Trismagistus
Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: Trismagistus
I'm not saying that one should only elect Atheists and Agnostics, I'm saying that religions themselves should not be permitted to lobby or levee threats against the state, Congressmen and women should not be making their decisions on the basis of religious bias but on the basis of what will do the greatest good for the largest number of people possible rather than debating moral semantics with religious functionaries.
Okay. I did mis-understand but, let me then ask this: How does a senator or representative that considers themself to be religious; that follows a particular dogma, not allow their convictions to influence how they legislate.
You know what, I'll even grant that that's a bad question because they're supposed to represent us (and they don't). So, let's ask it this way (since we're assuming things work the way they're supposed to: If a person is elected to congress or the senate and they are pious, can we not assume that their district/state elected them at least partially based upon their "religious" views? For example: If a representative or senator is anti-death penalty because of stated religious views, can't we safely assume that the people that elected them agreed with at least some of the rep/sen's religious beliefs?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the founders weren't trying to avoid the influence (I chose that word, carefully) that religion might have on our law-makers and our laws. They knew that would be impossible. They were trying to make sure that (I swear this is just as an example) President Kennedy couldn't pass a law forcing everyone into a Vatican church on Sunday mornings.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
You make a lot of sense there and I can't see why I would feel the need to argue against that, but they are supposed to be representing the entirety of their constituency not the loudest or most wealthy voice. Honestly though I don't think our system works at all. I'm a meritocrat. I believe in election by peers rather than the people because appointing offices at certain levels of government and certain kinds of electoral methods clearly have failed us, the other benefit of a meritocracy is that in a functioning meritocracy the dynastic nature of wealth is erased entirely. The electoral process in a meritocratic society in accordance with the vision I see as viable is based on mutual agreement within field of specialization, for instance if one is going to put a surgeon general into office, the vote would then be held by biologists, doctors, and other medical personnel and health and biology professionals who are, at least aware of the subject matter that that particular office would oversee. I also believe that candidates should be of sound psychological health and undergo extensive psychoanalysis to prevent the induction of socio and psychopathic candidates into our ruling body. The lynchpin of a meritocratic society however is something that people have an instantaneous negative reaction to however, because a meritocracy requires by it's nature progression, position, and ascendancy by talent it requires an equal starting point, which is provided by a 100% inheritance tax. This is of course a frightening sounding proposition however if you consider the implications of such a system on the current drastically unequal dispersion of wealth and what the funds that would be collected by the state could be used to fund so long as we keep an ever vigilant eye towards monitoring those in power for corruption, educational programs first and foremost (and they are an absolute must and higher education should, without a doubt be a right not a privilege, imagine how many bright minds there could be in this world if we only took the time to foster them.) as well as programs of social uplift (no, not welfare handouts, I'm talking about things like government assisted job placement by request, better housing and compensation programs for the disabled and those suffering from severe psychological issues) and of course the pursuit of creating a world where everyone gets an equal starting line in the race so to speak.
_____________________________
http://grooveshark.com/s/Pledge+Of+Allegiance/3EXY2u?src=5
|
How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from t... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread