Why do Americans Hate Democracy?

[Draka]

It is interesting what people will say when they are defeated in debate.

I fail to see how I was defeated in debate. I was right. In this country you don't have the right to force others to live by your religious ideology. That's why we have freedom of religion. That's why we are a secular country. The reason I said what I did is because only a person who doesn't believe in those rights, or believes people shouldn't have those rights, who would do anything they want to get what they want, regardless of the methodology, the whole "ends justify the means" line of thought, would speak in the manner you did. You were the one who used ISIS for an example for goodness sake. Here we are talking about democracy, religious freedom, liberty, secular government vs religious/majority rule and YOU bring in ISIS as an example of how a person has a right to do basically whatever they feel they can accomplish. No matter the outcome. No matter what suffering it inflicts upon others. No, you don't have that "right". Not legally in this country, and certainly not morally in most people's minds. If you have that right morally in your mind, then perhaps you should examine who else seems to think they have that right as well and see what kind of company you keep.

 

[Iti oj]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-will-vs-natural-determinism.html#post3974906

 

[Sonofason]

I fail to see how I was defeated in debate. I was right. In this country you don't have the right to force others to live by your religious ideology. That's why we have freedom of religion. That's why we are a secular country. The reason I said what I did is because only a person who doesn't believe in those rights, or believes people shouldn't have those rights, who would do anything they want to get what they want, regardless of the methodology, the whole "ends justify the means" line of thought, would speak in the manner you did. You were the one who used ISIS for an example for goodness sake. Here we are talking about democracy, religious freedom, liberty, secular government vs religious/majority rule and YOU bring in ISIS as an example of how a person has a right to do basically whatever they feel they can accomplish. No matter the outcome. No matter what suffering it inflicts upon others. No, you don't have that "right". Not legally in this country, and certainly not morally in most people's minds. If you have that right morally in your mind, then perhaps you should examine who else seems to think they have that right as well and see what kind of company you keep.

It was you who said "The only thing that anyone is preventing you from doing is requiring others to live by your personal religious morals and convictions. That, you simply have no right to do."

I was merely pointing out with the ISIS example, that if I wanted, if I truly desired to require others to live by my personal religious morals, I could work towards that goal. I never said it was good. But if I were capable of it, it would be my right to do, just as ISIS currently has the right to require others to live by their personal religious morals. In a Godless society, might makes right.

You know, if I wanted to chop off a cat's head, I could. If I were determined to do such a thing, I would. But I am not that person. Surely, it'd be illegal for me to discuss what I would do in the presence of a true ISIS advocate.

 

[Draka]

It was you who said "The only thing that anyone is preventing you from doing is requiring others to live by your personal religious morals and convictions. That, you simply have no right to do."

I was merely pointing out with the ISIS example, that if I wanted, if I truly desired to require others to live by my personal religious morals, I could work towards that goal. I never said it was good. But if I were capable of it, it would be my right to do, just as ISIS currently has the right to require others to live by their personal religious morals. In a Godless society, might makes right.

You know, if I wanted to chop off a cat's head, I could. If I were determined to do such a thing, I would. But I am not that person. Surely, it'd be illegal for me to discuss what I would do in the presence of a true ISIS advocate.

No, in this country, it is not your right to do so. That's in our basic fundamental building blocks of our country. You have a right to an education, you have a right to your religion, you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to murder someone, you do not have the right to steal, you do not have the right to make others live by your religious beliefs and morals.

Honestly, given your opinion, and the opinions of those following certain terrorist groups, in comparison to the opinions of those in charge of secular societies and governments...you seem to have it backwards. In a "godless" society fairness and equality makes right, where in a "one-minded narrow viewed God" society "might makes right".

See, this is why we have rules. Rules for fairness. Rules for equality. Rules for liberty. Rules to establish what "rights" we have in this country so that the aforementioned stay preserved.

 

[Sonofason]

No, in this country, it is not your right to do so. That's in our basic fundamental building blocks of our country. You have a right to an education, you have a right to your religion, you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to murder someone, you do not have the right to steal, you do not have the right to make others live by your religious beliefs and morals.

