This is a great debate, and I can't wait to see the end of it. I have some new thoughts, but I will hold off posting them until then in fairness to EH.

>>>Religious beliefs should be neither requested nor disclosed during a democratic election.<<<

The essence of this debate is censorship (neither requested nor disclosed) of an ideology (Religious beliefs). It is the advocacy for the suspension of the right to free speech. That this 800-pound gorilla does not even make honorable mention with-in this debate is quite remarkable, and telling. The un-doableness of the resolution was seen as a bigger obstacle than the fact it is the advocacy for the suspension of the right to free speech.

EH resigned to it’s un-doableness and settles for not legal censorship but for our neo-censorship; political correctness.

And Tricky responds with a hearty “Hear, hear”; “questions such as these are more likely to damage the person asking the question far more than the one who is asked.” Just as Lawrence Summers former president of Harvard found out when questioning gender cognitive differences, Tricky knows the power of politically correct self-censorship.

>>>“I would like to see the kind of government (of virtue and good manners) he speaks of. … Are you content to let the wind blow and the grass bend or will you be reaching for your fan to blow the grass in the direction you think is best?<<<


How fitting that the debate begins with a blunt call for the suppression of the right to free speech and ends with a Fascist-like metaphor of grass all bending the same way to the “virtue and good manners” of which we all agree … ALL that is of course, after the dissenters have been silenced. You all should read Orwell.




.

Great debate E.H. and Tricky. Thanks to both of you, I enjoyed every post.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Well you know, we do, from time to time, put limits on free speech. The trick is, of course, we do it in very specific cases, and for very specific reasons. And every time we do, debate occurs about whether it is right to do so.

We see this all the time. For example, I would not be permitted, as an employer, to ask a candidate for a job if she has had her tubes tied, and to then use that information to refuse her a job. Now, I might want to know that information, because it could save me the trouble and expense of having to cope with a maternity leave down the road, but alas, we as a society have agreed that I must not.

In the same way, in Canada it is illegal to publish the name of young offenders -- EVER -- even if they have committed murder. Many disagree with that stance by our government, and the debate rages on apace. In the meantime, that's the law, enacted for whatever reasons seemed good to the lawmakers at the time, and those names, by golly, are not published!

We self-censor all the time, on any number of matters that anyone would agree should be private. There are many things I've been curious to know about people, yet would never, ever ask. And they would never, ever tell!

So the question here is not about the suspension of free speech, as you put it, but the abridgement of that right about one topic in one select and specific context.

Now, it may turn out that this is a bad idea. Does that mean that I should not have argued for it? I felt my reasons were strong enough, but it is quite possible that you, and perhaps even everyone else who reads the thread, would disagree with me. In that case, I won't get my way. Does that still mean that I should not have argued for it?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

You do have a case E.H. I see your side from the perspective of privacy and judging people wrongly because of issues that have nothing to do with the job. I do however tend to be stronger on the side that if someone puts himself in public, he should have no problem with opening even his private life to the media and public. I would want to know this person inside out if I am going to put vote him/her for my, my children's and this countries future.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

EH,

I’m not arguing against your right to argue for censorship. That’s you right to seek to take away that right from others. That is the essence of the Enlightenment, not separation of Church and State, the essence is the right of the Heretic to speak out without consequence. Ironic it is that we have come full circle from setting the heretic free from being silenced by the priest to the heretic trying to silence the priest. I don’t think you should be sent to a Gulag for your views … although if you had legislative power I wonder if you would feel the same towards Huckabee and his ilk.


>>>the abridgement of that right about one topic in one select and specific context.<<<


Your brush is very broad yet you think it is a modelers brush. It includes all ideas considering all religion in all political places. And for what reason? National security? No. What reason is good enough to abridge that right? Only a sense of fairness and propriety? A sense of virtue and good manners?


EEO, Equal Employment Opportunity, the government censoring private concerns and demanding they hire someone based on race or gender is another constitutional can of worms that shouldn’t be used as a precedent for the next 1st amendment abridgement. In this vein of thought abortion is precedent for infanticide which is precedent for murder.

You are comparing the Confucius quote to Fascism???
What a charming way you have of seeing things...

The whole point of debate, I think, is to raise difficult matters, usually matters of opinion, should/ought issues, or public policy. We rarely debate matters of factual truth, but rather trot out the evidence and let it speak for itself.

This is the principle way in which open and democratic societies move forward. There is a perception that something is not working well, or is not as it should be; someone raises some possible solutions; these are debated in the public forum.

Now, as it happens, most of the possible solutions are never implemented. But an interesting thing often happens during the course of the debate -- people start to think about the issue. And sometimes, that thought process begins to result in changes of behaviour throughout society, and often it is for the good. I can think of many examples of this.

Now, you may think that my bruch is very broad, and I obviously, do not. I did not attempt to "silence the priest" as you say. I asked that a candidate's relationship to his religion not be a matter of public consideration for office, since the candidate will not be in a position to implement a single tenet of that religion while performing that office.

And you suggest that I'm trying to ban all ideas concerning all religions. Nonsense. If your religious belief makes you think that stem cell research, abortion or eating shellfish are wrong, then make the public case for those things, not for your religion. That may still be too much for many people, but as I said, that's the nature of debate.

I'd like to illustrate, by the way. Canadians have left the religious discussion pretty much out of electoral politics for decades now (but not completely, and not by law, but rather by common consent). And yet, in the 2000 general election in Canada (our campaigns mercifully last only 5 or 6 weeks!), the leader of the Reform Party, Stockwell Day, let it be known that as an Evangelical Christian he would not campaign on Sundays and that, oh by the way, the earth is only about 6000 years old and man and the dinosaurs must, therefore have coexisted.

One of our more radical columnists wrote as follows:
Do you know, the Reform Party never recovered, and is now defunct, having merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

So not only did this particular religious question sink a campaign, and it's leader. It sunk the entire party!

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Tricky,

My post, although charming as you sarcastically put it, also has meaning.

Go past the connotation of Fascism being evil racists to the essence of fascism, which is the primacy of the group over the individual. Also understand the meaning of metaphor and the meaning of Fascist which derives from the root for “bundle.” Fascism is a metaphor based on the symbol of a bundle of wheat, grass all united as in your Confucian metaphor. Now apply this to the debate resolution and content and you will find the meaning of my post.

EH,

You needn’t explain public debate to me. That is what my post is. My voice added to the debate. In this context I defended free speech, both in the form of law and in political correctness. In another context, say pornography, I may opine another way.


>>> And you suggest that I'm trying to ban all ideas concerning all religions. Nonsense. <<<

That is nonsense. But it’s not my suggestion, it is your strawman. My suggestion included a caveat, it was: “all ideas considering all religion in all political places.”

>>> I did not attempt to "silence the priest" <<<

At the time of the enlightenment the priest was a politician. Rethink the allegory in that regard. I think you will find it to be true.

>>> I asked that a candidate's relationship to his religion not be a matter of public consideration for office, since the candidate will not be in a position to implement a single tenet of that religion while performing that office. <<<

This is crazy. Of course the candidate can implement a single tenet, lots of tenets. It is done all the time. Every candidate brings their own tenets/ideology/bias/agenda into office with them and implements as much as he can. In America many religious people vote a single issue on which candidate would most likely appoint judges most likely to overturn Roe v Wade. A religious tenet aimed at overturning a secular tenet. We all have biases and we want candidates with similar biases to implement our tenets.