What if you owned your own country...?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im confused on a number of levels here…

Are you saying we as citizens often get to go to the polls and vote on if we should go/stay to/in a war or not? Because that doesn’t happen. And it really sounds like that’s what yer saying.

You know as well as I do that popular opinion has a big impact on whether we stick a war out or not. I bet that a lot more of our current presidential candidates would be expressing support for the war in Iraq if, say, 60-70% of the voting populace supported it. Even if the war was going exactly as it is now and 60-70% of the voting population supported it, many more candidates would be supporting it. We can make a big difference in whether or not a war continues by who we vote for in election year. Whether that be congressional elections or presidential. Popular pressure at home also can push government leaders to change policies before their terms are over.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or are you saying that the officials women tend to elect are more likely to be against conflict then the officials men elect? If so then you are making a false conclusion that it’s the ONLY issue females vote on. Whats much more likely is that they vote on many others and the officials they elect may have a tendency to look more toward mediation of conflict than use of force as an only option. But that’s not a direct cause and effect situation. If you are going to start barring people from voting based on indirect consequence then youll wind up with no one voting because you can make the statistics show you whatever you want. So that reasoning doesn’t work. Better ban blacks and the poor and liberals and people with less then three vehicles etc etc.

I've already been over that with you before. Those aren't matters of genetics but culture.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

OR are you talking about female elected officials and saying they tend to vote against conflict situations? If so then first off its not really true enough to matter (ie: its not like you are talking about 95% of females). And I hardly think that’s a reason to disqualify them from being elected officials just because they vote for peace more often then men?

There have been more problems than one seen with women in politics. For one, yes, they tend to vote more against war and thus overall tend to weaken our ability to win wars and reduce our response time in matters of national security. Another issue is that some women, in order to prove themselves, become hyper-aggressive. There can be problems in those situations, obviously.

I'll be back to respond to the rest of your post soon, I expect .

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know as well as I do that popular opinion has a big impact on whether we stick a war out or not. I bet that a lot more of our current presidential candidates would be expressing support for the war in Iraq if, say, 60-70% of the voting populace supported it. Even if the war was going exactly as it is now and 60-70% of the voting population supported it, many more candidates would be supporting it. We can make a big difference in whether or not a war continues by who we vote for in election year. Whether that be congressional elections or presidential. Popular pressure at home also can push government leaders to change policies before their terms are over.

So what you are saying is because we live in a democracy and all politicians are shills for a vote that we cant allow women to vote because they might influence politicians not to be war mongers? By that logic why not just eliminate democracy all together. Have a one man rule where you decide whats best for everyone and no one sways with the wind based on the influence of those silly pacifistic women. That way you don’t have to worry about the wimpy men that act like women. But then I guess according to your logic there wont be enough of them to matter because theyd rather look tough and send us into a bad war like the current one then look like a wimpy female. Well too bad we didn’t have more of those wimpy females I say… We could have avoided quite a mess.

I've already been over that with you before. Those aren't matters of genetics but culture.

The color of your skin isn’t genetic? And anyway it doesn’t matter. If you are going to use the logic that X leads to Y therefore we cant allow X to vote then you have to apply it to other groups as well if they too lead to Y. Because no matter who is doing it its going to have the same affect that you state right? We will end up debating peace more (which somehow = “bad for national security”) rather than charging into war at the drop of a hat without seriously considering any alternatives.

For one, yes, they tend to vote more against war and thus overall tend to weaken our ability to win wars

But they voted FOR this most recent war and we aren’t winning. So how does that jive with your theory exactly? Either way, I don’t think the argument “its all the women’s fault we are losing!” will get you very far.

Another issue is that some women, in order to prove themselves, become hyper-aggressive.

So let me get this straight… The reason that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote is because they tend to consider peace too much… AND some tend to be too aggressive… AND men have never needed to prove themselves but women do… oy…

I think you have your sociology and psychology in a mish mash Lief. Men are ALL ABOUT proving themselves every freaking minute of the day. Its in OUR genes. Especially when theres females around. So ban the men from voting cause then you may get more rational votes.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So what you are saying is because we live in a democracy and all politicians are shills for a vote that we cant allow women to vote because they might influence politicians not to be war mongers? By that logic why not just eliminate democracy all together. Have a one man rule where you decide whats best for everyone and no one sways with the wind based on the influence of those silly pacifistic women. That way you don’t have to worry about the wimpy men that act like women. But then I guess according to your logic there wont be enough of them to matter because theyd rather look tough and send us into a bad war like the current one then look like a wimpy female. Well too bad we didn’t have more of those wimpy females I say… We could have avoided quite a mess.

In this whole statement, you just exchange most of my words for many more vitrolic ones of your own and then take my argument in a direction I was not arguing for and which does not logically follow from my position.

How does it logically follow from my position that one man should make the national security decisions as opposed to many men pooling their brains? It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The color of your skin isn’t genetic?

