Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But here's the thing: people are slamming NC for this vote, and folks who voted for this amendment had their very sincere reasons. We are free to believe what we wish as far as religious beliefs. Folks can have very different religious beliefs and still be moral people of good character and conscience. Just b/c you or I may disagree with them, that should not incite a barrage of vituperative language against them for voting their consciences.
I feel that I have simply been responding to the people. Examine the OP of this thread's posts and then get back to me on the vituperative language. I just have not found any of the supporters of this amendment all that sincere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
It was a VOTE. People exercised their legal right to vote. Perhaps you would institute some sort of means test to determine who has the right to vote, so those with less than average intelligence or certain religious beliefs cannot vote?
Yes, I was being facetious, but can't you see how you are being elitist and that by denigrating someone's religious beliefs and implying that anyone with such religious beliefs should not be allowed to vote, you are setting yourself up as more qualified to participate in governance than others?
We may not govern by the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, but people sure as heck LIVE by those religious books.
Let me phrase it this way. The issue should not have been voted on. While I accept the results, I have yet to hear a defense of the Amendment that did not devolve into Bible quoting. I do not view the Bible as a public policy document. I therefore believe that most of the people who voted for this voted for it on illegitimate grounds.
I applaud people who were able to separate their religion convictions from the civic aspects of the vote. Those people happen to have been more educated than the others.
These are all facts. If this makes me an elitist, I suppose I am.
well, that is interesting, b/c every four years, we end up with the Voice of the People, which includes your mechanic, when we vote for our President. And last time I checked, he supposedly oversees (if not creates) domestic policy. And every six years, your mechanic helps decide on our Senators, and every two years, our legislators ...seems your mechanic has as much say as the rest of us in determining domestic policy.
Absolutely. And I am quite glad that he participates. But his voice ends where others' civil rights begin. This is why this should have never been put to a vote.
The bible is not the constitution we shouldn't legislate late from the bible. WE can cherry pick bible all day doesnt make it right to have legislation on it.
This really is the bottom line, no matter how many people refuse to actually hear it. Religion should have absolutely no impact on legislation. None. So all the bible thumping and scripture quoting is irrelevant. All citizens are not Christians, all citizens do not believe in the bible, and some citizens don't even believe in god. The laws passed affect everyone, not just people who agree with certain religious beliefs. This amendment is something that never should have made it to the ballot in the first place because its premise was based on religious views. Of course we have freedom of religion, and of course people have the right to follow whatever belief system they choose. But that line should be drawn (and is supposed to be drawn) when it comes to legal matters. Religious dogma has no place in legislation. The separation between church and state is becoming increasingly blurred.
"levels of nationalist sentiment as well as of xenophobia decrease with increasing levels of education in all the countries examined, despite substantial differences between the educational systems in the countries."
I feel that I have simply been responding to the people. Examine the OP of this thread's posts and then get back to me on the vituperative language. I just have not found any of the supporters of this amendment all that sincere.
Let me phrase it this way. The issue should not have been voted on. While I accept the results, I have yet to hear a defense of the Amendment that did not devolve into Bible quoting. I do not view the Bible as a public policy document. I therefore believe that most of the people who voted for this voted for it on illegitimate grounds.
I applaud people who were able to separate their religion convictions from the civic aspects of the vote. Those people happen to have been more educated than the others.
These are all facts. If this makes me an elitist, I suppose I am.
Thank you for the clarification. Now I need to clarify--I was referring to all the comments on this thread that have been what I consider vituperative and I didn't explain that well.
I also understand your point about public policy based on the Bible.
I do not agree that people who voted against the amendment are by definition more educated than others. People can be dumb as a box of rocks and vote, period. I draw no conclusions about someone's intelligence or education based on what box they check when standing at a voting machine. I know way too many people who have admitted to me that they vote for judges, for example, based on eeny meeny miney moe.
I would rather be labeled a redneck than an elitist, but that's just me. Glad it didn't offend you, as it was meant to describe how your posts are coming across and not as a personal affront.
This really is the bottom line, no matter how many people refuse to actually hear it. Religion should have absolutely no impact on legislation. None. So all the bible thumping and scripture quoting is irrelevant. All citizens are not Christians, all citizens do not believe in the bible, and some citizens don't even believe in god. The laws passed affect everyone, not just people who agree with certain religious beliefs. This amendment is something that never should have made it to the ballot in the first place because its premise was based on religious views. Of course we have freedom of religion, and of course people have the right to follow whatever belief system they choose. But that line should be drawn (and is supposed to be drawn) when it comes to legal matters. Religious dogma has no place in legislation. The separation between church and state is becoming increasingly blurred.
Just playing devill's advocate here, but one man's dogma is another man's principles. Moral conviction is not what blurs the separation between church and state--activist legislation is-- and that can come from either side of the political fence.
I do not agree that people who voted against the amendment are by definition more educated than others. People can be dumb as a box of rocks and vote, period. I draw no conclusions about someone's intelligence or education based on what box they check when standing at a voting machine. I know way too many people who have admitted to me that they vote for judges, for example, based on eeny meeny miney moe.
I would rather be labeled a redneck than an elitist, but that's just me. Glad it didn't offend you, as it was meant to describe how your posts are coming across and not as a personal affront.
I left the judges blank this go around for precisely that reason.
I did not mean to imply that all people who voted for this were unintelligent or uneducated. But, if you look at the precincts that voted for this vs. the precincts that voted against this, you will find a high positive correlation between those who voted against and those with higher education.
Just playing decil's advocate here, but one man's dogma is another man's principles. Moral conviction is not what blurs the separation between church and state--activist legislation.
As I stated, religion should have no impact on legislation. I clearly stated my view, you and others are certainly free to disagree if you choose. But I have no interest and will not participate in playing devil's advocate nor arguing for argument's sake.
referring to previous comments about education etc. some of this stuff sounds like "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" Orwell.
just a point to consider as far as the republicans making this vote and issue for their own purposes. Maybe they did. but...
is it possible that this was done with the full recognition and compliance of the democrats so they could get a fired up and newly committed base?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
