Separation of Church & State

[Guest Knightflame]

I am not going to say much right now except that well "In God we Trust".

[NBVegita]

There should be a separation of church and state.

 

America is not christian. The largest religion in America may be christianity, but that is not enough to allow laws to be mandated by religion. There is already a strong influence of religion on laws, just look at stem cell research. Religion faith is supposed to give you the guidlines on how, according to your beliefs, you should live your life, they are not absolute rules that should be imposed on people beyond your faith.

 

Colonists first came to America to escape religious persecution, now it seems that those same people, who's forefathers founded this country based on religious freedom have actually throughout the years spent a lot of their time exercising their own religious persecution.

[Falcoknight]

As my english teacher (who is an Atheist) told me in class this year, "There is no separation between church and state in a democracy."

 

And he's right

 

Should there be a separation? Of course, in an ideal world there would be, and I'm sure it would benefit everyone. However this is not an ideal world.

 

When a politician does something with the intent of winning over voters of a specific religious belief there is an example of a lack of separation, to me anyway.

 

The most basic example of how there really isn't much of a separation, is right at the voting booth.

Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, many, many people in America will vote based on morals. If a candidate stands for something that just goes completely against their own personal morals, that person may not vote for them. Can you blame them?

But guess where many people's morals stem from? You guessed it, their own religious beliefs.

 

I don't really know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, to be honest. It just is

[SeVeR]

What interests me is the Christian perspective on this. Would a Christian dominated government end up being no different than the Islamic examples we have in the middle east? Would homosexuals, pornography, sex before marriage and abortion be banned? How far would it go... what about short-skirts, rap music, goth-metal? Would atheists and muslims be shunned? Would immigration be drastically reduced? Would the wars continue?

[Guest Knightflame]

What interests me is the Christian perspective on this. Would a Christian dominated government end up being no different than the Islamic examples we have in the middle east? Would homosexuals, pornography, sex before marriage and abortion be banned? How far would it go... what about short-skirts, rap music, goth-metal? Would atheists and muslims be shunned? Would immigration be drastically reduced? Would the wars continue?

 

I must say that your inquiries are quite interesting. I do not know the answer to that question and those are some of my questions too.

 

 

yes also on the topic Goerge Bush and his beliefs are interfering with that separation. He believes that there should not be abortion in embryos. This is mainly coming from his viewon the scriptures.

 

[

[JDS]

America and its religion is rediculous , your government pretty much shuns EVERYONE who doesn't believe in 'In God We Trust'

[Greased_Lightning]

America doesn't have a religion. Sure, the majority of people follow Christianity but there's still a huge population of Jews and Muslims as well as Hindu, Buddhists, and smaller denominations. There is no Church of America as there is the Church of England. Yes, our currency does have the words 'In God We Trust' engraved on it. If what you imply were true, then why would our Pledge of Allegiance have been ruled uncons!@#$%^&*utional due to the words "under God"? Why would historical monuments with any religious meaning be forced to be removed from government buildings, public parks, etc because of the vast MINORITY of people who don't like them? If anything, the US goes way too far out of its way to accomodate anybody who finds even the most minor things mildly offensive and then pay them for their inconvenience. Sure, politicians wear their beliefs on their sleeves and there are plenty of televangelists making a stink every day it seems, but you can find that and much worse in many places around the world.

 

There is no American religion. If you don't like the US or Americans, fine. Shut up and mind your own business. I'm so !@#$%^&*ed sick and tired of hearing about how evil we are and how everything bad is our fault. Get a freaking life.

[Wild Luck]

you guys dont know what Separation of Church & State means

[Confess]

Seperation of Church and States is not what you think. Seperation of Church and State was used as a term (if I am correct, feel free to try and correct me/back it up) that meant the government didnt have the right to tell you what was right and wrong about your religion, and couldnt touch what you believed. It does not mean that your religious views are not allowed to be put into the government.

