Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 4:12 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, Faith, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,087 Year: 5,124/19,786 Month: 1,246/873 Week: 142/460 Day: 84/58 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   What Would Society Look Like Under Biblical Fundamentalism?
subbie
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 31 (383704)
02-08-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by iceage
02-08-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Easy questions
Actually, the sources I've seen attribute the atheist quote to Bush, pere.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iceage, posted 02-08-2007 8:24 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by iceage, posted 02-08-2007 11:02 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 17 of 31 (383709)
02-08-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
02-04-2007 3:19 PM


check the old stuff.
we've already had two discussions on this. this is a thread i started, which lists the other thread in the first post.

http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/lawslibertyes.html

this is the code of laws from the massachusetts bay colony. if you want to know what a fundamentalist constitution would look like, you have only to read that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 02-04-2007 3:19 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4022 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 18 of 31 (383731)
02-08-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
02-08-2007 9:18 PM


Re: Easy questions
whoops I have maligned GW, I apologize ton GW fans and take it back.

However I doubt the nut fell to far from the tree....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 02-08-2007 9:18 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4061 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 19 of 31 (384273)
02-10-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
02-04-2007 3:19 PM


anglagard writes:

I realize this topic could easily meander all over so I would ask that we allow the fundamentalists to speak for themselves and stick close to the topic if promoted. I think the questions asked are of great importance in furthering mutual understanding of the position held by both sides of the debate.

I am not a Biblical Fundementalist, as you know. I think I could speak for them when I say; no one wants to or needs to change anything, but the hearts of men.

A democracy would be a better one if everyone were motivated to cooperate. If everyone in their hearts wanted the same thing, which was to be an honest and just person, it would not matter if the government was democratic or monarchic. The people would trust in their leaders, and their leaders would make just decisions, whether they were elected or born.

We could maintain the same law and justice system, but have less need to enforce it.

We would not need to censor anything because everyone would agree about what was suitable in culture.

In short, if we were to convert everyone to a more loving, honest, altruistic and self-denying person, we would have a better society no matter what our motivation. Christians try to spread their ideals, because they believe that it gives people motive for being better. At one time ideas were forced, now they are spread by 'conversions' and I don't think anyone any longer would desire a forced christianity. It simply does not work. What does work is to spread the same ideals via many different mediums. That is where we are now, but we are still 'forcing' with laws, and not conversions. Society still does not hand out enough rewards for goodness...goodness does not get us a job, a house, etc, with any more certainty than does deception.

I think your question is about what would happen if Fundementalists were in a position to 'force' themselves. I can not answer therefore the questions about scientific regulations, etc. It is not right to say 'society would look like an Amish community' because everyone in Amish communities is Amish. These communities right now depend on other communitoes to fight wars, study science, and supply materials without which they could not survive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 02-04-2007 3:19 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Nighttrain, posted 02-10-2007 11:01 PM anastasia has not yet responded
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2007 9:25 AM anastasia has responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 20 of 31 (384329)
02-10-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by anastasia
02-10-2007 6:52 PM


Conversions
In short, if we were to convert everyone to a more loving, honest, altruistic and self-denying person, we would have a better society no matter what our motivation

We tried that, but religionists are soooooo hard to budge. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 6:52 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 21 of 31 (384362)
02-11-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by anastasia
02-10-2007 6:52 PM


Where Everyone Agrees
Anastasia writes:

We would not need to censor anything because everyone would agree about what was suitable in culture.

Show me a nation, now or in history, where everyone agrees what is suitable in culture and I will show you hell on earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anastasia, posted 02-10-2007 6:52 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anastasia, posted 02-11-2007 1:36 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4061 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 31 (384420)
02-11-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by anglagard
02-11-2007 9:25 AM


Re: Where Everyone Agrees
anglagard writes:

Show me a nation, now or in history, where everyone agrees what is suitable in culture and I will show you hell on earth.

I think you are right, I am giving an ideal, which is not practical.
My point remains; it may be interesting to speculate about a Fundementalist society, but I don't think there would be any point in forcing one, or anything desirable about it. That has already happened, in many places, in some degree or another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anglagard, posted 02-11-2007 9:25 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 23 of 31 (384462)
02-11-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
02-04-2007 3:19 PM


Buzsaw, Nemesis Juggernaut, and Hoot Mon implied that any fear of Christian Fundamentalism is misplaced and overblown.