Honestly, given your opinion, and the opinions of those following certain terrorist groups, in comparison to the opinions of those in charge of secular societies and governments...you seem to have it backwards. In a "godless" society fairness and equality makes right, where in a "one-minded narrow viewed God" society "might makes right".

See, this is why we have rules. Rules for fairness. Rules for equality. Rules for liberty. Rules to establish what "rights" we have in this country so that the aforementioned stay preserved.

Believe me, I'm very much in favor of giving people rights. I'm very much in favor of establishing rules for fairness, for equality, and for liberty. But I also realize that when the rights of others infringe on my own personal set of values and morals, that I will grant myself the right to do what ever I see fit to either work towards removing those particular rights from others that I deem offensive, or to grant new rights to them as I see fit.

 

[Draka]

Believe me, I'm very much in favor of giving people rights. I'm very much in favor of establishing rules for fairness, for equality, and for liberty. But I also realize that when the rights of others infringe on my own personal set of values and morals, that I will grant myself the right to do what ever I see fit to either work towards removing those particular rights from others that I deem offensive, or to grant new rights to them as I see fit.

As I said though, no one is limiting you from living by your personal religious values and morals. And you simply cannot "grant" yourself the right to do whatever you see fit to remove others' rights either. Do you simply not see how that sounds? I mean, I suppose you could "grant" yourself the right, but then you'd be no better than the terrorists who do the very same things for the very same reasons.

And rights you deem offensive? Why should the rights of people, all people, any people, be determined on whether or not you think they are "offensive" rights? They are not determined upon your whim. They are determined upon many factors. Legality, equality, fairness, humanity, not a one of these would be if Joe Schmoe thinks a right is "offensive" based upon his own worldview of things.

 

[Sonofason]

As I said though, no one is limiting you from living by your personal religious values and morals. And you simply cannot "grant" yourself the right to do whatever you see fit to remove others' rights either. Do you simply not see how that sounds? I mean, I suppose you could "grant" yourself the right, but then you'd be no better than the terrorists who do the very same things for the very same reasons.

And rights you deem offensive? Why should the rights of people, all people, any people, be determined on whether or not you think they are "offensive" rights? They are not determined upon your whim. They are determined upon many factors. Legality, equality, fairness, humanity, not a one of these would be if Joe Schmoe thinks a right is "offensive" based upon his own worldview of things.

I will of course take that into consideration.

 

[Sonofason]

So I can ban religion?

You wouldn't be the first to try.

 

[Iti oj]

You wouldn't be the first to try.

I wouldn't try. Regardless of how filthy you make it look.

 

[Sonofason]

I wouldn't try. Regardless of how filthy you make it look.

I take it then, that I can count on you not to participate, in any way, shape or form, to an infringement upon my 1st and 2nd amendment rights?

 

[Iti oj]

I take it then, that I can count on you not to participate, in any way, shape or form, to an infringement upon my 1st and 2nd amendment rights?

Of course not. Why would I? Long live Liberty . I'll stop you from infringing i on mine or any one else's.

 

[Sonofason]

Of course not. Why would I? Long live Liberty . I'll stop you from infringing i on mine or any one else's.

Sounds fair enough

 

[Draka]

I take it then, that I can count on you not to participate, in any way, shape or form, to an infringement upon my 1st and 2nd amendment rights?

I am curious. First, what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with religious values or morals or beliefs? Second, why are you concerned with others infringing on rights when you seem so willing to strip them from others?

 

[Sonofason]

I am curious. First, what does the 2nd Amendment have to do with religious values or morals or beliefs? Second, why are you concerned with others infringing on rights when you seem so willing to strip them from others?

Apparently you misunderstood me. I have not once suggested that I was willing to strip away rights from people.

YOU made a false statement, or at least, you made a claim without providing a shred of evidence to support it. You said, that the only reason that a greater percentage of black people are convicted of more crimes than other ethnicities in this country was because of racism. You attempted to assert that the statistics I provided were untrue, or somehow tainted because of racism.

