Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Christian Fascists

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 36 posts ] 
Christian Fascists
Author Message
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Christian Fascists

I think it's time to show my "Christianophobic" side. :twisted: (a made up word of course, just like another word we could mention)

Now there's this party in my country called PNC (National Christian Party), well it's not really a party but it's on its way to becoming one once they have enough signatures. And what this party wants to achieve (among other things) is to change the Romanian Constitution and turn the country from a secular one to an Orthodox Christian one. More specifically they want a Christian elite in power, so if you're a non-Christian you're pretty much fucked, they support anti-blasphemy laws, they support religion being taught in public schools, they are anti-abortion, anti-prostitution, they support measures to increase birthrates (which honestly are a problem but I don't think I'd ever agree with most of their tactics), they don't want any immigrant becoming citizen unless he/she converts to Orthodox Christianity.

When it comes to foreign policy, they want out of the EU, out of NATO, and generally they have isolationist policies, which I don't agree with because we're fucked on our own. For example they don't want foreigners buying land, they want to nationalize (i.e. steal) land that's not cultivated which is kinda ironic given that they claim to be anti-communist which did the same thing: steal land and houses, they don't want food imports of food that can be produced here.

They want a stronger military, but given the fact that they also believe in several conspiracy theories about the Zionist NWO that's gonna start world wars and reduce the population to a few hundred million I just have to ask: If you believe there's some sinister cabal with that power that inflict such destruction and destabilize the world, WHAT GOOD do you think the military of a country with less than 20 million people will do? You're just delaying the inevitable. :lol:



Basically it's an ultra-conservative, ultra-nationalist, anti-western, anti-freedom party. A bunch of twats who see Romania as a decadent and corrupt country (it is) that they think they can solve it by imposing a theocracy based on Orthodox Christianity.

I don't like them, I don't trust them, and I don't even think this party should even be permitted to function given its totalitarian agenda that wants to abolish freedom of and from religion. Yes, the current parties are fucked and corrupt, but I don't believe for one second that they'll be any different and having a theocracy opens the door for plenty of abuse since people can commit any number of human rights violations and justify it using God. They sure like to talk about how only someone who fears God (i.e. fears punishment) can ever be a good ruler, ignoring the fact that someone can claim to fear God and secretly be an atheist anyway, so the problem wouldn't be solved. This is a despicable party that wants to gain power by exploiting people's disappointment with the current mainstream non-religious parties.

And don't get me wrong, I seriously doubt that they have a good chance to win any seats for the foreseeable future, but I'm not gonna wait until then to start speaking about it.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:01 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Christian Fascists

All words are made up :P

What is the likelihood of their members being voted into any position of authority? In numbers.

Take as an example the BNP in the UK. Worrying on the face of it, but most people don't agree with their policies and besides a blip a few years ago, turned out to be of no significance or threat whatsoever politically. They're now a laughing stock.

Is it better that these horrid little cunts are out in the open and their ideas are challenged directly, or that they are shunned and ostracized, ignored and disenfranchised?

Dogma's Demise wrote:I don't even think this party should even be permitted to function


You don't win by shutting your opponent up, you win by making them (or at the very least everyone else) see why they're wrong.

Your approach is not a matured, reasoned one.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:05 pm
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Prolescum wrote:You don't win by shutting your opponent up, you win by making them (or at the very least everyone else) see why they're wrong.

Your approach is not a matured, reasoned one.


Yeppers, very interesting indeed. Too bad everybody doesn't use this same mentality. It's the sneaky ones that change or add meaning to what is stated that are the most difficult to deal with. It's kinda like watching a spin machine (opinionated NEWS anchor) rotating at near infinite RPM (or words per minute to confuse and obfuscate). Communication is such a lovely little conundrum.
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Last edited by CommonEnlightenment on Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:34 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Prolescum wrote:All words are made up :P

What is the likelihood of their members being voted into any position of authority? In numbers.


It's pretty damn hard to estimate in the long run. Closest election? Not a chance. Zero. I doubt most people even heard of them and they still need signatures to actually form so they probably won't even show up on the list.

But later who knows. Then against these kind of parties have never been popular. My guess is, unless something drastic happens, they'll always remain a fringe party around a single digit percentage.


Really, I only oppose them on principle, not out of any actual fear they will come into power any time soon.


You don't win by shutting your opponent up, you win by making them (or at the very least everyone else) see why they're wrong.