 

Seperation of Church and State was created to make sure that people that wanted to dictate what religions could and couldnt say wouldnt be allowed to, however it seems that this meaning has been twisted and turned to make it into a "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom of religion". Free from religion states that you can be completely free from any religious en!@#$%^&*y, and if you believe in anything religious you are stepping on those borders (which, unfortunetly, will happen one day.). Freedom of religion states that you can have any religious views as you please, and the government cant step in and tell you not to believe it.

[Drake7707]

Government is the controlling factor of a society, without it the society would fall apart like a neglected machine. Should the controller be enforcing beliefs not everyone of that society agrees with ? Not at all.

 

It has to do its job by maintaining order, providing the necessary parts to keep society running, so it has to stay neutral, no religion involvement whatsoever because else you'll get disagreements and conflicts like there are so many of them.

[SeVeR]

Confess said it right. In a democracy we are going to have candidates elected who are predominantly from the main religion: Christianity. What gets me is political parties who actively encourage Christians to vote for them in ways that are meaningless to anyone without faith. In a way, they appeal to the stupid because the stupid are easily controlled. I believe this to be a flaw in our democratic system. Voting should be on a points based system where certain qualifications, jobs and services to the country earn voting points. How can the vote of an unemployed drug-addict be equivalent to that of a University Professor in Political Science. If things remain the way they are we'll always get political parties appealing to those Homer Simpsons out there who would cast their vote in a particular direction if promised a donut.

[Greased_Lightning]

SeVeR, what part of 'all men are created equal' and 'certain inalienable rights' is so offensive? If we start !@#$%^&*igning more political worth to one group of people and less to another, how is that democracy? You would set up a class-based system where the educated and rich are given more power than they already get over middle and lower class people? And who's to say that a university professor in political science knows what's better for people than your average Joe Paycheck? Does a professor of biology necessarily make a good doctor or someone who should make healthcare policy? I wouldn't put too much trust in academia, as the saying goes, 'those who can't do, teach'. I've seen plently of examples of that in college.

 

Now as far as your example of unemployed drug addicts, well, illegal drug use is a crime, a felony, and thus those people shouldn't be able to vote in the first place. But if we start setting standards of intelligence or !@#$%^&*igning worthiness of a vote based on occupation or education, how the !@#$%^&* could we call ourselves a free society? Not too long ago, minorities and women weren't allowed to vote, there were tests that people had to p!@#$%^&* in order to vote, which was struck down as uncons!@#$%^&*utional. When African Americans were given voting rights, how many of them were very educated? Should we have not allowed them to vote?

 

There are plenty of highly educated idiots out there, and there are plenty of them who have a great deal of control in american politics. Since so many people hate President Bush here, under that plan, he could conceivably have even more control simply because he went to an Ivy-league school. There are also a lot of unqualified people in high positions in business simply because they know the right people. Does that make them better than someone else?

 

And where does it stop if we did that with voting rights? What's next? No guarantee of police or fire protection for the lower castes? Social Security only for people whose lives are believed worth more than others? Citizenship only for those who earn it? All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others?

 

I for one don't want an oligarchy. We've got too much of an elitist society as it stands.

 

Yes, there are a lot of people out there who vote for stupid reasons, be it blindly following a political party, religion, or a freaking ouiji board. The way to fix that is to actually fix who we have running and how they are allowed to get their message out. Also, to get people to think about what's best not just who agrees with you on the hot-button topics. Voter apathy is the biggest problem and the media is largely to blame for that through distraction from real issues.

 

SeVeR, there's topics here on this forum on which I don't agree with you and some that I do, but I've always appreciated the rational thought behind your views. However, and please don't take any offense at this, on that particular subject, I think you are dead wrong and I think that road of thought is dangerous to personal freedom and equality.

 

Sorry that this didn't really have anything to do with the main topic.

[Aileron]

This notion wasn't designed to apply to this degree. "In God We Trust" is something entirely different than the policies the concept opposes.

 

The idea is that in older times (and current times in certain parts of the world), candidates would need a stamp of approval from the clergy to hold office, and likewise clergy would need approval from the secular authorities to practice their vocation.