Decades of research have invalidated the racist position. I looked at some of it last spring in Humanities, and it looked very sound.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And anyway it doesn’t matter. If you are going to use the logic that X leads to Y therefore we cant allow X to vote then you have to apply it to other groups as well if they too lead to Y. Because no matter who is doing it its going to have the same affect that you state right? We will end up debating peace more (which somehow = “bad for national security”) rather than charging into war at the drop of a hat without seriously considering any alternatives.

Again, this is about genetics, not culture. The point is not to bust all pacifists but to focus our laws so that they better take into account men and women's biological differences.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But they voted FOR this most recent war and we aren’t winning. So how does that jive with your theory exactly?

More men voted for it than women, and more men vote for continuing it than women. That's consistent with what I'd expect. And I'm not trying to say that every war that men are in charge of will be won. That doesn't even make logical sense, considering that our enemies are also almost all men and one of the two sides has to win .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Either way, I don’t think the argument “its all the women’s fault we are losing!” will get you very far.

I'm not saying "it's all women's fault we are losing." I never said that- again you're putting words in my mouth. I think that there are many factors contributing to our difficulties in Iraq, such as the nature of the enemy we're fighting, our enemies' tactics, our mass media and the very logical general unpreparedness of a civilian population to be (through the media) on the front lines of the war every day. Plus other things.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So let me get this straight… The reason that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote is because they tend to consider peace too much… AND some tend to be too aggressive… AND men have never needed to prove themselves but women do… oy…

I just mentioned that as a problem for some women in politics. Their attempt to prove themselves is more dangerous than it is as regards the ordinary achievement focus men have. It gets especially dangerous with these women because they're in high places and are essentially looking for opportunities to show aggression. It gets dangerous enough that it was noted in my Political Science class, anyhow. Though I certainly agree with you that men and boys definitely do dangerous and stupid things to prove themselves too, and I think that we as a gender tend to have a far bigger focus on this than women. With women, I don't think it's a gender thing at all when they do this. It's more a feeling of pressure to overcome presuppositions others might have that you'll be less tough than a man.

But most women instead tend to be less aggressive than men.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think you have your sociology and psychology in a mish mash Lief. Men are ALL ABOUT proving themselves every freaking minute of the day. Its in OUR genes. Especially when theres females around.

I agree; that is another genetic difference between men and women.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So ban the men from voting cause then you may get more rational votes.

Less aggressive and more pacifistic votes, anyway. I don't think that that equals more rational. It takes a stronger amount of aggression to win a war, though I agree with you that one should always look very hard for other options before entering it.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I wanna go live in BoP's country!

'Course ye do... I rock (she says modestly)

Did anyone else have their age of consent for sex set at younger than 16? As best I can see, 16 seems to be the arbitrary limit set by most...? (Mine was set at 12.)

Why 12, you ask (or at least sisaunt did...)? Well, because that's the age a lot of kids are becoming sexually active, and in this day of STIs, 'tis far better to have the age of sexual consent set young, so that parents can take an active part in ensuring that their kids practice sex safely (and therefore hopefully drive down teen pregnancy, etc).

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For one, yes, they tend to vote more against war and thus overall tend to weaken our ability to win wars and reduce our response time in matters of national security.
.

OK, your position is that women are usually more likely to vote against war, and that's a bad thing.

This can only be based on the assumption that war (violence, aggression) is on the whole a good thing.

Ever see a bar room brawl develop? Usually two males get into an argument about some absolutely trivial thing, any females around try to restrain it, but male stupidity triumphs. Scale that up and call it human history.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

'Course ye do... I rock (she says modestly)

Did anyone else have their age of consent for sex set at younger than 16? As best I can see, 16 seems to be the arbitrary limit set by most...? (Mine was set at 12.)

Why 12, you ask (or at least sisaunt did...)? Well, because that's the age a lot of kids are becoming sexually active, and in this day of STIs, 'tis far better to have the age of sexual consent set young, so that parents can take an active part in ensuring that their kids practice sex safely (and therefore hopefully drive down teen pregnancy, etc).

Actually, you set it at 13. I'll be willing to go to 14, a la Canada now. Twelve (or thirteen) is a little too young , on the grounds that a lot of children haven't achieved sexual maturity at that age. Romeo/Juliet laws to cover it will do for me.

This is, of course, do as I say, not as I did

[brownjenkins]

Mine is 13.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Actually, you set it at 13. I'll be willing to go to 14, a la Canada now. Twelve (or thirteen) is a little too young , on the grounds that a lot of children haven't achieved sexual maturity at that age. Romeo/Juliet laws to cover it will do for me.

This is, of course, do as I say, not as I did

I disagree with you. Sexual maturity is occurring younger and younger. I was fully sexually mature at 10. I "did it" when I was 14, and I don't think I am any the worse for the wear. As far as I'm concerned, the difference between a 12 year old and a 14 year old is miniscule in terms of 'maturity'.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In this whole statement, you just exchange most of my words for many more vitrolic ones of your own and then take my argument in a direction I was not arguing for and which does not logically follow from my position.

How does it logically follow from my position that one man should make the national security decisions as opposed to many men pooling their brains? It doesn't.

Sure it does. Your position seems to be womens are too unhostile so we cant allow them to vote because they’ll keep us out of wars. This position is flawed on two levels. 1. Not all wars are necessary. And unnecessary wars are horrific wastes of human life and capital. So to have a counter balance to pure 100% testosterone when it comes to making decisions based solely on aggression is a good thing in my book. 2. Plenty of men think like wimpy women and also want peace. Therefore the true extent of the logic you propose is to limit decision making to one solitary figure: YOU. Because YOU apparently have the best interest of everyone in mind by promoting war more than peace and that way those pesky women AND those pesky wimpy men wont influence politicians to do the wrong thing. Now unleash the dogs of war!

Decades of research have invalidated the racist position. I looked at some of it last spring in Humanities, and it looked very sound.

You are confused lief. Race does not exist as a pure genetic signature. (Believe me I was the first one on that band wagon long before you were even thinking of colleges…) But SKIN COLOR does. Just as eye color and hair color does. It’s the genes that effect the melanin formation in the skin cells after all. So to say skin color isn’t genetic is incorrect. I do agree with you however that race is more a cultural and sociological term then a genetic term.

Again, this is about genetics, not culture. The point is not to bust all pacifists but to focus our laws so that they better take into account men and women's biological differences.

But why just against women? Isn’t that simple discrimination? What if you find that there are other groups who have even HIGHER rates of voting for peace then women? Just because they aren’t biological youll just let them interfere with those spineless politicians and risk us not going to war? That’s inconsistent according to the logic you lay out. So why just pick on the females exactly? I don’t understand that.

Perhaps land ownership proves the genetics necessary to make such decisions. So perhaps we should go back to the original way we used to do things in this country. Only males with significant land ownership have the right to vote. Because clearly their genetics prove their ability to righteously represent all the other folk who aren’t capable of holding such an awesome responsibility… And they will never be flawed or abuse that privilege by definition right?

More men voted for it than women, and more men vote for continuing it than women. That's consistent with what I'd expect.

So you base your rules about voting on the results you want to achieve in effect. That’s the opposite of democracy isn’t it? Sounds more like you are rigging the system to me. Hm studies show women vote for peace X% more than males. So therefore we must eliminate them from the picture in order to achieve our goals of maximizing the likelihood of war. That’s scary backwards reasoning Lief. But hopefully its just that and not the even worse scenario of: how can we take the vote from women? I know! Lets point out that they like peace more than war!

And I'm not trying to say that every war that men are in charge of will be won.

But you ARE saying that every war that men support is a necessary and just war. And that’s where you are wrong by a landslide.

I think that there are many factors contributing to our difficulties in Iraq, such as the nature of the enemy we're fighting, our enemies' tactics, our mass media and the very logical general unpreparedness of a civilian population to be (through the media) on the front lines of the war every day. Plus other things.

But the question remains was it necessary to begin with? And should we still be there in the capacity we are? I don’t think you will achieve your goal by banning women from the voting booths. Youd need to first declare marshall law perhaps and certainly to thoroughly restrict the press. Because the press combined with modern technology is the key. They are the ones that convey the horrors and abuses and corruptions inherent in ANY conflict to the public day in and day out. And they therefore cause the public to loose heart in the conflict based on what they see and hear. The support for such an undertaking wilts quickly under their constant scrutiny. Remember, we didn’t have these issues during world war II when we were fire bombing entire cities and unimaginable debauchery was going on on all sides. So before you start banning women, come down hard on the press and limit their access big time. That will get you war votes more than anything I assure you.

It gets especially dangerous with these women because they're in high places and are essentially looking for opportunities to show aggression.

Is this a reference to Hilary Clinton? Do you think she would do crazy out of control stuff to prove to the right wingers how aggressive she can be?

[inked]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I disagree with you. Sexual maturity is occurring younger and younger. I was fully sexually mature at 10. I "did it" when I was 14, and I don't think I am any the worse for the wear. As far as I'm concerned, the difference between a 12 year old and a 14 year old is miniscule in terms of 'maturity'.

Neither a 12 nor a 14 year old have maturity of person or development of the body at those ages. They certainly don't have psychological maturity. Ya'll seem stuck on the animal side of the equation and ignoring of the human side of the equation.

[Lief Erikson]

GrayMouser and Insidious, I'm responding to your posts in the Gender Issues Thread.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Neither a 12 nor a 14 year old have maturity of person or development of the body at those ages. They certainly don't have psychological maturity. Ya'll seem stuck on the animal side of the equation and ignoring of the human side of the equation.

Humans are animals.

I've know 30-year-olds who don't have the psychological maturity to deal with sexual relationships. In fact, it's one of the few things in life that can still throw me for a loop at 40.

All "age of consent" really means is that you do not automatically throw two 13-year-olds in jail for having sex, or even a 13-year-old and an 18-year-old. It's not condoning rape.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Humans are animals.

But not simply animals.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To me, this really depends. Monarchy can be absolutely a better form of government. If you have a wise and good sovereign, then while he or she is in power, a democracy isn't going to beat it. The trouble is all of those bad sovereigns. But democracies can produce very bad results too, because "the people" can be bad, just like "a person" can be bad. So I don't anymore have a strong belief on it right now. I'm still trying to work through this issue.

This is probably one of the most important decisions for your new country.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The cracks would exist for them, yes. I don't know how those "cracks" would be organized.

But why organise the "cracks" at all? Why not just let people decide for themselves what their aptitudes are?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, we already have something of a gender split in law right now: the draft. The draft still calls men up to active military duty, but it doesn't call up women yet.

This is one of the reasons I oppose the draft. Someone of a certain age shouldn't be forced to join the army just because he has a meat and two veg.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But there are other places where having gender laws might be a good idea. For instance, the extremely touchy subject of voting. In all the wars in the US that have been fought during which women had the right to vote, substantially more women have voted against the wars than men. And women have been observed in polls over and over again by the Political Science branch throughout many cultures, nations and societies to be less aggressive than men and more opposed to war wherever they happen (according to "Essentials of American Government" by Tim Chevernak, and "International Politics on a World Stage" by Rouskin . . . or Rouskin's name was something like that- I could find it for you if you want it). So there's a case where pulling down a gender related law might not have been within our national security interests. We might have lost some of our resolve to stick out wars because of it. I note that we've lost wars far more frequently in the 20th century than we did in the previous two centuries.

Are you suggesting men and women have different voting rights!?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But then, men also don't have the natural social talent that women have anywhere near as often as they do. Men don't tend to have feminine talent as much as women as women don't tend to have masculine talent as much as men. Both genders decidedly have talents and qualities in greater amount than the other, and trying to blur or remove that biological line between the two is not helpful to our Western societies.

I firmly believe that women having more "social talent" than men is a product of culture. In your system, you would restrict the natural evolution of culture overtime by imposing restrictions on your citizens who might otherwise institute change in your country.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is my opinion, anyway. It's not that one gender is any better than the other. Both are decidedly equally necessary to the wellbeing and survival of the human race and equally valuable. And neither is less talented than the other- they just tend to be differently talented.

If you believe genders are differently talented, then fine. But if you believe that genders should exhibit nothing but the different talents you feel they generally have, then there's a problem.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, it's "somewhat" theocratic because it isn't specifically governed by priests. The leader or leaders do have to be Christians, but they don't have to be clergy or church leaders. A theocracy, according to the World English Dictionary, is a government ruled by priests or God. So mine doesn't quite fit. Technically .

That makes sense, in a strange way.

So you're the Christian version of Iran (without the Ayotollah) then? Do you find this as ironic as I do?

You're always talking about Islamist extremists, and to be fair, the only countries I know of that only allow one religion are ones who only allow Islam. However, the supreme irony of all this is as soon as you're given the opportunity to create the ideal country, you do the exact same thing. Maybe you shouldn't be too hard on the extremists, since you are exactly the same, just with a different religion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, that's not altogether a horrible idea. I think it has some value. In my family, I've seen a lot of dominance of dinner conversation by the younger people in the family who chatter about all sorts of trivialities and sometimes interrupt their elders (or have done). I'd definitely like a tradition in my country of greater respect of parents from children. That needn't go so far as to cut children wholly out of the conversation at the dinner table, but it would limit the nonsense and increase the respect.

Teaching your children not to all talk at once and make sure everyone at the table has a chance to contribute to the conversation is respectful of both children and adults. It is something I will do with my own future children as soon as they're old enough to understand. This is a lot different than the Victorian idea of "children should be seen and not heard," a by-product of the Victorian attitude that children were subhuman and should basically behave like tiny adults at all times.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are they spouting heresies? Do guests happen to notice they're keeping idols in their home? There could be various evidences found. It wouldn't always certainly be possible to tell, but if it is detected, action would be taken.

If you think enforcing a one-religion country would be this easy, I can see why you picked it. Unfortunately for you, it is not.

With respect to idols in the home, an idiot guest might mistake art for an idol. What does an idol look like? Will this be explained in your laws?

Secondly, people who do possess idols will most assuredly not just have them lying about the house. Since non-Christian religions are illegal, they will meet in secret and hide any religious affects, just like the early Christians did when Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire. And look how well that worked out for them.

Thirdly, there are a lot more ways to be a non-Christian than to have idols and spout heresies. And I do mean a lot. You had better train your Inquisitors or whoever is going to enforce this law to recognise them all. Also, they should be trained to tell different Christians apart. The only Christian things in my fiancé and my appartment are:

• A Bible, belonging to my fiancé.
• A small Greek Orthodox painting of Mary and Jesus, belonging to both of us.
• A small wooden cross which belongs to me, and sits in a drawer somewhere. (I really should find it. I have no idea where it is at the moment.)

You'd never hear either of us spouting heresies. So, which one of us is Christian? The answer is, me. My fiancé, the owner of the Bible, is most assuredly not Christian. The only people who know that are people who we've happened to mention this to.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

GrayMouser asked me the same thing, and I told him I don't really know. Maybe they'd be banished. Maybe some other punishment would be implemented. I haven't thought about punishments that much, though I know they'd have to exist.

This is sensible.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think anyone can do that. Someone who is being a Christian because he or she has to be is not likely to be a very faithful Christian or a true one. On the other hand, if those people are openly non-Christians, they may take other people away from Christianity too. The truth that that happens has been seen time and again in history.

I agree that you can't force anyone to accept Jesus's love. Therefore, what's the point of making all your citizens be Christians? The only "real" ones are the ones who actually want to be Christians, so why not let people who don't want to be Christian follow their own beliefs?

What purpose is served by forcing Christianity on someone? Are you hoping that after years of going to church, they will come to want to be Christian? Also, by repressing other religions, you won't be able to eliminate people's knowledge of said religions. The media exists, and people have a pesky habit of using it to find things out.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Aside from that fact, I think that the situation of pretending Christianity's existing for some people is better than the alternative, the granting of equality to all forms of religion and therefore to all forms of morality. Which is license in society for immorality to abound. That alternative is a despicable one, in my eyes. It is a precedent for unjust laws to spread all of the place, as indeed they have, almost all of them justified in the name of freedom of religion.

Granting freedom of religion is not the same of granting equality to all forms of morality. You can of one set of morals in your laws, and you don't have to have a state religion to do this. What do you mean by unjust laws spreading all over the place? How does this correlate to freedom of religion?

They are not assigned to infantry units, to tanks or submarines, and Pentagon policy officially precludes them from serving in so-called "combat occupations."

(from the article Lotesse posted) What the hell have they been doing, knitting tea cosies? I don't think so.

By restricting the deployment of soldiers based on something irrelevant like gender (as opposed to something relevant like combat fitness) you're potentially holding back very good soldiers and therefore reducing the quality of combat units and by extension, needlessly wasting lives. Armies should be making every effort to preserve the lives of their soldiers, and this means updating strategy and policy to reflect the nature of any conflict in which they are currently involved.

Of course, what logic has to do with the military is anyone's guess.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is probably one of the most important decisions for your new country.

Probably true.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But why organise the "cracks" at all? Why not just let people decide for themselves what their aptitudes are?

Trainers following a set of rules as well as their professional judgment are likely to make better decisions for the army.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is one of the reasons I oppose the draft. Someone of a certain age shouldn't be forced to join the army just because he has a meat and two veg.

Well, your comment indicates that you see no biological psychological difference between men and women. So if I had that same perspective, I'd agree. As it is, I emphatically disagree. But there we are .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you suggesting men and women have different voting rights!?

Yes. I argued for that in the Gender Thread just now, and in this thread for a while. I'm a little tired of debating it at the moment, though. I posted my case and don't have more to add to it right now, and I don't think anyone successfully refuted it. Eärniel said she also had nothing more to add to her arguments either, but found mine faulty, so we reached an impasse. So we dropped it together.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I firmly believe that women having more "social talent" than men is a product of culture. In your system, you would restrict the natural evolution of culture overtime by imposing restrictions on your citizens who might otherwise institute change in your country.

If you believe genders are differently talented, then fine. But if you believe that genders should exhibit nothing but the different talents you feel they generally have, then there's a problem.

This is why I suggested there would be routes for some cross-over. Because I know there are exceptions.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So you're the Christian version of Iran (without the Ayotollah) then? Do you find this as ironic as I do?

I wouldn't try to develop nuclear weapons or spread terrorism in the countries around me. I also would not use Sharia law. So I think that calling it a Christian version of Iran is not fair. Though I do believe that learning more about which parts of Islamic culture make sense will expand my ability to relate to Muslims, which will be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You're always talking about Islamist extremists, and to be fair, the only countries I know of that only allow one religion are ones who only allow Islam. However, the supreme irony of all this is as soon as you're given the opportunity to create the ideal country, you do the exact same thing. Maybe you shouldn't be too hard on the extremists, since you are exactly the same, just with a different religion.

I find that very unfair. I'm not trying to take over my country by force of arms or to conquer other countries.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If you think enforcing a one-religion country would be this easy, I can see why you picked it. Unfortunately for you, it is not.

With respect to idols in the home, an idiot guest might mistake art for an idol. What does an idol look like? Will this be explained in your laws?

Secondly, people who do possess idols will most assuredly not just have them lying about the house. Since non-Christian religions are illegal, they will meet in secret and hide any religious affects, just like the early Christians did when Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire. And look how well that worked out for them.

Thirdly, there are a lot more ways to be a non-Christian than to have idols and spout heresies. And I do mean a lot. You had better train your Inquisitors or whoever is going to enforce this law to recognise them all. Also, they should be trained to tell different Christians apart. The only Christian things in my fiancé and my appartment are:

• A Bible, belonging to my fiancé.
• A small Greek Orthodox painting of Mary and Jesus, belonging to both of us.
• A small wooden cross which belongs to me, and sits in a drawer somewhere. (I really should find it. I have no idea where it is at the moment.)