Your approach is not a matured, reasoned one.


Well, I guess you're consistent after all.

Now the problem I see with such an openly theocratic party is that its ideology goes against at least 4 articles in the Romanian Constitution:

Article 9 deals with pluralism and political parties - (2) says and I'll translate: "Political parties are formed and operate under the law. They contribute to defining and expressing the political will of the citizens, respecting national sovereignty, territorial integrity, rule of law and the principles of democracy." I don't see how having essentially a Christian caliphate (for a lack of a better term :lol: ) with non-Christians having a sort of second class status supposed to respect the principle of democracy.
Article 16 which guarantees equal rights for all individuals - something this party obviously rejects since they want only Christians in positions of authority
Article 29 which says freedom of conscience and religion cannot be violated and that nobody can be constrained into a religion.

Article 152 is one of those that deal with revising (changing) the Constitution (2) it can't be done if it would result in the violation of fundamental rights:

"Also, no revision can be made if the result is the suppression of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens or the guarantees of them."

The party has made clear it wants to change the Constitution from secular to Christian.


I don't really see the point in allowing these kind of extremist parties, I'm all for pluralism but within reason (I'm not against for example the National Peasant Christian-Democrat Party, because although it calls itself "Christian" it is not a theocratic party), even if they got into power much of what they're trying to do is unconstitutional and a serious threat to religious freedom.


And by the way, I don't really like the use of "shutting them up". They're the ones trying to do that and while they won't win, I think it's just prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights. If they really want to participate they should revise their doctrine.


Oh and speaking of communication, sometimes you just can't reason with the other side and I really don't like going into that whole Islam thing again, but what kind of dialog is there in Libya for example where secularists have been bullied into a corner by the religious fascists? The difference here is I'm not trying to bully anyone. I respect Christians' right to practice their religion, but not to impose it (or partially impose it) on everyone else and that include other Christians who maybe prefer having the freedom to sin.

Do you really think that this party (in a purely hypothetical situation where it comes to power) would allow a non-Christian to express himself. My guess is they'd do a show trial and condemn him for blasphemy.


EDIT: Also another thing I want to bring up, sure these extremist parties rarely win the support of the people, but it's not impossible and when they do, all manner of grave human rights abuses happen. Let's take this to the extreme: party based on nazism? Is that legitimate?

Or what I made a Romanian Atheist Party? Doctrine: Become atheist or die. Sure almost nobody would be stupid to vote for it, but would it even be legitimate?
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:46 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4346Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

And by the way, I don't really like the use of "shutting them up". They're the ones trying to do that and while they won't win, I think it's just prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights. If they really want to participate they should revise their doctrine.


You might not like the use, but you are advocating "shutting them up". They say and want to do things you dont agree with, so you don't think they should be allowed. That is just a flowery way of say saying they should shut up. Or rather "change what you think, or shut up".
Image
Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:28 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Christian Fascists

1) DD, quit whistlin' Dixie. The Religious Child-Molesting Nazi Communists preaching from the Bible and the prophet Muhammad aren't going to take away your rights - most likely, at least. It would take something big after that whole "World War II" thing for major extremist political shifts to take hold. And, even then, the rest of the world would quickly react to such instances.

Fool me once, fool me twice.

2) It is not the responsibility of a person to remain silent - it is the responsibility of a person to not engage with the speaker and go on about their lives, or to challenge them.
Silencing someone else from speaking is basically keeping others from hearing something they may actually want to hear, or something that actually needs to be said. Also, it gives other people free reign to do the same to you.

"That's offensive and repulsive. It should be banned."

It's a phrase that actually adds nothing to a conversation. You're not saying "That's wrong" or declaring that the statements made have "no actual value" or are "immoral." All you've done is declare your own disgust at the idea that some people may think their ideas and thoughts are better than your own. For some reason.

Freedom of Speech protects you just as much as it protects the Theocrat. The Nazi. The Racist. The Homophobe. The Communist.

And, yes - the Islamic. Just as a future reference.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:50 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Dogma's Demise wrote:
Prolescum wrote:All words are made up :P

What is the likelihood of their members being voted into any position of authority? In numbers.


It's pretty damn hard to estimate in the long run.


Tell me, do you make all your decisions based on unlikely what ifs?

Closest election? Not a chance. Zero.


Right, so they're all mouth.

I doubt most people even heard of them and they still need signatures to actually form so they probably won't even show up on the list.