 

To that end, the biggest most recent threat to SBCS is that last time Rev. Al Sharpton ran for president, though even then not in concept because he is not using his !@#$%^&*le to take over.

 

We've achieved SBCS. We did so a long time ago and shouldn't doubt that we have.

 

There are seven facts I would like to point out on this matter: Religion is not Politics. Politics is not Religion. Religion is not Science. Science is not Religion. Politics is not Science. Science is not Politics. All three are necessary for society to function and non-interchangable, though NOT entirely isolated from each other.

[SeVeR]

Greased Lightning, i was thinking of something a little more complicated than academic achievement. It would obviously have to be a very complicated system in order to be fair. Jobs of particular use to society such as doctors, nurses and teachers would enjoy a good number of voting points, as would members of the armed forces. A university degree would qualify for points, as would the type of subject the degree is in. Those with a criminal conviction would lose points. Positions of seniority in the work-place would qualify for points, as would experience. Those with any innate disadvantage, such as the disabled, would be compensated accordingly.

 

There are many reasons behind this system.

 

1. The political parties would appeal to the educated and in doing so would present well thought out plans and ideas rather than propagandist mumbo-jumbo for idiots. The real policy making goes unheard by the public, this would change.

2. The system would encourage achievement. What better way to encourage people to improve themselves.

3. Leaders would not be elected by people who have accepted religious-patriotic garbage. If a reverend ran for the 2008 election and started waving a flag around and being all patriotic he would win. He wouldn't need any policy whatsoever. In my view this is wrong.

4. Based on point 3, GWB wouldn't be elected.

 

I find the term "all men are created equal" offensive. We are not created equal, and in order to make an elitist system work we need to know what people are capable of before judging their achievement. Otherwise the system would be unfair.

 

I think a democracy is better served by giving more voting power to those who support, advance and preserve that democratic society the most.

 

The rich wouldn't be given more power unless the rich happen to be the educated, and if thats the case then mere wealth is no reason to hold anything against them. As i said before, education isn't everything, but it would be worth something, and i think that's deserved.

 

On the example of unemployed drug-addicts, they don't lose their voting privileges until they are convicted, and i'm willing to bet there are more without a conviction to their name than those with. The example was not meant to be so specific though, and was directed more at "those sorts of people". If you think those sorts of people have a more well-informed decision or are more deserving of their vote than doctors, professors and soldiers then thats your belief, not mine.

 

And where does it stop if we did that with voting rights? What's next? No guarantee of police or fire protection for the lower castes? Social Security only for people whose lives are believed worth more than others? Citizenship only for those who earn it? All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others?

None of that is necessary.

[AstroProdigy]

When the President has an office of faith based initiatives then the separation of church and state has been violated. I'm all for religious historical symbols being preserved, but this is not the problem here. The problem is that what the Conservatives in the Republican Party want for the most part is a theocracy and to do this take smaller actions to change things more gradually. There actually is a real threat to the separation of church and state today.

[Dav]

There defiantly should be a separation IMO.

 

Separation of church and state give the church very little power and influence to the majority of people lives and government. This allows decisions to be made based on rational thought to give the best outcome for the nation rather then the words of a religious text.

 

This also has the added benefit of allowing people of different faiths to coexist in one nation and does not hinder ones ability to follow their faith.

[Greased_Lightning]

Sever, don't you see where that is inherently wrong? You put most of the power in the hands of one group of people, they will vote to give themselves more power. Studies show that minorities in this country generally are less educated, so under that system you could easily justify racism in voting by awarding fewer 'points' to certain ethnic groups because as a whole they don't match up as well with another. Again, you assume that education or occupation makes a person better. In many cases, yes it helps make them more informed. But there are still a lot of people who are highly educated that have no business doling out power. Again the wealth example fits very well: a family that comes from wealth can better afford higher education, can use influence to get family and friends better jobs, and thus more 'points' for their own purposes. The fact that they are wealthy doesn't mean jack, but the fact that this gives them an automatic advantage and more political clout is not fair nor is it just. Power could be handed down family lines like a monarchy, only it would be a lot of small monarchies holding power.