You'd never hear either of us spouting heresies. So, which one of us is Christian? The answer is, me. My fiancé, the owner of the Bible, is most assuredly not Christian. The only people who know that are people who we've happened to mention this to.

I agree that it wouldn't always be possible to fairly legislate this. I don't believe it would be impossible, though, or as difficult as you suggest. Witnesses will sometimes no what the views of the accused are from firsthand conversations. Other means might be used. I don't think it's impossible. The Catholics managed to maintain orthodoxy in territories within their sphere of influence for centuries, and that wasn't only because of the threat of violence. There was immense passion for religion that captivated the masses during that period. There also were abuses, I know, as there always will be as long as this Earth exists. There have been far worse abuses, IMO, resulting from the removal of a single religion being held to in the state. And obviously I'm thinking of abortion.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree that you can't force anyone to accept Jesus's love. Therefore, what's the point of making all your citizens be Christians? The only "real" ones are the ones who actually want to be Christians, so why not let people who don't want to be Christian follow their own beliefs?

The purpose is to prevent the spread of false ideologies that motivate behavior harmfully and that are in and of themselves harmful.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What purpose is served by forcing Christianity on someone? Are you hoping that after years of going to church, they will come to want to be Christian? Also, by repressing other religions, you won't be able to eliminate people's knowledge of said religions. The media exists, and people have a pesky habit of using it to find things out.

There's a big difference between having head knowledge of it that you might get when you're old enough and growing up in a culture that is immersed in it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Granting freedom of religion is not the same of granting equality to all forms of morality.

I think it is. That's why I've heard frequently the modern claim, "you can't legislate morality." Aspects of moral behavior that were historically always expected are now called into question throughout modern society. When all religions are equal under law, then all forms of morality become equal under law, and therefore immorality as a natural consequence is legal under law. One of the reasons people argue for abortion is "freedom of religion." It's the same with homosexual marriage. And other immoral things that have so long been legal that we're now forgetting about criticizing their legalization.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You can of one set of morals in your laws, and you don't have to have a state religion to do this.

But on what basis do you select that system of morals and not another? Across most of Europe, prostitution is legal, in many places public nudity is legal, pornography is legal, homosexual marriage and abortion are legal, infanticide has been allowed in some cases, stem cell research is legal, etc. Euthenasia is a topic of hot debate now and is legal in the Netherlands and Belgium, whereas in the past it never would have been. Infanticide is common too in the Netherlands. I've heard people argue for the legalization of various drugs like marijuana more than once.

None of these things would ever have gotten anywhere in law if only one religion was allowed. These all come from broadly varying forms of morality and religion, and from people without any religion. So one absolutely cannot have "one set of morals in your laws" while not having a state religion. It doesn't come out in practice unless religious freedom technically exists while in practice everybody follows one religion. That produces the same result one would hope for by having one religion, though by a roundabout means. The US got away with that for the first couple hundred years of our existence, by and large, but since then the true nature of our laws has caught up to us. And, in my view, it's destroying us.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that all of us honor all of the women who serve in our military (or militaries) for what they are doing and have done, and especially those in Iraq for the risks they are taking on behalf of our country.

Hmm, really? "All of us?" Perhaps all of us, excluding yourself. It is glaringly obvious that you feel very strongly that women are inferior to men in amost every aspect - except "nurturing," and you go so far as to assert that women be denied the right of the vote. This snarky little response of yours to my post about women in the military just reeks of hypocrisy and tongue-in-cheek patronisation. God help us all if the bulk of his followers are anything at all like yourself in mind and spirit, Lief. If there be a God, I hope he or she delivers us all from spiritual and social would-be terrorists such as you demonstrate yourself to be. I beg you to take a clear, hard, straight, honest look at the things you believe and wish to force upon the rest of the world whether they like, believe, need or want it themselves. The God and Jesus I grew up knowing and studying is not a god of hate and intolerance and bigotry and judgement and hypocrisy. Can you even see this? Can you see? Jesus, the Jesus you believe in and hope to emulate, would be ashamed and horrified and deeply saddened by one of his followers being so destructively and shamefully waylaid in mind and spirit.

[Rían]

If I owned my own country, I'd sell it as fast as I could and live somewhere else with a buncha friends and family.

If I absolutely HAD to stay and rule, I think I might institute a democracy and have people vote on things and let things fall where they may - it seems to be the least bad choice of all the bad choices.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Trainers following a set of rules as well as their professional judgment are likely to make better decisions for the army.

But the trainers cannot fully excercise their judgement if all fit candidates are not allowed into the army in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, your comment indicates that you see no biological psychological difference between men and women. So if I had that same perspective, I'd agree. As it is, I emphatically disagree. But there we are .

My comment indicates nothing of the sort, though I shouldn't have used to obscure euphamism "meat and two veg" to refer to a penis. I do think men and women have biological differences. We also have psychological differences, though the relevence of this and the actual extent of this is hard to determine.