Image

But later who knows.


They could turn into grapes, who knows!

Then against these kind of parties have never been popular. My guess is, unless something drastic happens, they'll always remain a fringe party around a single digit percentage.


So if they're insignificant and barely known outside their own group...?

Really, I only oppose them on principle, not out of any actual fear they will come into power any time soon.


Okay, so why have you singled them out?

You don't win by shutting your opponent up, you win by making them (or at the very least everyone else) see why they're wrong.

Your approach is not a matured, reasoned one.


Well, I guess you're consistent after all.


That's only news to you, I'll wager.

Now the problem I see with such an openly theocratic party is that its ideology goes against at least 4 articles in the Romanian Constitution:

Article 9 deals with pluralism and political parties - (2) says and I'll translate: "Political parties are formed and operate under the law. They contribute to defining and expressing the political will of the citizens, respecting national sovereignty, territorial integrity, rule of law and the principles of democracy." I don't see how having essentially a Christian caliphate (for a lack of a better term :lol: ) with non-Christians having a sort of second class status supposed to respect the principle of democracy.
Article 16 which guarantees equal rights for all individuals - something this party obviously rejects since they want only Christians in positions of authority
Article 29 which says freedom of conscience and religion cannot be violated and that nobody can be constrained into a religion.

Article 152 is one of those that deal with revising (changing) the Constitution (2) it can't be done if it would result in the violation of fundamental rights:

"Also, no revision can be made if the result is the suppression of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens or the guarantees of them."

The party has made clear it wants to change the Constitution from secular to Christian.


If it really matters, you should discuss it with an appropriate government agency. Take a copy of their manifesto with you.

I don't really see the point in allowing these kind of extremist parties


Yet

I'm all for pluralism


Yet

but within reason


Are you even really a democrat?

Think about that before you answer.

(I'm not against for example the National Peasant Christian-Democrat Party, because although it calls itself "Christian" it is not a theocratic party), even if they got into power much of what they're trying to do is unconstitutional and a serious threat to religious freedom.


And do you suppose that the opposition are of the same views? Legislation doesn't pass in a vacuum.

And by the way, I don't really like the use of "shutting them up".


That's because it is just your view, distilled (see above). It's uncomfortable for you because your self image doesn't match your rhetoric. By this I mean that while you think you support freedom of speech and/or expression on principle, you repeatedly suggest the views of others are silenced; you, as you say, "don't see the point in allowing".

They're the ones trying to do that and while they won't win, I think it's just prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights.


Why? Why do you "think it's prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights"?

What does it take to make a constitutional change?

If they really want to participate they should revise their doctrine.


Can you link a copy of their manifesto for us to read? What people say about what people say isn't always what people actually say. Also, your history has a few pock-marks.

Oh and speaking of communication, sometimes you just can't reason with the other side and I really don't like going into that whole Islam thing again, but what kind of dialog is there in Libya for example where secularists have been bullied into a corner by the religious fascists? The difference here is I'm not trying to bully anyone. I respect Christians' right to practice their religion, but not to impose it (or partially impose it) on everyone else and that include other Christians who maybe prefer having the freedom to sin.


Do you really think that this party (in a purely hypothetical situation where it comes to power) would allow a non-Christian to express himself. My guess is they'd do a show trial and condemn him for blasphemy.


I don't care to entertain your fantasies. I've said it a dozen times to you, but these what ifs are pointless.

Yes, a good democratic citizen has, I believe, a duty to be educated on concerns of the state, but your phantom bogeyman complex does nothing but damage your personal credibility. By your own admission, they have no viable base, no public awareness to speak of, and ideas that aren't widely shared...

EDIT: Also another thing I want to bring up, sure these extremist parties rarely win the support of the people, but it's not impossible and when they do, all manner of grave human rights abuses happen.


What if.

Let's take this to the extreme: party based on nazism? Is that legitimate?


You cannot justify your fears by appealing to non-existent threats.

Or what I made a Romanian Atheist Party? Doctrine: Become atheist or die. Sure almost nobody would be stupid to vote for it, but would it even be legitimate?


Yawn.

Sorry DD, your whole outlook seems entirely based on unlikely projections and implausible scenarios, and that is no way to make judgements.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:51 am
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:28 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4346Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

To be fair, she doesn't have total control, but I C WUT U DID THAR.
Image
Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:13 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Freedom of Speech protects you just as much as it protects the Theocrat. The Nazi. The Racist. The Homophobe. The Communist.