 

What would be the point of representatives for the lower classes under this system? Why would there be a need for equal representation when equality isn't an issue?

 

An yes, all people are created equal because we all share the same biology. When one person is born, they are no better or worse than someone else. THAT is what equality is and that is vital. Everyone has a chance at being who they want to be. Granted, some people get a leg up due to family finances, where they're from, what their name is, etc. But everyone still has the potential and that is what we are about. Who is to judge a person's acheivement? A person's worth? How do you judge whether one person is better than another? Who makes that decision? NO ONE CAN. Who has the authority, moral or otherwise, to decide who is better than another?

 

As far as what jobs are more beneficial to society, so then you would say farmers, machinists, city workers, etc aren't good enough? How long would society endure without people to do the 'lesser' jobs? You can have all the doctors, teachers, nurses, lawyers, physicists in the world, but without someone to keep the power going, the food coming, and the toilets flushing, that society isn't going to last very long. It is very arrogant to believe that education and a better job makes a better person or someone who is more qualified to make decisions for everyone else. That kind of system sets itself up so nicely for violent revolution. Hitler appealed to the working-class, the farmers, the laborers, the masses of people who didn't have the white collar jobs and high-priced educations to fuel his movement. All this system does is give a motivated person a genuine reason to overthrow a government, and if this person is sufficiently 'motivated' you could easily find genocide. Just look at what happened in China under Mao.

 

My problem with that system is that it !@#$%^&*umes that people are better than others which goes from racist to classist to elitist. It is unjust and unfair and it only provides a breeding ground for violence, revolution, and terrorism. Any system of government that is set up to benefit one group of people at the expense of a larger group is doomed to failure, most likely in a very bloody way. You can't expect people, no matter their education, to NOT abuse power that they are given over others that are deemed less worthy or important. It's a slippery slope from this to discrimination to human rights violations. We've seen time and time again in history where one group of people believes itself superior and either tries to eliminate the inferior, are themselves eliminated, or a horrible combination of both.

 

You really think that giving 'the stupid people' less say in their lives than others will really make a difference in leadership? The only difference is how long it takes for those people to overthrow their ruling class and how bloody it will be.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are ins!@#$%^&*uted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to ins!@#$%^&*ute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Words as true today as they were almost 231 years ago.

 

I don't care how you would set this up, if it ever came to be in this country, I would fight it to the death, whatever my educational and occupational status notwithstanding.

[Falcoknight]

Greased, I want you to have my babies.

[AstroProdigy]

Greased doesn't have your babies. YOU HAVE GREASED'S BABIES!

[Confess]

I would like to point out one thing, that I personally have observed, and Im sure that many other people have also.

 

With religion, comes moral standards. If you disallow religion from the government, more then likely, you also will lose those precious moral standards. For those of you that look around, you'll notice that those people that fear nothing, or live as though there is no God, often go on to committing crimes.

 

Suppose you guys get your wishes, and the person for office is not allowed to be religious (which, btw, is still a religion, as athiesm is a religion), what exactly do you think that would look like? What I see is m!@#$%^&* chaos. A government without God, will be !@#$%^&*ed over. A government without God, then makes it possible to remove freedom of religion completely. If you can topple our government into not allowing religious persuation, how long will it be till they make governmental jobs follow that protocal also?

 

------

Their are religions that simply set their mind on terrorizing the world, of which (Im sorry, but it is fact), Islam is on those list. They advocate the terrorism in order to get saved. Im not saying that all Muslims are terrorist, dont take it that way.

 

You guys seem to constantly bombard the Christian Religion, yet you havnt laid a simply hand on other religions that are worse then Christianity. Keep in mind, that "Under God" doesnt just reffer to *although it was meant as* the Christian God.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Confess

[Drake7707]

I would like to point out one thing, that I personally have observed, and Im sure that many other people have also.

