Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?

Do we really need millions of mosques, synagogues, churches, temples and cathedrals? Do we really need to debate whether schools should teach evolution or creationism? Do we really need to struggle to try and ensure that abortion isn't outlawed? Do we really need to fight for marriage equality? Given that society's resources are scarce/limited... couldn't all that time, money, effort and energy be used in more valuable/productive ways?

If you're an atheist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for theists to vote/shop for themselves?

If you're a theist...isn't it a given that the outcome would be largely beneficial if we simply made it illegal for atheists to vote/shop for themselves?

If you're an adult...isn't it a given that the outcome is largely beneficial because it's illegal for people who believe in Santa Claus to vote? Doesn't it follow then that we would benefit even more if we made it illegal for minors to shop for themselves? Couldn't all the money wasted on ice cream, candy and toys be better spent on more valuable things?

 

There is no need to deny anyone the vote because voting makes no difference in what those who are elected decide because they are beholden to powers far beyond the voters ability to influence.

 

Atheistic nonsense.

It's not really up to you either. I would say, if there are those who wish to worship then they can have their place to worship.

Shouldn't it be up to the person what they do with their life?

Well, in America at least, we have the 1st Amendment.

 

Article VI:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Considering that these ideas are laughable at best, I would say that you have another agenda here. What point are you trying to make? Did your parents take away your allowance and say you can't buy the latest Miley Cyrus album?

Just kidding. What are you really asking though?

 

Looking for your arguments in favor of giving people (more) influence despite the fact that you're pretty certain that, from your perspective, the outcome would be negative.

 

Ok, here's my serious answer. We don't NEED anything but food, water, shelter and clothing, but that would be a miserable existence. Now it is not right to take the rights of others for our own benefit. Everyone should be treated equally. I'm an agnostic/atheist but I would never want to take the rights away from theists. Also it is not illegal for someone who believes in Santa to vote. In fact, the US constitution protects us from "thought crimes". We cannot and should not, ever be convicted for what we think or believe. If that happens, you know we are in serious trouble as a country.

 

religious freedom for all is the only true way to peace, when ever you make it illegal for another to believe what they can't help believing, your asking for trouble

 

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)

- - - Updated - - -

Should children be allowed to vote?

 

False, which is why we have checks and balances in our government.

No, children lack the maturity to make a competent decision. This is also why they can't drink, can't smoke, can only drive after 16 and can't sign contracts.

 

In on troll thread. Oh yeah, and the Soviet Union already tried to implement this anti-theist program. In case you missed the history lesson, it didn't turn out too well, champ.

 

I think this is the quote everybody overlooked, because it's the absolute truth.

 

Wrong, it's actually true. Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient.

The Nobel Prize winning liberal economist Paul Samuelson provided the definitive economic justification for government...The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. It's been cited over 5,000 times. His argument basically boils down to the free-rider problem. It's a really reasonable argument. Of course it's true that we all want the most bang for our buck. Everybody wants something for nothing. Everybody wants a free lunch. The problem is though that Samuelson "conveniently" assumes that government planners are omniscient. I'm really not making this up...

Now, the question is...how many passages do I have to share with you before you agree that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient?

So here you are...a voter that's completely ignorant of public finance...arguing that children should not be allowed to vote because they lack "maturity". Yeah...no. Everybody should be allowed to vote for outcomes that they prefer...regardless of how immature or uninformed they are. If you're concerned with an outcome...like children drinking/smoking/driving...then it's your responsibility to share the relevant information with your fellow voters.

Right now I'm concerned with the outcomes we've experienced as a direct result of voters like yourself being completely unaware that our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. So I sacrifice the alternative uses of my time to share the relevant information with you. As a result, you should hopefully see the value of allowing taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.

 

So should children be allowed to vote?

 

That's not relevant champ.

 

Of course it's relevant chip clip. In both cases we're talking about whether or not people should be free to try and protect their interests. Given the fact that you don't think children's suffrage is relevant means that Churchill was talking about you when he said that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute discussion with the average voter. Either democracy would work better without you...or children should be allowed to vote.

 

Is this an argument for authoritarianism, Fascism or dictatorships?

 

Child suffrage has nothing to do with theists voting. Your delusional train of thought has led you to this erroneous and quite frankly embarrassing comparison that you have made between child suffrage and theists voting.

Lay off 'The God Delusion' and get some sunshine. Life is good outside of the basement

 

Seriously? Did you just argue that children voting has nothing to do with theists voting? LOL. Uh...yeah.

Obviously you don't know enough about anything to make an argument either way. Maybe I'm wrong? It's entirely possible. Quick test. What do you think the proper scope of government is?

- - - Updated - - -

Our current system is based on the assumption that congresspeople are omniscient. (True/False)

 

Lol. Right. You failed from the start by comparing child suffrage to theistic voting. Nice try though old chap.

 

So basically you have no idea what the proper scope of government is. Do you even know what "proper scope of government" means?

 

Don't patronize me. You're the one who made the absurd comparison. It is you who needs to save face here, though it is probably too late for that.

 

If you know what the proper scope of government is...then why didn't you tell me when I asked you?

 

Because you're diverting from the failure of your argument. If you want to discuss the scope of government then make a thread about it and put forth an argument.