EquALLity wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:52 pm
Greatest I Am wrote:If your constitution allow for flagrant fraud, and the profiteering from your weakest and most gullible people, and the preaching of discrimination of gays and women without a just cause, thus creating second class citizens, then your constitution is garbage.
Just because you think something is a fragrant fraud doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, so you cannot legislate based on that.
We cannot stop people from profiteering from the weak and gullible. Do you support capitalism? If you do, you support corporations profiting often paying their workers low wages that make it hard for them to support their families. That is preying on the weak. You can try to prevent that from happening as much as possible with regulations, but it's always going to happen.
The preaching of discrimination has to be allowed unless you want to give the government the power to regulate any speech it doesn't like. If you disagree with speech, then use your free speech to argue against it.
I hear you and your fears are talking points but you have to remember that it is the courts who would decide which are fraudulent religions based on what is brought before it.
Yes, the courts, which are groups of people randomly selected citizens who have different religious beliefs... And most people are religious.
If you do not trust your political and legal system, which presently decide to move against religions or not, then you should be against my proposal out of fear of abuse.
I don't trust the government, because it changes constantly, so what speech is banned will just be determined by what group is in power at that point in time.
Your systems are supposed to have checks and balances built into them and regardless of the changing political and religious conditions, should be able to keep thing clean and honest. If not, that means a break down of laws and order and I have no idea what that would lead to.
Checks and balances cannot stop a government from changing election to election.
Progress is only one step at a time and what I propose seems like the most altruistic move I can think of to end the homophobia and misogyny that the mainstream religions preach for and create. If those who have power like religions do cannot preach the law of the land, they should be removed or replaced with religions that are as moral as your secular law.
I disagree that it is the most altruistic move based on the potential consequences. It will establish a precedent that speech can be banned for being "fraudulent", which can be used to ban good speech by saying it's fraudulent.
Polygamy was outlawed because of the law of the land and a better moral position and I think that thinking should be applied to the protection of the weakest and most gullible minds in your country. The ones who have been brainwashed from youth.
Why should polygamy be illegal?