 

With religion, comes moral standards. If you disallow religion from the government, more then likely, you also will lose those precious moral standards. For those of you that look around, you'll notice that those people that fear nothing, or live as though there is no God, often go on to committing crimes.

 

Suppose you guys get your wishes, and the person for office is not allowed to be religious (which, btw, is still a religion, as athiesm is a religion), what exactly do you think that would look like? What I see is m!@#$%^&* chaos. A government without God, will be !@#$%^&*ed over. A government without God, then makes it possible to remove freedom of religion completely. If you can topple our government into not allowing religious persuation, how long will it be till they make governmental jobs follow that protocal also?

 

------

Their are religions that simply set their mind on terrorizing the world, of which (Im sorry, but it is fact), Islam is on those list. They advocate the terrorism in order to get saved. Im not saying that all Muslims are terrorist, dont take it that way.

 

You guys seem to constantly bombard the Christian Religion, yet you havnt laid a simply hand on other religions that are worse then Christianity. Keep in mind, that "Under God" doesnt just reffer to *although it was meant as* the Christian God.

 

having to be not religious doesn't mean someone with no beliefs in god(s) or whatever, it just means that you can't publicly show it to everyone in what you believe, because the government has to keep its neutral face

 

Most people take christianity as target because they are most familiar with it and experienced irritation with it, but overall it counts for all religions

[AstroProdigy]

I would like to point out one thing, that I personally have observed, and Im sure that many other people have also.

 

With religion, comes moral standards. If you disallow religion from the government, more then likely, you also will lose those precious moral standards. For those of you that look around, you'll notice that those people that fear nothing, or live as though there is no God, often go on to committing crimes.

 

Suppose you guys get your wishes, and the person for office is not allowed to be religious (which, btw, is still a religion, as athiesm is a religion), what exactly do you think that would look like? What I see is m!@#$%^&* chaos. A government without God, will be !@#$%^&*ed over. A government without God, then makes it possible to remove freedom of religion completely. If you can topple our government into not allowing religious persuation, how long will it be till they make governmental jobs follow that protocal also?

 

------

Their are religions that simply set their mind on terrorizing the world, of which (Im sorry, but it is fact), Islam is on those list. They advocate the terrorism in order to get saved. Im not saying that all Muslims are terrorist, dont take it that way.

 

You guys seem to constantly bombard the Christian Religion, yet you havnt laid a simply hand on other religions that are worse then Christianity. Keep in mind, that "Under God" doesnt just reffer to *although it was meant as* the Christian God.

 

I disagree bigtime. Moral standards may officially come with religion, but the same people who use religious rhetoric to control people conveniently forget the specific moral standards that don't suit them, like greed, ignore these standards. In fact they attack people who question corruption as heretics. The most religious societies are probably MORE corrupt than the secular ones since they use religion to cover up that corruption. Look at Saudi Arabia. They have huge oil resources, but the people are poor because the ruler uses religion to shut opposition and rape the land of its wealth for his own elites.

 

People who don't believe in God go on to commit crimes because they fear nothing? If anything they fear man's law even more because they don't believe in God's law later on; you'd be surprised the way religious people can convince themselves that their crimes are righteous. I bet people who bomb abortion clinics believe they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. The most secular societies are actually very stable and the problems they have come when religious extremists attack them for their secularism.

 

Why would a government without religion remove religion? It's religious people who have a problem with people who don't agree. I wouldn't like to see an atheist in office either, but an agnostic would be amazing. Guaranteed doesn't persecute atheists doesn't persecute theists. A government that doesn't promote religion is almost the same as a government that bans religion in your mind? You're taking the right and putting it in the center while taking the center and putting it in the left here. I don't even want to know where you put the left.

 

Your statements about the nature of Islam show you know absolutely nothing about Islam. The killing of innocent people as well as suicide bombings are strictly forbidden in Islam actually. It's self righteous religious people who believe their opinions are the only opinions that advocate these things. Christianity had the same problems in the past, but secularism has corrected mostly. What stops violence is education. Smart people don't do stupid things, but uneducated religious people not only do stupid things, they justify it with God.