In comparison to the ideology of radical Islam it certainly pales in comparison.

Form of Government: Would you preserve democracy as it is now, or would you prefer a government made up of religious leaders of your persuasion, a kingdom, a dictatorship, or some other form of government?

I think the insight of the Framers was remarkably eloquent. What I wish is that we went back to their insight, which I feel is being manipulated by special interest groups on both sides. In other words, I wouldn't change the foundation of the nation for anything.

First Amendment freedoms: Would these be preserved or would some religions or forms of free speech such as pornography or criticism of religious/government leaders be banned?

The tricky thing about the freedom of speech is this: Everybody likes the fact that we can speak our minds without the fear of reprisal. We tend not to like censorship, and with good reason. But at the same time, there are things out there that espouse, condone, or urge violence or destruction to be taken. When speech turns to the commission of violent action, it should not be tolerated.

The interesting thing about pornography is that it is essentially prostitution. Not for the viewer, but for the pornographers and the "actors." So, could you restrict those laws because it was being filmed during the commission of a crime? I don't know. It doesn't seem to be the case because every one that has tried to stop has been stifled by the defense against censorship.

Education: Would you change public education to include religious instruction and if so, which religion(s) would be permitted? Would you ban education in all Natural Sciences, ban specific elements of the sciences such as evolution, geoscience, and cosmology or leave public education as it is?

I think public schools should offer theology classes like public colleges do. I even think the Bible, the Vedas, the Qur'an, etc, should be considered as part of literature, if nothing else. There seems to be this great fear of these tomes. That is as equally a grievous thing as the expressed teaching of it in school, in my opinion.

As far as science, I would leave it as it is with the exception of allowing ID to be considered in the curriculum.

Medicine: I know that there is much made about the power of prayer and faith healing among our fundies. Would you ban the practice of modern medicine? Would you replace current medical treatments with prayer, laying on of hands, and snake handling?

Prayer and medicine are two different things. Both of them have their place in life. I mean, Luke was a doctor. Jesus Himself stated that the healthy don't need doctors, but the sick. In other words, I don't subscribe to Christian Science.

Popular Culture: Would you censor books, music, and movies? Would there be a dress code like the Amish or Mao Zedong’s China had/have? Would homosexuality be made illegal?, Abortion?, Premarital sex?, Alcohol, Tobacco?, Medicine/Drugs?, Rap Music?, Rock Music?

The only thing I would criminalize in your list is abortion because I see it as murder. All the other things are social constructs. You can't force people to abstain from sex, homosexual or heterosexual. And I think its a very bad idea to try and implement that. You have to reach people on the level of explaining what can happen if you engage in these kinds of behavior. Its like with alcohol. We warn people that it can be a detriment not only to themselves, but can affect the lives of others. But we don't tell them to be teetotalers.

Justice: Would we retain our current system or would crimes and punishments be dictated by Biblical Law and rendered by religious authorities? What would the criminal justice system look like? Would there be a death penalty?

If I was in charge I would abolish the death penalty. However, felony convictions would not be so easily undermined as they tend to be now where the rapist gets 1 year, but the victim gets life.

Foreign Relations: Would foreign policy be based upon Biblical prophecy? Would we unconditionally support Israel? Would you want a holy crusade to exterminate Islam?, Communism?, Secularism?, Catholicism?, Europe?

No. Prophecy is a caveat not a foreign policy. And we would align ourselves with countries who share our visions of democratic peace. Countries that opposed us would be dealt with diplomacy. Any kind of preemptive strike after diplomacy failed would only be allowed in the event that hard intelligence substantiates an imminent threat to the national security of the United States and its allies.

Technology: Would we no longer be allowed to use the principles of evolution in biological and medical research? Would we no longer be allowed to explore for oil and other mineral resources using principles from old earth geology? Would anything involving nuclear reactions become illegal as such scientists that are involved believe in nuclear decay? Or would such endeavors be hypocritically declared off-limits to the cleansing of our new age cultural revolutionaries as in China during the 60s?

No. Technology would still continue as it always has since the invention of the wheel and writing.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 02-04-2007 3:19 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 02-11-2007 8:29 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 27 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 24 of 31 (384508)
02-11-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 5:24 PM


Curriculum
As far as science, I would leave it as it is with the exception of allowing ID to be considered in the curriculum.

ID? ID? Um, isn`t that the vague attempt at sounding scientific where the proponents can`t even name who the Incompetent Designer is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 5:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 9:27 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 25 of 31 (384523)
02-11-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nighttrain
02-11-2007 8:29 PM


Re: Curriculum
ID? ID? Um, isn`t that the vague attempt at sounding scientific where the proponents can`t even name who the Incompetent Designer is?

No, that's re-runs of Star Trek.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 02-11-2007 8:29 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4017 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 26 of 31 (384559)
02-12-2007 5:15 AM


Stance on climate change?
What would the stance on Global Warming be for such a nation?

I've seen some fundies who believe we can do whatever we want with the planet, because the Earth is just temporary for us, but then I've seen others who take their role as 'guardians' very seriously.

I guess it would depend on which fundamentalist.


"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now." - Arthur C. Clarke


    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 31 (386144)
02-19-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 5:24 PM


Buzsaw, Nemesis Juggernaut, and Hoot Mon implied that any fear of Christian Fundamentalism is misplaced and overblown.

quote:
In comparison to the ideology of radical Islam it certainly pales in comparison.

I don't see a lot of difference, personally.

In either system, as a woman I would be completely marginalized.

quote:
In other words, I wouldn't change the foundation of the nation for anything.

So, you agree that the government should be strictly secular?

quote:
As far as science, I would leave it as it is with the exception of allowing ID to be considered in the curriculum.

So, you advocate for religion being included in science classrooms, then.

At the very least, you advocate for non-science to be taught as if it were science.

quote:
The only thing I would criminalize in your list is abortion because I see it as murder.

So, what would this look like in practice, exactly?

Would you sentence 12 year old incest victims who get abortions to spend their lives in prison? What about all rape victims? Or the single mother of 6 who is barely making ends meet as it is? What about girls who are too young to have babies and carrying a pregnancy to term might make them infertile?

Would you also advocate imprisoning the physicians who performed them? Would you prosecute as accesories to murder the parents, siblings, or friends of a girl or woman who took her to get an abortion?

Assuming that you do succeed in reducing abortions through these extreme punitive measures, how are you going to provide for the many thousands of unwanted babies that are going to flood the country?

Are you prepared for the upsurge in crime that the increase in children living in poverty will certainly bring?

Also, are you going to pay the funeral expenses and provide for the surviving dependents of the women and girls who die because safe abortion services were not available?

Juggs, I strongly suggest that you read Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale. It is a not-too-unrealistic depiction of what might happen if the christian fundies got into power here in the US.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 5:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Mespo, posted 02-22-2007 4:18 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 31 (386590)
02-22-2007 3:05 PM


bump, so this doesn't disappear
I'd really like to know what Juggs' criminalizing of abortion would look like in practice.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


    
Mespo
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 29 of 31 (386613)
02-22-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
02-19-2007 9:11 PM


Status of Women
I don't see a lot of difference, personally.

In either system, as a woman I would be completely marginalized

Aren't you at least glad that Honor Killing never quite caught on in this country, Fundamentalist or not.

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 02-19-2007 9:11 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 02-23-2007 3:32 PM Mespo has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 31 (386780)
02-23-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Mespo
02-22-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Status of Women
Mespo writes:

Aren't you at least glad that Honor Killing never quite caught on in this country, Fundamentalist or not.


Honor Killing never caught on in this country because we had the foresight for valuing our properties. Tell me, if you have a car and your car is acting up, like needing some warming up before it starts, are you going to drive it into a river or are you going to try to fix it?

A woman is a property. If she does something wrong, killing her is like throwing away valuable property. It's better just to give her a few beatings and say "I love you..."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Mespo, posted 02-22-2007 4:18 PM Mespo has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019