The Liberal Social Democratic Party Steps Out Of The Closet

[Leland]

Originally posted by Voltaire
Here is a question, would you require that if a women marries and is not a virgin that she be stoned to death as dictated by Deuteronomy 22:13-21?

As surely as Cainan begat Mahalaleel. And don't get me started on the godless old men who pick up sticks during Sabbath, they make my righteous blood boil.

In any case, it seems that all parties have some irrational aversion towards the Fundamentalists... the unbelievers seem to agree on almost all policies, with the exception of one SE choice, yet they choose to mock us not unlike Pharisees mocked our Lord in the old world.

[Voltaire]

Crisler,

Well not your religious/philosophical stance has been defined slightly better. I have no problem with it whatsoever, I may disagree but I have no objections to a person holding any belief so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

But I do still have certain objections to your philosophical views being used as government policy in terms of morality. Morality should be in the hands of the individual, though there are certain set moral standards which a society should follow, these standards should be allowed to evolve within a society naturally without any government interference. I do not believe that the government should be involved with these matters.

[Anodyne]

Now, the natures of our ideologies differ from each other fundamentally.
(to put it short; )
You ideology is largely based on a strong authority (religion) that tells us how to do. It means that your models for action are usually pre-determined.

Our ideology is based on people more free of any authority, to make their decisions by themselves. Our models for action are usually not pre-determined.

Both models have their drawbacks and good sides. And about our particular parties and their ideology-systems we could argue forever...and I'd say that on a long run that benefits neither one of us.

[Voltaire]

In any case, it seems that all parties have some irrational aversion towards the Fundamentalists... the unbelievers seem to agree on almost all policies, with the exception of one SE choice, yet they choose to mock us not unlike Pharisees mocked our Lord in the old world.

I do not want anyone dictating to me what to believe, or what is right and wrong. Our aversion is not towards your brand of religious fundamentalism, but to all fundamentalist creeds. I would oppose an atheistic state if it had a dogma (such as Communism in the former USSR). The fact that you are attempting to enforce a particular brand of religious fundamentalism (in this case Christian) in inconsequential.

[Anodyne]

, Voltaire.

[Kassiopeia]

he unbelievers seem to agree on almost all policies, with the exception of one SE choice, yet they choose to mock us not unlike Pharisees mocked our Lord in the old world.

One, crucial SE choice that's very different from others, has it's own negatives and is the basis of your ideals.

[Crisler]

Okay Voltair lets take your example and run with it. We begin a society with no moral rudder, anything goes. Murder and theft will run rampid quickly. Do we ban them? What about a persons rights to freedom? Espionage and sabotage run rampid, again they are expressing dissatifaction with the current goverment, exercising thier right to freedom.

Society every day places a moral standard out there for it's people. The problem is most societies only go half way and as such end up with matters almost as bad as not having a standard at all.

A classic example of Christian morality helpign society. In the ages following Christ when people became ill they where locked in their home or sent to a colony of the sick. No one wanted to tend them. Ever docotrs of that time, mostly greek, would not see a patient face to face for fear of spreading the desiese. However many Christians could not leave people to die alone from their illness. Using philosphies passed down from Jesus they opened their homes to the sick. In many cases the Christians died trying to save those lives. But over time people knew if they got sick they could come to these homes and be welcomed and cared for. As time passed and more doctors became Christians they began to work in these homes directly with the patiences.

This effort was the direct ancestory of the concept for the modern hospital, all from the Christian morality point that we should care for our neighbors.

Without the moral rudder the early Christians provided to this movement, the modern hospital could well be centuries behind it's current level of developement.

A goverment is in the end responsable for itself to it's people. If we begin our goverment with a strong moral rudder to guide our people by then we are ensuring they will have happy and prosperous lives. By providing no rudder we risk sending our colony into choas from the start.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Leland]

However, this SE choice is not available in the very beginning, and even afterwards it requires a popular vote which will not be won as long as Godless precepts of men rule Chiron. It seems to boil down to whether the other factions are willing to give up their disdain of God's Perfect Word and cooperate towards common goals, or if they will persecute us to the last man as it is Prophesied.

