Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Small towns
Thread: Small towns This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 01:16 AM

Because defense has been decided to be a part of the state. If people want to abolish the separation of church and state, then they can do so - the Constitution can be amended. But they shouldn't circumvent it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted January 05, 2009 01:43 AM

#TheDeath: Ever heard of people completely living in denial because of their religion? People can how religious they want so long they still act reasonably rational and do not abuse the texts or the "holy words" passed down to an extent in any direction. Christians in USA tend to overabuse the dam bible, its worse at times than what we did over here in the dark age! Atleast its not another of the Christian vs Christan situation, however could they stop attempting to kill each other and realize they all are a part of different branches of the same worthship to the same God? <.<
And for the note, why ha nobody attempted to annihalt Ku Klux clan anyway? Their comparable to the nazis!

Meh i rant to much <.< I am currently living in "Landsbygda", the norwegian version of nowhere.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted January 05, 2009 08:52 AM

Quote:
What about separation of defense and state?
Why would church be so different?
Because democracy sucks as many will vote for religion? (which partly, I agree)
Why defense?

(NOTE: the defense thing is ONLY an example: replace it with whatever else you want!)
I could again say "A so typical reply of The_Death", but I will try to not point my finger too much into that....
Now you compare defense of a state with religion? Religion is something PERSONAL (at least in a democracy), while defense is something protecting rights of ALL. Religion protects me from nothing. Religion is never democratic, therefor a "religious" leaded country will never work fine (you can see many examples in earlier times and of course nowadays).

No offense, but you really sound like a "brainwashed" god-fanatic. You ever been in contact with Scientology or similar "groups"? If not, you should try....they would love to take you as a member when they hear what and how you talk.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted January 05, 2009 09:36 AM

*points at angelito*

what he said, word for word (possible typos included)
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 05, 2009 04:12 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 16:16, 05 Jan 2009.

Quote:
Now you compare defense of a state with religion? Religion is something PERSONAL (at least in a democracy), while defense is something protecting rights of ALL.
I don't think that's how it is, certainly not for Church-and-State thing we're discussing, which is far more than just 'personal'.
Defense can be personal too, if you separate it from the state.

<add anything else>, works same way. (few exceptions are environment, etc...)

Quote:
Religion protects me from nothing.
So? Who said that everyone wants protection? Tell that to the invaded countries. But yeah, nationalism... so much better than religion.

You don't want me to force you to follow some religious laws (not necessarily be religious). Why do you force me to be a patriot? Because the majority votes for that?

What if I don't care to be protected?
Some religious dudes can say, religion 'protects' you too (let's say, from Devil or whatever they think).

I can say too, that we don't need defense -- no one will attack us anyway, just as you say "Devil doesn't exist, we don't need protection from him", I can say "No one will attack us anyway". We can both be wrong, but at least, it's our choice. Not with unseparation though (both religion & defense), where it's not our choice anymore.

Quote:
No offense, but you really sound like a "brainwashed" god-fanatic. You ever been in contact with Scientology or similar "groups"? If not, you should try....they would love to take you as a member when they hear what and how you talk.
No, you can call me just 'weird'. It's a compliment for me -- you know why I am so "wacko"? Because, when people say "that's so 'obvious'" they are nothing more than "religious" to their common sense... no it's most certainly not obvious. Common sense is not so common.

And when I want to detail it and argue over it, people call me weird. That's a compliment for me If we don't analyze "common sense" and "blatantly obvious things", we are just like following a religion -- but sometimes, it's good to philosophize even about religion

So I'm not a "god fanatic", I'm actually a "non-'obvious'-stuff fanatic" therefore I argue about those. Think of it like this: I don't have more influence on God related stuff, but unlike others, I argue over the other "common sense" stuff. In effect, I may seem like a god fanatic, but not really.

Since above, you see, I haven't said anything like "religion MUST be non-separated from state!", I actually said "why do people have something with religion, when they don't say anything about the defense" (and patriotism, consequently).