And, yes - the Islamic. Just as a future reference.


This is not about free speech, it's about whether or not this is a legitimate political party (i.e. that should have a right to exist) and you're asking me to tolerate the intolerant.

As a general rule, I tend to not tolerate the intolerant. If you think that's hypocritical, you need to ask yourself: Who started it first? Who initiated the intolerance? In this case, these Christian fascists did. I was minding my own business and then these morons started to propose changes that would make me essentially a second class citizen.

Prolescum wrote:Tell me, do you make all your decisions based on unlikely what ifs?


I'm not sure how "unlikely" you think it is, after all, Iran was once a bit more secular and now look at it today. Drastic changes aren't a thing of the past.

And yeah it's unlikely for the time being. But I cannot predict how things will be decades from now. By legitimizing such a political party it would at least give it a chance to grow and I don't think that chance should be given considering their agenda. It is wholly incompatible with the aspirations of a modern civilized nation.

Now I don't have time to translate everything but I will give you the vital parts of their ramblings:

- adoption of a Christian Constitution and the change in form of government to presidential Republic. Only if Romania will have a leader with love for God, the people and the country, will monarchy be considered.
- the transformation of the secular state into The Romanian Christian State. Orthodox Christianity will be the official religion of the Romanian state.
- promoting in positions of authority a patriotic Christian elite, regardless of political affiliation.



Prolescum wrote:Why? Why do you "think it's prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights"?


You really have to ask why? I mean the answer is within the question itself.

Prolescum wrote:What does it take to make a constitutional change?


In theory? Quite a bit. See article 151, two thirds of Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Senate need to approve and you also need a referendum. Article 152 also cites some limitations to what kind of changes can be made, like you can't abolish pluralism, the language, divide the state and you can't abolish fundamental rights and liberties.

In practice? In Romania? LOL, you're working under the false assumption that we do things always by the book here. :lol: So I can't really tell you this. Politicians here are known to be corrupt and often break the rules like when our current government illegally removed officials from key positions this summer.

I don't care to entertain your fantasies. I've said it a dozen times to you, but these what ifs are pointless.


Theocratic rule has a track record of being shitty and incapable of respecting the rights of anyone, even those belonging to the religion that's dominant. Why would I expect things to be any different now with this party?

Prolescum wrote:If it really matters, you should discuss it with an appropriate government agency. Take a copy of their manifesto with you.


An excellent idea.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:23 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Dogma's Demise wrote:
Prolescum wrote:Tell me, do you make all your decisions based on unlikely what ifs?


I'm not sure how "unlikely" you think it is, after all, Iran was once a bit more secular and now look at it today. Drastic changes aren't a thing of the past.


Your risible understanding of history aside, you didn't answer the question.

And yeah it's unlikely for the time being.


But what if...

But I cannot predict how things will be decades from now.


Because what if...

By legitimizing such a political party it would at least give it a chance to grow and I don't think that chance should be given considering their agenda. It is wholly incompatible with the aspirations of a modern civilized nation.


So basically, shutting them up. Let their ideas fester out of the public eye. Ever heard the term counter-productive?

Now I don't have time to translate everything but I will give you the vital parts of their ramblings:


I didn't ask you to translate it, I don't trust a single thing you say as a matter of course.

Prolescum wrote:Why? Why do you "think it's prudent from a national interest point of view to not allow parties that want to subvert the constitution and violate certain human rights"?


You really have to ask why?


I'm asking for you to explain from your perspective.

Prolescum wrote:What does it take to make a constitutional change?


In theory? Quite a bit. See article 151, two thirds of Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Senate need to approve and you also need a referendum. Article 152 also cites some limitations to what kind of changes can be made, like you can't abolish pluralism, the language, divide the state and you can't abolish fundamental rights and liberties.

In practice? In Romania? LOL, you're working under the false assumption that we do things always by the book here. :lol: So I can't really tell you this. Politicians here are known to be corrupt and often break the rules like when our current government illegally removed officials from key positions this summer.


So you're suggesting that because politicians are corrupt, they can either bypass the article 151 requirements without challenge or summon corruption on an unprecedented scale to approve the legislation and convince the electorate to give up their rights in a referendum?

It seems to me that you have the same understanding of how legislation works that a creationist does biology.

I don't care to entertain your fantasies. I've said it a dozen times to you, but these what ifs are pointless.


Theocratic rule has a track record of being shitty and incapable of respecting the rights of anyone, even those belonging to the religion that's dominant.


Moot. Your projected fantasies face insurmountable mountains to come to pass. Just like your Muslamic takeover of Europe.

Why would I expect things to be any different now with this party?


Seeing as the likelihood of them achieving any of their goals is vanishingly slim, it doesn't matter.

Prolescum wrote:If it really matters, you should discuss it with an appropriate government agency. Take a copy of their manifesto with you.


An excellent idea.


You didn't respond to all of my post. Feel free to continue.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:36 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Christian Fascists

australopithecus wrote:To be fair, she doesn't have total control, but I C WUT U DID THAR.


The point is that England is TECHNICALLY a totalitarian-based, theocratic monarchy.

But the UK is one of the most atheistic, humanistic places I can recall off the top of my head.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:54 am
malicious_blokeUser avatarPosts: 305Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:12 pmLocation: Proper Westcountry Gender: Male

Post Re: Christian Fascists

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:
australopithecus wrote:To be fair, she doesn't have total control, but I C WUT U DID THAR.


The point is that England is TECHNICALLY a totalitarian-based, theocratic monarchy.

But the UK is one of the most atheistic, humanistic places I can recall off the top of my head.


That's mainly down to apathy :P

Generally I'm secularist in the same way I am arachnophobic. Yeah, I know the house of lords has bishops sitting in it and the queen is both the head of the church and the head of state just as I know my attic and my shed have big hairy spiders in them. Until such time as they start actually doing something objectionable and/or I need to get to a box of stuff at the back behind the lawnmower i'm not about to go on a very constitutional crusade with a can of bug spray.
[sarcasm ][/sarcasm ]

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it
Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:50 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4346Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:
australopithecus wrote:To be fair, she doesn't have total control, but I C WUT U DID THAR.


The point is that England is TECHNICALLY a totalitarian-based, theocratic monarchy.

But the UK is one of the most atheistic, humanistic places I can recall off the top of my head.


Sorry to nitpick, but it's not a theocracy. Technically or otherwise. Legislation and policy is not dictated by theism, though while the Queen is head of the CoE, she is little more than a figurehead with no power to control government or law.
Image
Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:31 pm
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

australopithecus wrote:Sorry to nitpick, but it's not a theocracy. Technically or otherwise. Legislation and policy is not dictated by theism, though while the Queen is head of the CoE, she is little more than a figurehead with no power to control government or law.


I wouldn't classify the United States as a strict theocracy but I could probably supply evidence that suggests we are moving in that direction (See California Prop 8 for one example). One of the questions and things that could be productive would be to sit a theist down and ask them to explain how the Constitution (Specifically the Bill of Rights) and the Bible (Specifically the 10 Commandments) are compatible. Depending on the nature of the theist, I think this can be a thought provoking exercise.


I have often wondered if it would be plausible to more effectively separate the economic and human rights systems of a specific nation. Could anyone else envision merging a technocratic (economic system run by Engineers and Science Professionals) system coupled with a democratic system (rights based system run by or headed with Philosophers, Lawyers, etc.)? Is it smart or productive to even have a President or PM in the distant future? Could something like this be a viable solution as the world heads toward a more globally focused future?

And YES....... I do realize that I have tried to summarize the thread. But it appears that we have three slightly differing "Constitutions" that we are working and dealing with here. Just thought I would point that out. And NO, I'm not advocating a NWO for you conspiracy nutters..........

Should NEW or revised "Constitutions" be drafted, discussed, devised every so many years (To keep up with the times)? Kind of like filing 'Constitutions" into epochs?
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:52 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Christian Fascists

CommonEnlightenment wrote:Should NEW or revised "Constitutions" be drafted, discussed, devised every so many years (To keep up with the times)? Kind of like filing 'Constitutions" into epochs?


They have that.

It was designed to be a skeletal structure upon which the will of the people could revise that effected their own rights and ideals.

One of the standing ideals for it's accuracy to work is the example of the Prohibition, Slavery, and Voting rights. Prohibition was made illegal - then it was repealed once it was found ill-effective. Slavery was tossed out. Voting rights were widened beyond it's definition.

In every American political science book and even on the military training doctrines on the subject it is listed as the backbone upon which only outlines a government structure, and the Amendments are the way for which the people themselves constitute continual change upon it.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:45 am
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:They have that.