 

What would you do to Hindus who don't believe in a single God? Crucify them? What about atheists? They must believe in a God or else they must die? Do you have any proof that atheists have higher crime rates? I bet you they have lower crime rates because they tend to be the better educated group and education is what reduces crime NOT religion. You seem to forget that religious people are the ones always most willing to give up their rights (as they have very clearly shown with Bush) because they believe in an all powerful God who controls their lives so giving control of their life to someone else too seems like no problem. The funny part is religious people are literally raised to embrace a totalitarian government and act like they're the ones protecting democracy. HAH!

 

Secularism and Democracy go hand in hand. There have been no religious societies that are also democratic. This contradicts itself. Secularism breeds democracy and democracy breeds secularism. It's a fact that secular societies tend to be freer than their neighbors. You can try to use Communism as a contradiction, but what communism does is replace religion with communism. It is simply a different religion.

 

Most people target Christianity because it by far has the worst track record in human rights.

Edited July 2, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

Confess: Not believing in God doesn't make you religious. If that were the case then everyone would be religious since you either believe or don't believe in God. Your comment is utter baloney. Atheism may categorically say God doesn't exist, and in that way it can be described as a religion; but you can't infer that all those who don't believe in God are religious. I'm agnostic and consider faith my enemy. Probability is the only thing i believe in, and in that way i'm the most irreligious person i can be.

 

What you said about moral standards is complete crap. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but it is. I suppose you believe morals started with the ten commandments? It's quite clear from studies of ancient civilisations that people learnt to co-exist in tribes/societies and thus learnt not to kill, steal or commit adultery. Do you think we'd not learnt that before God came along and gave Moses some stone tablets, and everyone's reaction was "Ahhh so don't kill? What an interesting concept"?

 

I've never been "touched" by God or Jesus and find my moral centre from one basic instinct: to survive. To survive we do not generate threats to our survival by angering and bringing pain to our fellow man. From the survival instinct we can derive all of our morals, even empathy. What more probable cause for our morals than something innate to all forms of life. Do you think animals don't have basic morals because they haven't been given some stone tablets yet? Cows should be head-butting eachother to death in the fields...

 

Religion may give morals to those too stupid to find them by themselves. Some people seem to function better with a set of rules which have no logical cause other than God. However this is known to back-fire not only because of the lack of understanding for why thse morals exist, but because they are incomplete and open to a range of interpretations. In other words, it's no surprise to me that alot of priests have been convicted of sexual assault or pedophilia.

 

I criticise Christianity because i have experienced it first hand and understand it's temptation to the weak-willed and desperate. I understand how it generates dependency, like a drug for the mind. Islam is alien to me, but appears to be little different from Christianity a few centures ago when scientists were condemned as heretics and old women were burned as witches. Christianity isn't better than Islam. Western civilisation is simply more developed now. For proof look no further than Africa, where the natives after being introduced to Chrsitianity are beating orphans for being "sorceror children".

[SeVeR]

Greased:

Hitler appealed to the working-class, the farmers, the laborers, the masses of people who didn't have the white collar jobs and high-priced educations to fuel his movement. All this system does is give a motivated person a genuine reason to overthrow a government, and if this person is sufficiently 'motivated' you could easily find genocide.

At the moment do you not believe the middle class are being discriminated against and overly taxed? Or maybe you think that political parties don't try to appeal to certain sections of the population? Lets get the black vote, or the womens vote, or that random minority vote. My concept gives everyone the chance to be recognised as important, given the effort of the individual. Basically if you're not viewed as important, then its your own fault. If you think that is any more cause for a revolution than the current system, then we disagree.

 

My problem with that system is that it !@#$%^&*umes that people are better than others which goes from racist to classist to elitist.

My problem is with a society that doesn't recognise the importance of those who support, advance and preserve that society the most. How can you say some people are not more important than others? Surely that is racist in it's own way. You're comparing me to drunkan yobs, unemployed bums, people who drop out of school at 14 and live of benefits... that is insulting. Some people are more important than others, and not recognising it is as good a reason to start a revolution (if not more of a reason) than if we were to recognise it.

 

As far as what jobs are more beneficial to society, so then you would say farmers, machinists, city workers, etc aren't good enough? How long would society endure without people to do the 'lesser' jobs?

Farmers are of course useful for providing food. You don't seem to understand the jobs that are necessary to society are NOT the lesser jobs. What you've said here shows you don't understand the concept.

 

Studies show that minorities in this country generally are less educated, so under that system you could easily justify racism in voting by awarding fewer 'points' to certain ethnic groups because as a whole they don't match up as well with another.

Absolute crap. Any person white/black/asian would be treated identically according to their qualifications, occupation and acheivements. There is no justification for racism, you're clutching at straws. If more mexican immigrants are less educated, with crappy jobs because they can barely speak english then they deserve less of a vote. But under no cicr!@#$%^&*stances would the colour of the persons skin determine their vote rating. You're trying to tarnish this concept with racism and its completely unnecessary.

 

Again the wealth example fits very well: a family that comes from wealth can better afford higher education, can use influence to get family and friends better jobs, and thus more 'points' for their own purposes.

Great! This encourages rich people to educate their friends and family! What could possibly be wrong with this? Oh, thats right, you have something against rich people... i guess that makes the point valid in your eyes.

 

Additionally, there isn't "one group of people" who get all the power in this elitist concept. Everyone gets a vote rating that could range from 0-100 with no particular section of society with way more points than the rest. The rating would be confidential.

 

Governments would make policies to help those with the most voting power and this would encourage people to get an education and/or become teachers/doctors/soldiers. Society would benefit.

 

The fact that they are wealthy doesn't mean jack, but the fact that this gives them an automatic advantage and more political clout is not fair nor is it just. Power could be handed down family lines like a monarchy, only it would be a lot of small monarchies holding power.

It already is handed down family lines in a much worse way than you illustrate. My system would allow anyone with an education to reach the highest vote ratings, and you're calling this worse? I come from a poor working class family, yet have saved what little i could, excelled in school and have gotten a degree in Physics from a top university and am now considering a doctorate in Nuclear Physics and a second degree in Philosophy. I'm making something out of myself from one of the poorest starts. It's quite possible.

 

Again, there are no classes. Anyone can benefit society, get a job, not get convicted for a crime. A soldier would earn alot of points for peace-keeping missions, what start in life do you need for that other than a bit of detemination?

 

An yes, all people are created equal because we all share the same biology. When one person is born, they are no better or worse than someone else. THAT is what equality is and that is vital.

Please stop denying genetics through this half-witted, high 'n' mighty ideal of equality. Is a baby born with muscular sclerosis the same as a healthy baby? You're the one denying equality here. I propose we recognise the innate disadvantages and compensate accordingly.

 

Who is to judge a person's acheivement? A person's worth? How do you judge whether one person is better than another? Who makes that decision? NO ONE CAN. Who has the authority, moral or otherwise, to decide who is better than another?

A democracy of elected representatives. Edited July 2, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

I disagree with giving higher voting weights. It is a step towards even more elitism. The problem is that the upper class would hold much more political power, more than they already do. Greased is right that it would turn into certain "families" being able to manipulate things in the government through their network of well educated, which in todays day and age you can simply buy, well employed, which you can also buy, "friends" and "family".

 

Pretty soon that would spread from voting power, to power in other aspects of life. Soon you won't be able to get into a college or university unless your family has enough pull. And the problem is that the government would be unable to "regulate" these things, because we are a democracy. Unless you want to give our government dictator like power (under select cir!@#$%^&*stances of course) which would then be abused.

 

I have come from the low lower class and made a very big mark for myself, and I would be standing right next to greased if this ever happened. I would be one of the first people to revolt against our government.