You said,

"The "statistics" prove otherwise because of racism. This has been proven time and time again. There have been so many social experiments done that prove that this is the case, plus you could just watch the news. It really isn't that blacks commit more crimes, it is because people (due to racial stereotypes) assume blacks to commit more crimes and assume a black person to be committing a crime even when they aren't and will even overlook a white person committing the very same crime. There have been many video social experiment set ups which prove this the case."

Yet you provide no evidence to support your claim, whereas I provided evidence for my claim.

But then you continued:

Though what any of this has to do with you being able to live by your own religious values in this country I have no idea at all. No one is preventing you from living by your own religious morals and convictions. No one. The only thing that anyone is preventing you from doing is requiring others to live by your personal religious morals and convictions. That, you simply have no right to do. And that, seems to be the crux of the issue.

You see, you said that (you) are somehow preventing me from requiring you to live by my personal religious morals and convictions.

And I disagree. YOU are preventing me from doing nothing. YOU are not stopping me from doing anything.

It is I who govern my own actions. I will do anything I want to do. And knowing this fact reminded me of what ISIS is doing right now. You see, I am not at such a point in my life where I find it necessary to stop you. If I were, I would; which is exactly what ISIS is doing. They have decided to take matters into their own hands, just as I could if I chose to do so. That does not mean that I am at this present time willing to do anything that you should fear. But if I should find myself in such a position as to believe that is my only option, that could be the option I choose to take.

I will let you know if I should come to my wits end. At such a point we could discuss my demands.

Are you willing to kill a man to save your own life?
Are you willing to kill a man to maintain your rights?
Are you willing to die for the freedoms that you hold dear?

These are very real question, and they are, considering what I see happening across the globe, questions that Americans will have to answer very soon.

I am not willing to take away your rights right now. But I am capable of taking away a mans rights if I should need to do so, and hopefully, so are you.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This country is becoming so divided politically and religiously that I think everyone wants their way. They are being selfish instead of thinking about what is good for the country as a whole.

 

[Sand Dancer]

If we were to abide in Christ, there would be no need to be governed. But honestly, what we all need is a righteous dictator. The problem is, no such person is presently in this world. That individual is soon to come. Honestly, I like the idea of democracy for a nation abiding in Christ. For all who vote would have all of our best interests at heart. But I certainly don't want an immoral majority telling me how to live my life. I'll take anarchy over that any day.

This would not be good for everyone in the country, only the Christians, and maybe only fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Draka]

Apparently you misunderstood me. I have not once suggested that I was willing to strip away rights from people.

You said this:

Believe me, I'm very much in favor of giving people rights. I'm very much in favor of establishing rules for fairness, for equality, and for liberty. But I also realize that when the rights of others infringe on my own personal set of values and morals, that I will grant myself the right to do what ever I see fit to either work towards removing those particular rights from others that I deem offensive, or to grant new rights to them as I see fit.

YOU made a false statement, or at least, you made a claim without providing a shred of evidence to support it. You said, that the only reason that a greater percentage of black people are convicted of more crimes than other ethnicities in this country was because of racism. You attempted to assert that the statistics I provided were untrue, or somehow tainted because of racism.

You said,


Yet you provide no evidence to support your claim, whereas I provided evidence for my claim.

You accuse me of providing no evidence, yet say you provided evidence yourself when you did nothing of the sort. You've provided none either. You presented "statistics say" and I presented "studies show". My point was that "statistics say" doesn't mean much if the data is constantly put in doubt by studies which show that racism is in play. You can hem and haw all you like about my "lack of evidence", but unless you want me filling up this thread with links to videos and the like I'm just not interested in being the only one of us providing anything. Make do with the argument.

You see, you said that (you) are somehow preventing me from requiring you to live by my personal religious morals and convictions.

And I disagree. YOU are preventing me from doing nothing. YOU are not stopping me from doing anything.

I never said I was stopping you from anything. I said you don't have the legal right in this country to do something. Are you still not comprehending this point after all this time?

It is I who govern my own actions. I will do anything I want to do. And knowing this fact reminded me of what ISIS is doing right now. You see, I am not at such a point in my life where I find it necessary to stop you. If I were, I would; which is exactly what ISIS is doing. They have decided to take matters into their own hands, just as I could if I chose to do so. That does not mean that I am at this present time willing to do anything that you should fear. But if I should find myself in such a position as to believe that is my only option, that could be the option I choose to take.