Yeah..... I know the process and why it exists. The question should be: Is the process correct for certain political questions and issues. Personally, If someone is for term limits or campaign finance reform, I don't see how this process, in today's political environment, is the best suited or most practical for certain types of change.
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:02 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Prolescum wrote:Your risible understanding of history aside, you didn't answer the question.


It's a malformed question, not gonna answer it. :lol:


Prolescum wrote:
By legitimizing such a political party it would at least give it a chance to grow and I don't think that chance should be given considering their agenda. It is wholly incompatible with the aspirations of a modern civilized nation.


So basically, shutting them up. Let their ideas fester out of the public eye. Ever heard the term counter-productive?


You know what is counter-productive? Legitimizing their asses because once you do that, they can start putting effort into expanding. I'm not saying they WILL expand but they sure have a better chance as an official political party than simply being a group with no official status rambling online on a blog. As an unofficial group they have ZERO chance of ever getting power short of a revolution, you do realize this right?

The bottom line is they cannot become a legitimate party due to some of their agenda as I already explained. We have a constitution here and apart from that, there's also a law regulating political parties. For example, some viewpoints are not compatible with the principles of democracy. In this case, this party does not respect religious freedom, does not respect equality of rights of all citizens (Christians and non-Christians alike) and wants to attempt a constitutional change which itself would be blatantly unconstitutional, so they cannot be a legitimate party.

Now you can disagree on these points, but please don't tell me that any party can be formed no questions asked. It's just not true. And you don't need to tolerate the intolerant in this case.

And yes I am a democrat, to answer your last question. But democracy is not simply "majority rule" and "every stupid idea goes", there is more to that such as separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, equality of rights for all citizens, these things are not negotiable. Every democracy functions within some principles, Turkey is even more explicit when it comes to open threats against secularism, I'm sure I don't need to remind you again.


Prolescum wrote:I didn't ask you to translate it, I don't trust a single thing you say as a matter of course.


Hey, I don't blame you that you don't trust me, I don't trust you either for that matter.

Here, go to: http://bataiosu.wordpress.com
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=339
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck. ... ?idt=39753
Then: http://translate.google.com

Now you see why I hesitated to post these kind of threads before. Too much language barrier. Maybe I should just bring this matter to the "appropriate agency".

I'm asking for you to explain from your perspective.


Okay I'm gonna try to spell it out once again:

1. I don't see them winning an election any time soon and by any time soon I mean at least the next decade or two. That doesn't change the fact that I believe their agenda makes them ineligible to become a recognized legal party.

2. Legal things aside, the political climate is hard to predict indefinitely. Now I'm roughly as old as Romanian democracy is, but it's safe to say this state will exist long after I'm dead, just to put things into perspective. With so much time ahead, how do you know that something unexpected won't happen and put this (relatively free) country at risk of becoming, well, a lot less free? That's why I think any viable democracy must have safe-measures to ensure that an undemocratic party never comes to power even if the majority vote for it. This is NOT about me merely "silencing" views because "I don't like them", there are a LOT of views I don't like and yet I'm not calling for those political organizations to be disbanded. It's about me protecting my basic human rights such as freedom of and from religion. It's not negotiable.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:35 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4346Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Christian Fascists

Not answering legitimate questions because you arbitrarily denounce them as "malformed" (FYI, Prole's question wasn't), is the sign of;

A) A troll.
B) Someone being willfully dishonest.
C) Someone who knows their position is on faulty foundations.

Answer the damn question, you don't have the luxury of cherry picking here.
Image
Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:50 pm
)O( Hytegia )O(League LegendUser avatarPosts: 3135Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:27 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Christian Fascists

A malformed question would be:

"Are you gay? [YES of NO] Does your mother know? [YES or NO]"

A malformed question is not a question that shows your entire position faulty, and therefore you won't answer it.

You have all but said "I'm going to ban someone from speaking their thoughts in politics in the name of Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Religion."

Free Speech is not limited to what you want to hear, Dogma. Regardless of how repulsive you may find it, the proper way to handle misinformation is not to just ban it - it's to speak out against it. To open communication against their agenda. Not everyone will agree with you, but your right to say things that (to them just as well) are equally revolting or insulting to a party is just as much as theirs.

If you don't like something, don't ban it - then you're all but the monster you claim to be stopping.
Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.
Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.
Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:16 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 36 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests