Logical error. Get your negatives grouped together and you'll see it.
Unless you put a smiley somewhere in that (indicating satire), I would label it specious, too.

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

EH: "So in your example, if you don't wish to marry a man, then don't, but you have no license to insist on the same for others."

Z: "So in your example, If you don’t wish to speak of your religion, then don’t, but you have no license to insist on the same for others."

EH: If you don't wish to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, then don't, but you have no license to insist on the same for others.

Oh, and don't get killed in the crush!

In my original example, there was only you (and a presumed-consenting other) involved. In yours, and my example above, there are others who are being impacted by your choices. Whether that is a concern to you, I cannot say, but my argument rests, at least in part, on that.

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

You justify your line positioning with hyperbolic and extreme examples. Yet, such is your right within a society with free speech, that is your gun to fire.

A high school history teacher related to me that while studying the bill of rights he asks his class which of the rights is most important. He says that nearly every one of his classes comes up with what he considers the right answer: The first amendment, the right to free speech and assembly. This is the most important because with this right all the others can be won. But without this right all the others can be lost.

We obviously have a grave difference of opinion here, Z. I have given my reasons, you've given yours, and we're no closer to seeing eye-to-eye. This is not unusual, as we both are probably looking from a different perspective. You are seeing the issue from the perspective of the right to freedom of speech, which in general I agree with. I, however, have observed religion operating in ugly ways during political issues, and I have seen the issue of religion misused, and misused in such a way as to deliberately mislead electorates. Having done so, I have come to the conclusion that there might be some justification in -- if not banning some speech -- at least agreeing among ourselves that there is insufficient justification for some conversations.

(I might point out, just as an example, that the great strategist Karl Rove finagled to get Same-Sex Marriage onto the ballots of 11 states, in an effort to turn a very well-understood religious/moral issue into a vote-grabber for George Bush. It was a vile strategy, and it will come back to bite one day, especially in Ohio where now Article XV Section 11 of the State Constitution now reads: "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." That wording excludes straight "common law" marriages, which I think one day will cause some anguish, not to mention court battles.)

As I said, if the issue is untramelled free speech, then of course Candidate A can rightly say "I am a Christian. I follow Jesus Christ, and He guides my thoughts, my conscience, and my vote." The crowd (or Moderator) may then turn to Candidate B and ask, "okay, how about you." If the answer is not "me, too!" then I'm afraid Candidate B just lost the election. If he wants to stay in the fight in order to bring his excellent agenda to fruition, he will simply have to lie about it. Meantime, Candidate A said nothing to enlighten anyone about his own agenda.

And if that is the price of perfectly free speech, then I'm afraid I think that it is just a little high. That is, of course, my opinion, and you are perfectly welcome to disagree with it.

I also know that there's not much I can do about it. There are a lot of things that I cannot change, but I suppose I'm made of such stuff that I will continue to talk about them.

During the Parliamentary debate on Same-Sex Marriage in Canada (which as you know passed), the Catholic Church, through it's Bishops, did actively allude to withholding communion from Parliamentarians - including the Prime Minister. This, I think, was a grave affront, a blatant attempt by the Church to impose its will on the whole of Canada, by virtue of having a Catholic Prime Minister. Good thing JFK made clear that he couldn't be bossed that way. Good thing, too, that our PM and cabinet were likewise made of sterner stuff.

Worse than that, two members of the Catholic Church were punished by their church, when they spoke in Parliament in favour of the bill. NDP MP Charlie Angus was refused communion in his congregation, and his party peer, Joe Comartin, was removed from his long-accustomed role of teaching marriage classes in his church, something of which he was justly proud and loved to do. This is no longer moral suasion. This is overt punishment taken against duly elected members of the Canadian Parliament.

Again, maybe that's the right of the churches. I still say it is WRONG. And while many wrongs are perfectly legal, I hope there will still be some of us willing to speak out loud, and call an evil act for what it is.

I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree.

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

"do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself."

The masochist should not give human respect if as a masochist he doesn't want it.

Do you really need a smiley for the obvious?

Aside from which, nobody is required to give respect at all. I am required not to do harm, since I would not want harm done to me. I would like to be respected, so I try to respect others, but the fact that I would like it if someone respects me doesn't in any way make it a requirement for them.

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

>>> operating in ugly ways during political issues <<<

“Ugly,” it seems to me, is in the eye of the beholder and most people viewing politics from any perspective see ugliness in some form.

If one seeks a higher truth, appeals to a higher authority in their understanding of free speech the aspiration becomes to extend free speech even to those one sees as ugly. Jesus’ “love your enemy” is way too idealistic but “tolerate your political enemy” is achievable. It is the Jew who defends the Holocaust denier’s right, the Homophobe who defends NAMBLA’s, the priest who defends the heretic’s or the atheist who defends the religionist’s right to speak which demonstrates the true essence of free speech. And free speech defines the essence of a free society. Silencing the opposition is always the precursor to tyranny or that utopia of grass all blowing the same direction to some group’s esthetic ideal. I guess you could call me an advocate for the rights of the ugly.

Agree to disagree, yes. But that doesn’t imply an admission of moral equivalency.

Z out.



.