For me, you could just as well do the same for defense (i.e separate it) and it would be fine, I'm only arguing here (and pointing why democracy is flawed). I don't actually am for religion and non-separation, I'm just pointing out the OTHER stuff (so I'm, technically, against the "common sense", not for religion).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 04:13 PM

Let's not get overboard here: true, religion is something very personal, but it was never felt wrong that people with the same personal interest organize to (interest) groups. Furthermore it's pretty normal, that said interest groups try to become influential in politics: if, for example, your religion allows marriages with more than one wife, it seems rather normal to try and get governments to accept this as legal. The same is true for questions like abortion and so on.
So religion will always be somehow connected with politics and the state in some way.
Problems arise, when a) members of a religion try to force their opinion on EVERYONE and b) when different religions have different point of views about an issue. Strictly spoken, the state shouldn't be the lackey of a certain religion - after all freedom of religion is granted, which should include the unharrassed pursuit of it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted January 05, 2009 04:25 PM

Well i have thing to say about separation of state and:
*Defence, means we would have a huge group of hands for hire that would leave us behind when we get attacked because they got a bigger fee from somewhere else. The separation beats its purpose of existing(defence). Separation could not happen before the earth is united into 1 nation, not before unless we reach world peace and defence becomes useless.
*Patriotisme, i would kind of encourage it.
*Religion, if they are already attempting to choke each other over laws then the world would be better of with this one.
*Nationalisme, its harmfull in its ways yet its ok in its ways. If you merge this deep enogh into the state you would have 3rd world war quickly on your hands, and its already to deep in todays society in a few nations.

I would however love a law that made it illegal to accuse somebody of being infidels in its way, or forcing people to realize people have differnt views instead of damning them or stamping them as infidels.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asheera
Asheera


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
posted January 05, 2009 04:41 PM
Edited by Asheera at 16:43, 05 Jan 2009.

I don't get what's the fuss about this whole religion stuff. Sure, some people may vote for a particular person because of religious reasons, some silly people may vote based on the appearance of the candidates, some may vote for even sillier reasons than that, but who are you to stop them voting for whatever reason they want to? This is the flaw of giving the people full freedoms in politics (but of course the majority decides). If 80% of the people were childish and voted for an alien because 'it looks cool', then under the current system that alien would get elected (of course it was an extreme example but you get the point)

I agree this whole system is flawed, and that we shouldn't let everyone vote (as I said, the majority may be uneducated and vote for silly reasons), but why make an exception only for religion? There are so many other things to take into account to limit people to vote (like the uneducated people I said above). Unfortunately a proper 'test' for people before voting will be not only expensive (in taxes), but will also probably discourage people from voting (even if they would be able pass the test with ease), so it's not a very good idea either.

Under the current 'completely free in decision' system, it wouldn't be 'fair' to get rid only of religious reasons. Unless those religious force someone to their teachings, then I don't see what's the problem with that someone voting for religious reasons... after all, since that someone wasn't forced to the religious teachings but rather accepted them, then who are you to take away his freedom to vote for whatever reason he wants?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 05, 2009 04:42 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 16:46, 05 Jan 2009.

For the defense thing, let me put it like this. If I were an US citizen, I would be against the war in Iraq. But yet, since "OMG, the majority said defense should be unseparated from the state" (democracy), I have no power, I am forced to be NOT ONLY an US patriot, but also following Bush and whoever else's agenda. What if I had a different view on how to get rid of terrorists, which would result in drastically different measures? That would be like having a different religion.

I would be forced to be a patriot in that case, and "supporter" of Bush or whoever had this on his/her plans. And frankly, part of my money (for example) went into that army who invaded Iraq, their blood is also on my hands. What if I don't want it?

But you know how it works? You may claim what's "reasonable" and what is "fairy tales", but in reality, that's left to the majority to decide. I don't find the war in Iraq "reasonable", yet the majority did, and now I am forced to pay for it and having my hands full of blood. With religion, you may not find it "reasonable", but if the majority does, then it's how it will be. "Reason" is not decided by few, it is decided by the majority.

So to mark this further with BOTH religion & defense: suppose that people voted for Palin, saying that "Iraqis are the devils, and that the war is a divine intervention!", which THEY FIND reasonable (and, in effect, we all are forced to find that reasonable, since they are the majority), then we are forced to have BOTH "religion" and "defense" here unseparated and whatever.

Democracy... such a wonderful thing.




The above post, obviously, assumes I am an US citizen, like I explained. Just to avoid confusion.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Moonlith
Moonlith


Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
posted January 05, 2009 04:48 PM

Quote:
Lith, elitist has nothing to do with reality vs non-reality. It's elitist because the tone is that of a person looking down on others as if he were somehow better. It's the TONE that's elitist and highly insulting and ignorant.

Kind of like how you prejudge and look down on "conspiracy lunatics" ?