Again you draw parallel to terrorists for example as to how to live according to your own personal "rights", law and others be damned. Great internal moral company you keep there.

I will let you know if I should come to my wits end. At such a point we could discuss my demands.

I'm sure they should be taken seriously as well given this discussion.

Are you willing to kill a man to save your own life?

Depends on the situation, but I have that legal right if necessary.

Are you willing to kill a man to maintain your rights?

My personal rights? Depends on the rights and the circumstances. In some cases I may have the right, and in others I don't. Not a fan of killing either way.

Are you willing to die for the freedoms that you hold dear?

Answered with my military service.

These are very real question, and they are, considering what I see happening across the globe, questions that Americans will have to answer very soon.

I have no idea why.

I am not willing to take away your rights right now. But I am capable of taking away a mans rights if I should need to do so, and hopefully, so are you.

You are not capable of taking away my rights, nor do I find myself not only not capable of doing that, but I have no desire to either. I have no idea why you would hope that I would.


Oh, nearly forgot, in all that, you never answered my question. What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with religious morals, values and beliefs? Further, how would infringement upon it be a hindrance of your religious values? I'm sorry, but I don't recall reading Jesus say anything about packing a Glock. I mean, you and Iti were talking about religion when you mentioned the 2nd Amendment. I'm curious how you link the two.

 

[Sonofason]

You said this:


You accuse me of providing no evidence, yet say you provided evidence yourself when you did nothing of the sort. You've provided none either. You presented "statistics say" and I presented "studies show". My point was that "statistics say" doesn't mean much if the data is constantly put in doubt by studies which show that racism is in play. You can hem and haw all you like about my "lack of evidence", but unless you want me filling up this thread with links to videos and the like I'm just not interested in being the only one of us providing anything. Make do with the argument.



I never said I was stopping you from anything. I said you don't have the legal right in this country to do something. Are you still not comprehending this point after all this time?

Again you draw parallel to terrorists for example as to how to live according to your own personal "rights", law and others be damned. Great internal moral company you keep there.

I'm sure they should be taken seriously as well given this discussion.

Depends on the situation, but I have that legal right if necessary.
My personal rights? Depends on the rights and the circumstances. In some cases I may have the right, and in others I don't. Not a fan of killing either way.
Answered with my military service.

I have no idea why.

You are not capable of taking away my rights, nor do I find myself not only not capable of doing that, but I have no desire to either. I have no idea why you would hope that I would.


Oh, nearly forgot, in all that, you never answered my question. What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with religious morals, values and beliefs? Further, how would infringement upon it be a hindrance of your religious values? I'm sorry, but I don't recall reading Jesus say anything about packing a Glock. I mean, you and Iti were talking about religion when you mentioned the 2nd Amendment. I'm curious how you link the two.

Actually, I did provide evidence. I shared this link which supports the claim I made. I could show you many verifiable websites that show the same results, because the results are indisputable.
Do Blacks Really Commit the Most Crimes? | TALKBACK4Teens
You are suggesting that the reason that these statistics are true is a result of racism. That you have not proven. Nor have you shown any evidence to support your claim. I was not trying to show why blacks commit more crime in America. I was only showing that it is a proven fact that they do.

You are suggesting that the statistics I've provided are wrong.
Show your evidence.

It is evil to neglect maintaining a means to protect one's self and others.
"Then said he (Jesus) unto them (His disciples), But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:6) Glocks didn't exist in Jesus' day, but I surely understand His intentions for making this statement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We don't have much left of it, so I think it must be fair to conclude we hate it. Why is that?

We've never had a democracy. We're a representative republic. Good thing too - imagine the tyranny of the majority if we actually lived under a democracy in this country.

 

[Yerda]

We've never had a democracy. We're a representative republic. Good thing too - imagine the tyranny of the majority if we actually lived under a democracy in this country.

A representative republic can be democratic. Democracy is about more than majority rule.