What I was saying is just because a person has a penis doesn't mean he should be forced to join the army.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes. I argued for that in the Gender Thread just now, and in this thread for a while. I'm a little tired of debating it at the moment, though. I posted my case and don't have more to add to it right now, and I don't think anyone successfully refuted it. Eärniel said she also had nothing more to add to her arguments either, but found mine faulty, so we reached an impasse. So we dropped it together.

Well, if you and Eärniel dropped it then I won't restart the debate. However, knowing that you would either alter or remove my right to vote has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for you, a person who until now I regarded as quite intelligent. Feel free to refute this in the Gender Issues thread or by PM if you want.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is why I suggested there would be routes for some cross-over. Because I know there are exceptions.

I think you're going about it backwards. Why not allow everyone and remove those who don't qualify, rather than limit

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wouldn't try to develop nuclear weapons or spread terrorism in the countries around me.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I also would not use Sharia law. So I think that calling it a Christian version of Iran is not fair. Though I do believe that learning more about which parts of Islamic culture make sense will expand my ability to relate to Muslims, which will be a good thing.

Of course you wouldn't use Sharia law, as it is law based on the Qu'ran. But you would implement the exact same thing with the Bible as the basis for law, so frankly I don't see a difference.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I find that very unfair. I'm not trying to take over my country by force of arms or to conquer other countries.

The USA invaded Iraq, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that it wouldn't always be possible to fairly legislate this. I don't believe it would be impossible, though, or as difficult as you suggest. Witnesses will sometimes no what the views of the accused are from firsthand conversations. Other means might be used. I don't think it's impossible. The Catholics managed to maintain orthodoxy in territories within their sphere of influence for centuries, and that wasn't only because of the threat of violence. There was immense passion for religion that captivated the masses during that period. There also were abuses, I know, as there always will be as long as this Earth exists. There have been far worse abuses, IMO, resulting from the removal of a single religion being held to in the state. And obviously I'm thinking of abortion.

Catholics in Spain did stay ideologically pure. They achieved this by having the Inquisition. Do you really want to go there?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The purpose is to prevent the spread of false ideologies that motivate behavior harmfully and that are in and of themselves harmful.

That makes a lot more sense.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There's a big difference between having head knowledge of it that you might get when you're old enough and growing up in a culture that is immersed in it.

Head knowedge? Anyway, allowing religions to exist in your country doesn't mean you'll become immersed in it. For example, Canada has always allowed more than one religion, and we've always been predominantly Christian.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think it is. That's why I've heard frequently the modern claim, "you can't legislate morality." Aspects of moral behavior that were historically always expected are now called into question throughout modern society. When all religions are equal under law, then all forms of morality become equal under law, and therefore immorality as a natural consequence is legal under law. One of the reasons people argue for abortion is "freedom of religion." It's the same with homosexual marriage. And other immoral things that have so long been legal that we're now forgetting about criticizing their legalization.

I would agree with you that you can legislate morality, to the point of arguing that that is one of the purposes of legislation.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But on what basis do you select that system of morals and not another? <snip>

In this scenario, you are the sole lawmaker in the country, at least in the beginning. So you would use, in your case, Christianity for the basis of your moral decisions and then they would be made law. This doesn't have to mean that other religions are outlawed necessarily.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

None of these things would ever have gotten anywhere in law if only one religion was allowed. These all come from broadly varying forms of morality and religion, and from people without any religion. So one absolutely cannot have "one set of morals in your laws" while not having a state religion. It doesn't come out in practice unless religious freedom technically exists while in practice everybody follows one religion. That produces the same result one would hope for by having one religion, though by a roundabout means. The US got away with that for the first couple hundred years of our existence, by and large, but since then the true nature of our laws has caught up to us. And, in my view, it's destroying us.

Maybe abortion and such wouldn't be allowed, but slavery would be.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But not simply animals.

True, we have a lot more free time on our hands then most animals.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But the trainers cannot fully excercise their judgement if all fit candidates are not allowed into the army in the first place.

Well, as I said earlier, I don't know how those cracks would be arranged but they would exist to take into account these women in both politics and the military. I hope that it could be done effectively and successfully.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My comment indicates nothing of the sort, though I shouldn't have used to obscure euphamism "meat and two veg" to refer to a penis.

It wasn't hard to guess what you meant .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do think men and women have biological differences. We also have psychological differences, though the relevence of this and the actual extent of this is hard to determine.

What I was saying is just because a person has a penis doesn't mean he should be forced to join the army.

I agree with you on that. I think that the difference of genitals is completely irrelevant. I was referring to psychological differences, and I see those as extensive.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, if you and Eärniel dropped it then I won't restart the debate. However, knowing that you would either alter or remove my right to vote has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for you, a person who until now I regarded as quite intelligent. Feel free to refute this in the Gender Issues thread or by PM if you want.

I am very saddened to hear that. Your respect and good opinion have always meant a great deal to me.

I tried to explain myself in a number of recent detailed posts in the Gender Issues Thread. They weren't addressed to you but to others with the same position, so I don't know if you've read them. I don't think I have anything more to add to that.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think you're going about it backwards. Why not allow everyone and remove those who don't qualify, rather than limit

Maybe we would allow everyone to apply. I don't know how those cracks would be handled, I said. You'll have to forgive my extreme vagueness on this point- I just haven't thought it all through at this time. Those kinds of administrative arrangements aren't really in my expertise, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Of course you wouldn't use Sharia law, as it is law based on the Qu'ran. But you would implement the exact same thing with the Bible as the basis for law, so frankly I don't see a difference.

I agree that there would be a religious basis for law, but that does not mean that the laws would be the same. So although you're right that there is a valid comparison in that we'd both use a religious text as a basis for law, those laws wouldn't come out the same, so saying that this would be a Christian Iran is not accurate. That kind of label presumes that the same laws are in place, but everybody is just Christian instead of Muslim. Contrary to Unitarian belief, all religions aren't the same.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The USA invaded Iraq, not the other way around.

We invaded Iraq primarily because we viewed them as being an immediate threat to our national security, because we thought they had WMDs. We secondarily attacked them to free an oppressed people, and thirdly to impose our democratic vision upon their society (something it turned out most of the population seems to have wanted anyway). We did not invade to Christianize them. In fact, Christians in Iraq are enduring horrible persecution. Ayatollah Khameini, on the other hand, has called for the destruction of the West.

My country would be willing to attack and conquer other countries if the circumstances required it. For instance, we would have fought Hitler in WW2 and we would have engaged in the Cold War against Russia. That is not the same as an Islamic jihadi who wants to impose his own religious world order upon everyone else through the means of military conquest and terrorism.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Catholics in Spain did stay ideologically pure. They achieved this by having the Inquisition. Do you really want to go there?

No. We would not use torture. And it would not, I think, be necessary. A lot of the abuses of the Inquisition were completely pointless and counterproductive anyway. They made people confess under torture or threat of torture and they even got some witnesses to accuse people through the use of torture. The Inquisition was also used as a political instrument for people in the secular government to attack their opponents with. Charge someone with being a heretic and the Inquisition may crack down on them horribly, eliminating a personal enemy for you. Judges who worked in the Inquisition also knew that confessions extracted under torture were virtually worthless and so did not give them much credit. So there wasn't even any point in sending those people through those horrific abuses from a judicial perspective, though it was often done anyway. It was a sloppy, sloppy, horrible and wicked business.

The first Inquisition also only emerged in the 13th century AD. That means for about 900 years before that, Christians managed to maintain ideological purity without an Inquisition. So I don't see that as necessary or helpful- or at least not an Inquisition that uses torture. The Inquisition didn't even originally use torture. I don't think it used it for the first 20 years of its existence, but it rather functioned as a judicial system that was generally more lenient than the secular court.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Head knowedge? Anyway, allowing religions to exist in your country doesn't mean you'll become immersed in it. For example, Canada has always allowed more than one religion, and we've always been predominantly Christian.

Yeah, but there is a whole lot of liberalism there and adherence to the kinds of immoral principles I listed in my previous post that would have definitely been cracked down upon under a Christian government. Much of the practice of Christianity today isn't really sincere and does cater a lot to modern political correctness and immorality. People in our public schools, and I think that goes for Canada too, are becoming more and more liberalized as time goes on. Many have become relativists.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I would agree with you that you can legislate morality, to the point of arguing that that is one of the purposes of legislation.

Yep, I agree. One of the big purposes.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In this scenario, you are the sole lawmaker in the country, at least in the beginning. So you would use, in your case, Christianity for the basis of your moral decisions and then they would be made law. This doesn't have to mean that other religions are outlawed necessarily.

Their existence in my realm would likely influence some of my people to convert to them. Though Judaism historically hasn't presented this kind of problem, for the Jews generally don't try to convert anyone.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe abortion and such wouldn't be allowed, but slavery would be.

Not necessarily. It wasn't throughout most of the Medieval Ages. It existed for a while as a carry-over from Roman times but petered out and then ascended again in later centuries. In one of the Epistles, the Bible says, "there is neither slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus." So that scripture eliminates any natural right people might see to having slaves. It says masters are no higher than slaves. There might be economical situations where slavery is preferrable to freedom, though. Sometimes people were enslaved in times of war. Free, the people would be enemies. Slaves, they would no longer be launching raids and would be able to earn their keep rather than absorbing aid in prison. I've not thought much about the morality of that kind of situation, though I can't offhand think of any better alternatives as to what those people could be done with.

There also was temporary enslavement where someone would enslave himself to someone else for a while to pay a debt.

There also were cases where it would not be economically possible for an employer to take on somebody else as an employee, so the only way he could afford to take care of the person would be if the person working without pay. So both people might desire for the one to be slave to the other.

There are a number of complex situations involving slavery. I suspect that in some cases, it's wrong and in some cases it's right. So the fact that there isn't any outright condemnation of slavery in the Bible makes sense. Though Paul does condemn "kidnappers of men," which applies to slavemasters who do what the Portuguese did and steal Africans from their native homes to serve as slaves.