I sense hypocricy.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 05:18 PM

@Ash and Death
Before you start blaming democracy for God knows what, let me show you the error you make here.
Democracy means the rulership of the MAJORITY. If said MAJORITY chooses to elect crap than the state of that majority gets exactly what it deserves. If the "uneducated" have to much of a say - electing crap or making crappy decisions when they can decide - then said state has too many uneducated people which means that this is the result of a bad policy made by the predecessors.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 05, 2009 10:47 PM

Asheera:
You have a point. Perhaps we should just have some kind of voting tests to weed out the ignorant. But whatever these tests would be like, somebody would cry foul.

TheDeath:
Quote:
I would be forced to be a patriot in that case, and "supporter" of Bush or whoever had this on his/her plans.
Certainly not, as you can clearly see today. There are plenty of US taxpayers that are against the war.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted January 05, 2009 11:11 PM

@JJ: Yes, so with that logic, if the majority are crusaders, they elect some religious crusader like Palin...

wasn't this what it was about?

Quote:
Certainly not, as you can clearly see today. There are plenty of US taxpayers that are against the war.
But they still pay. They can't do anything.

Then again, it's like atheists and possibly even some christians protesting against a crusade-type of government, but futile. Why would that be any different?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 06, 2009 07:04 AM

Quote:
@JJ: Yes, so with that logic, if the majority are crusaders, they elect some religious crusader like Palin...
wasn't this what it was about?


Let's phrase it this way: if a majority is blind, they elect a "crusader" like Bush a second time.

An elitist pov about who should be eligible to vote doesn't solve the problem, because the problem is - in this example - that the majority is blind. The question is, how come they are blind - or how come so many are so blind?
Coming up with education as a prerequisite for voting is the wrong step: if you think a better education would let citizens make "better" election decisions, then your aim is obviously to overhaul the public education system and make sure, that people get more and better education. If instead you build hurdles for voting (something with a tradition not only in the US for the blacks - they had to be able to write to vote at one time -, but worldwide for women, for example), inevitably there will be a division into citizens 1st class and citizens 2nd class which is against everything modern democracy stands for.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted January 06, 2009 07:24 AM

*rubs chin*

...how about another form of "test"?

instead of trying to measure the intelligence of voters, measure how well they know what they are voting for instead...

a questionaire about the positions of the candidates or parties... if you don't know what they stand for (or at least claim to stand for) you're not allowed to vote
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 06, 2009 07:53 AM

How about testing the candidates instead? You know, what they are CLAIMING to stand for may not be what they actually stand for...

In any case, there is nothing wrong with voting for someone because "he's black". Consequently there is nothing wrong with voting for someone because "he's white", "she's a she", "she was a he", "he's Presbytarian",  "she has 3 children" or "I like her boobs".

If that's what people interests in their political representatives, then the state gets for politicians what it deserves for deceiving their citizens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted January 06, 2009 09:12 AM

*perks a brow*

how about testing everyone?

and no, sorry... can't agree with everything else you say in that post
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 06, 2009 09:30 AM

I can't help that.

You know, if asked, whether a voter knows what the candidates stand for, a halfway intelligent person, if questioned, may answer correct, but STILL vote a certain candidate for one of the above reasons.

You have the right to vote a candidate for any reason you want or like, a basic right for every person. Moreover you have the right to keep your pick a secret. And you don't have to be interested in every facet of political opinion someone stands for to make a decision. ONE, if important for someone, would already qualify as a conscious decision.
However, you are not FORCED to vote either, and someone completely desinterested in elections simply will not vote.

Now, whether we like that or not, a citizen has the right to think (and say), I don't want this country ruled by atheist commies who want to kill unborn babies just because young women don't want to change their lifestyle, and that's why I'm oing to vote for a good Christian. If you have a majority of people thinking this kind of stuff, than there is simply more wrong than just the election procedure.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted January 06, 2009 09:35 AM

*clears throat*

speak for yourself... in some countries, you ARE forced to vote (doesn't have to be any specific party or canditate, just to paticipate) ...and its a good thing, because its both a right and an obligation of every citizen to participate in the procedure
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 06, 2009 10:03 AM

Quote:
speak for yourself... in some countries, you ARE forced to vote (doesn't have to be any specific party or canditate, just to paticipate) ...and its a good thing, because its both a right and an obligation of every citizen to participate in the procedure


Ah. So you want a test vor voters, but force everyone to participate anyway? That's somehow... contradictory?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0851 seconds