"There is one, and only one, thing in modern society more hideous than crime namely, repressive justice." Simone Weil

I'm still arranging my thoughts on this matter, because there were points brought up in the debate itself, and more points brought up here which led me down some avenues intellectually that were not really focused upon during the debate. However, here are some comments.

There are some voters who vote based on position statements about specific issues or resume qualifications. There are others who vote on perceived "character," and while that is risky, because it is very easy for a candidate to be misleading about his or her character, and even easier for a voter to make misassumptions about a person's character based on superficial biographical information, it appears that both debaters in this debate recognize that there might be some voters who would choose to vote against a Scientologist, if all other things were equal. FYI, I don't think that would affect my own vote significantly, because I would argue that assuming a Scientologist's personal views or expected actions in office based on the label of Scientology alone would be as rash as the fears the American public had that if they voted for Kennedy, they'd be voting for the Pope. Believe it or not, that was a major issue of the day,. As history shows, Kennedy's actions as President had very little to do with the Pope, and I think not much to do with his personal religious beliefs, whatever they may have been. However, ironically, when considering this debate, I found myself turning to one of EH's own essays, which raises some concerns that COULD affect my vote:
The Evangelical Humanist: The God in Your Head is Real
In that essay, he argues that one's private religious beliefs may impact the outer world, and I am forced to agree. So while it is true that a mere religious label is inadequate to understand how a candidate might believe and act, and I still believe no candidate should be forced to reveal his or her personal religious beliefs, I don't think candidates should be prevented or even discouraged from expressing those beliefs which he or she feels would inform his or her actions in political office.

There is also the issue of credentials. If we curtail the right of a reverend such as Jesse Jackson to reveal that he is a reverend, for example, should we not also forbid a public defense lawyer to reveal that, a doctor to reveal that, or a Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist to reveal that history? All of those bits of biography can be used by a candidate to establish that prior to seeking office he or she had a private life which was "respectable or noteworthy." All of those things could reasonably be used to a candidate who is attempting to establish his or her past record of service to the community. Believe it or not, some voters do consider a reverend to be a person who has a job serving the needs of community. When someone runs for office, the first question asked by many voters is "What have you done in the past?" Now, we could limit candidates to their political records, but then how does an outsider ever break into politics? How do you get that first position on the school board, for example? So when I ask a candidate what he did in the past, is it acceptable if the journalist can tell me, and the reverend has to tell me he was a manager of a fast food restaurant in his teens? He shouldn't tell me where he went to college if it was a theology program?

As raised in the debate, some people's religious background is well known and would be evident. Some people even possess a title. Do we make candidates drop their titles such as Reverend or Rabbi? If so, is it alright to use a military title like General? If the latter is allowed, and the former not, the former could be disadvantaged. I think most people are aware that Jesse Jackson is a reverend, but probably many people would not have known Huckabee was. And what of our Scientologist candidate? Let us say Tom Cruise runs. Does he have a right to confront his accusers, in essence, to discuss an element of his background which is well known but may be highly misunderstood? Heck there is a book out there which levels all kinds of accusations about the man based on rumors of his religious life. So everyone can talk about it except him and those questioning him? The reason Romney gave a talk about his Mormonism was to DEFEND himself. Nobody forced him to give that talk, it was his choice. It was a strategy, certainly, but if he had been denied that opportunity, I think he would have been deprived of important rights. What if a candidate has a name which sounds Muslim, or Jewish, or Catholic, but the person is an atheist? Should that person not be allowed to state that? A candidate might not wish to mislead voters who might vote for him or her expecting certain religious views to inform his/her actions. Thing is, if candidates can't talk about this stuff, people will absolutely attempt to guess. It's just how it goes.

There is clearly an underlying assumption in this topic as well that I disagree with. There is an assumption that a Christian candidate would win. That has been suggested by research into how potential voters responded to questions about how likely they would be to vote for an atheist. But here is the thing, the atheist had no name, just as the Scientologist hypothesized has no name or face. I promise you, if you asked the public whether they would vote for an adulterer, the majority here would say no. Yet, after the Gennifer Flowers story broke, the Clintons were on television giving their side of the story, and guess who won that election? A confessed adulterer. See...when you put a face to these terms like atheist, or adulterer, or pot smoker, or Mormon, all bets are off. Part of putting the face on it is allowing people to talk about it. I am of the personal opinion that Asimov could easily have achieved public office, that Sagan could have achieved public office, despite their commonly known lack of Christianity. Because we knew them, and because they did not lie or conceal their beliefs. They made atheism less alarming to the average American. I concede, revealing atheism would be an initial disadvantage, but after Kennedy, far fewer people have worried about voting for a Roman Catholic. If not for Kennedy, I am wondering if Guiliani would be where he is today. Someone always has to go first. This proposal, I think it would delay those firsts or hide them. I think it would be an obstruction to eventual public acceptance of diversity in candidates. Nobody should be forced to "go first" by being forced to reveal religious beliefs or lack thereof, but I don't like the idea of stopping someone with the guts to do it.

One final point. I am not convinced what is best for one democratic nation might always be best for another. As arose in debate, Canada is a very different place from the United States. Let us imagine a democratic election in Iraq now. How would this topic play out there? Might it be validly important to voters there to know a candidate's religious affiliation? I think it might.

__________________
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
- Carl Sagan