(Off-character: uh, we all do see the difference between roleplaying and strategy here, yes?)

[Kassiopeia]

(Off-character: uh, we all do see the difference between roleplaying and strategy here, yes?)

(OOC: I hope so. )

[Crisler]

(RP Off... Sadly I have also become a bit worried about this. Don't get me wrong I am a conservative Christian and proud of my faith. In all honest I am not real happy with the way the Belivers are portrayed in the game but then again I am glad that they at least got the Christians acknowledged :-) RP On...)

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Voltaire]

Okay Voltair lets take your example and run with it. We begin a society with no moral rudder, anything goes. Murder and theft will run rampid quickly. Do we ban them? What about a persons rights to freedom? Espionage and sabotage run rampid, again they are expressing dissatifaction with the current goverment, exercising thier right to freedom.

First of all, all societies have set moral standards, ethics are morals seem to be the human herd instinct. But even if we do assume no morality, we do have laws to ensure things such as this do not occur. You should do well to remember that all religions and philosophies of Earth share the basic moral principles in common (i.e. do not kill, do no steal, etc.). And also we aren’t starting out from nothing, we have the entire history of Earth behind us to work with, and the colonists already do have morals of their own.

Society every day places a moral standard out there for it's people. The problem is most societies only go half way and as such end up with matters almost as bad as not having a standard at all.

Again, laws exist to protest people and to ensure their freedom, not morals.

A classic example of Christian morality helpign society. In the ages following Christ when people became ill they where locked in their home or sent to a colony of the sick. No one wanted to tend them. Ever docotrs of that time, mostly greek, would not see a patient face to face for fear of spreading the desiese. However many Christians could not leave people to die alone from their illness. Using philosphies passed down from Jesus they opened their homes to the sick. In many cases the Christians died trying to save those lives. But over time people knew if they got sick they could come to these homes and be welcomed and cared for. As time passed and more doctors became Christians they began to work in these homes directly with the patiences.

It should also be noted that numerous atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ: the Inquisition, the Crusades, Witch Hunts, and the list goes on and on. I am reminded of a quote from Stephen Weinberg: "Without religion, it will always be possible for good men to do good, and for evil men to do evil; but for good men to do evil - that takes religion." So even though religion does provide some sets of moral standards that are helpful, it also creates problems. And why cannot these moral standards exist in a secular system?

This effort was the direct ancestory of the concept for the modern hospital, all from the Christian morality point that we should care for our neighbors.

So no other religions have the moral point of view of helping others? So those who do not believe are not capable of compassion for their neighbors?

Without the moral rudder the early Christians provided to this movement, the modern hospital could well be centuries behind it's current level of developement.

Without the interference of Christianity and the Church we would be centuries ahead technologically.

A goverment is in the end responsable for itself to it's people. If we begin our goverment with a strong moral rudder to guide our people by then we are ensuring they will have happy and prosperous lives. By providing no rudder we risk sending our colony into choas from the start.

A government’s role is to provide an environment for its people to function is productively. It is not meant as a means of protecting people from themselves, or at least shouldn’t be.

[Voltaire]

I want to apologize for some things in the last post, they were off topic. But I felt I had to respond.

[Crisler]

Of course it should be, imagine old Earth, WW2 era. The US has a nuclear weapon. No other country has it. Without some kind of moral guideline the US would have become the Nazi and conquered the world. But the leadership of the US was guideed by a sense of Christian morality.

We could be farher in science without the ethics brought out by the Christian faith. However those same ethics might have saved us. Just becasue we can do a thing does not mean we should do that thing. It is easy to make discoveries, it is hard to use them in a way that hurts no one. Think of all the discoveries today that could have hurt mankind without a moral rudder.

Lets use cloning as an example. Say human cloning had not been held back and was widely supported. Today cloning would be a simple matter. The question before us would be are clones human? The debate would rage while some would use clones for body parts and others would fight for their freedom. A civil war the covered the planet would not be far behind.

Society must always protect people from themselves. A quote from a fiction movie is quite true. Humans are smart intelligent beings that can work there way through anything, people are a mindless crude animal that will destory before it will create.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[Voltaire]

Of course it should be, imagine old Earth, WW2 era. The US has a nuclear weapon. No other country has it. Without some kind of moral guideline the US would have become the Nazi and conquered the world. But the leadership of the US was guideed by a sense of Christian morality.

The US is a constitutional republic, its laws make it harder for their leadership to take any actions which the public doesn’t want. But also the US at the time wasn’t interested in war, it only joined the war after Pearl Harbor, Christianity wasn’t exactly the only factor which prevented them form taking over the world, in fact it was a small factor if a factor at all. But yes, I understand what you’re trying to get at, but also consider that European nations used Christianity as a rationalization for the conquest of other lands and the slaughter of those who wouldn’t conform with their views. So it’s a two-edged sword. Religion can be used for both good and evil.

We could be farher in science without the ethics brought out by the Christian faith. However those same ethics might have saved us. Just becasue we can do a thing does not mean we should do that thing. It is easy to make discoveries, it is hard to use them in a way that hurts no one. Think of all the discoveries today that could have hurt mankind without a moral rudder.

"People certainly blame science for nuclear weapons and similar horrors. It's been said before but needs to be said again: if you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them." -- Richard Dawkins

Science is neutral, people use science to create weapons. And it isn’t only Christian morals that prevent these things from being made in fact science will be used for all purposes. Technologies will be used to both create and to destroy, why then deny the use of technologies such as genetic engineering simply because it could be used to do great hard, equally it can do great good.

Lets use cloning as an example. Say human cloning had not been held back and was widely supported. Today cloning would be a simple matter. The question before us would be are clones human? The debate would rage while some would use clones for body parts and others would fight for their freedom. A civil war the covered the planet would not be far behind.

First of all, cloning has become a reality only recently, it was never held back. And furthermore it again depends on how cloning is used, if it were to be used to create tissue for patients (not by growing a full clone, but by simply cloning an organ) then there can be no moral outcry against the use of it as such. As for cloning a human being, I personally do not see the point, what use would it be off? Granted governments could use it to create armies of the perfect soldiers, but nonetheless, it cannot be used by the general public for any logical purpose. And besides, there of course would be laws prohibiting cloning for any reason one wishes. If you on the other hand ban it altogether it will submerge to the black market and people who wish to have some procedure done will do it anyway, and under unmonitored conditions. And to answer your question, if a human were to be cloned they would be human, no different form an identical twin of someone (except years younger), what difference would it make how they were created? And your prediction of a world war based on the issue of cloning is farfetched, you really haven’t presented evidence of this. And besides the most probable outcome would be, like with all new technologies, it will be met with opposition and then slowly integrated into society.

Society must always protect people from themselves. A quote from a fiction movie is quite true.

I agree, perhaps I should rephrase my earlier statement, the government is not meant to protect individuals from themselves.

Humans are smart intelligent beings that can work there way through anything, people are a mindless crude animal that will destory before it will create.

People, and in groups of people, I quite agree that people who classify themselves as part of a particular group will follow the basic animal instincts of defending their group. War really when you get to the basics of it is nothing more than human animal groups divided by ideology/religion/philosophy fighting for resources for their own group. Fundamentalism encourages this group mentality, which I believe is dangerous, that is why individualism should be encouraged by society as much as possible. We should equip people with the proper knowledge to make informed decisions for themselves, to come up with their own personal philosophy, this increases individuality as well as diversity of thought.

[Anodyne]

Now... I'm calling it a night soon, don't get too excited while I'm gone