal behavior.

Yet you have failed to explain how a Faith which teaches "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods," "love thy neighbor as thyself," "love thy enemy; do good to those that hurt you," "turn the other cheek," "forgive thy neighbor not seven times, but seventy times seven" and to see Christ in their neighbor is to blame for acts of criminal violence.

Your statement about atheists being under-represented in prison (if it indeed has any factual basis) would probably be that those who self-identify as "atheist" tend to be predominantly upper-middle class whites, a demographic category which is under-represented in prison as opposed to those who grew up on the mean streets. The numbers in that demographic in prison tend to be low, whether they are devout Christians or atheists.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1316898530' post='2309347']
What's the alternative?
Have a governing body that does not represent the people within society? That does not allow its society members to make informed adult decisions themselves?
[/quote]
Democracy does not in itself guarantee freedom nor good and just government, and frequently leads to tyranny. After all, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: "We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

John Adams: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

John Quincy Adams: "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316983877' post='2310012']
God is Himself the author of life and death. A God that was subject to rules made up by humans or the whims of human opinion wouldn't be much of a God.
[/quote]
A leader that leads by example is not a hypocrite.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316983877' post='2310012']
By your prison population remark, you seemed to be trying to imply a causal relation between religious faith and criminal behavior.
[/quote]
A statement was made on this thread implicating lack of religion to violent offences within society.
I was merely rebutting with an example of a survey with regards to the fact that Atheists are on average performing less crime that those who affiliate to religion.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316983877' post='2310012']
Yet you have failed to explain how a Faith which teaches "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods," "love thy neighbor as thyself," "love thy enemy; do good to those that hurt you," "turn the other cheek," "forgive thy neighbor not seven times, but seventy times seven" and to see Christ in their neighbor is to blame for acts of criminal violence.
[/quote]
I don't know why religious people are failing more so than atheists with regards to behaving in a socially acceptable way and hence keeping out of prisons.
I do however believe (yes, I have a belief) that Atheists do tend to find an intuitive morality standard which is above the morality standard of any religion. Our standard tends to be with regards to the golden rule, and respecting other people's lifestyles, want's and needs as long as those do no harm to others.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316983877' post='2310012']
Your statement about atheists being under-represented in prison (if it indeed has any factual basis) would probably be that those who self-identify as "atheist" tend to be predominantly upper-middle class whites, a demographic category which is under-represented in prison as opposed to those who grew up on the mean streets. The numbers in that demographic in prison tend to be low, whether they are devout Christians or atheists.
[/quote]
I have no idea whether Atheists tend to be upper-middle class whites. What does money and skin colour have to do with religious belief?

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1316984286' post='2310016']
Democracy does not in itself guarantee freedom nor good and just government, and frequently leads to tyranny. After all, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: "We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

John Adams: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

James Madison: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

John Quincy Adams: "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
[/quote]
Hitler was voted in, but once he got to power, democracy left and voting no longer became an option.

With regards to democracy being mob rule, well it is certainly better than dictatorship where 1 person gets what he wants and millions do not get what they want.

But actually with most democracies, governments don't tend to oppress. The people generally get to choose many things, job, career, where to live, what religion to obey or ignore, what music to listen to, what gender person to fall in love with, how many children to have, whether to use contraceptives or not.
Choice is a good thing!

[Mr.Cat]

To present the authors of the United States Constitution as anti-democratic or unquestionable authorities I think borders on absurdity. They established a democratic republic or a liberal democracy... which heavily use democratic methods of selecting and managing government.

Usually a majority of people will choose to accommodate themselves, which normally implies all the same ins and outs, pitfalls and strengths of government. This is sadly how someone like Hitler was able to manipulate the people into electing him and eventually suspend their own constitution. The people were so desperate and angry that they elected extreme politicians and policies.

A lesson that modern Americans should listen to, can anyone notice a growing desperate and angry population, willing to elect extreme politicians and enact extreme policy change? I know I can.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[stevil]

Bush was borderline.
Certainly a war lord, and scary with his black and white think, You are for us or against us.
Don't know why American's voted him in for a second term.