Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

Originally Posted by mhailey

In the US, if a law contradicts the constitution then it is not a proper law, and is unenforceable. Granted, you take your chances in disobeying the law until it is deemed unconstitutional, but once it is declared such, it is basically void.

I think your questions are taking this issue to the extreme. This law was created to guarantee as close to a representative vote as possible.
But this specific law is deemed in line with the constitution so it will be upheld in court. I understand you point and in this case there is something to be said for both points of view.

Btw, some US states still ban sex between homosexuals, and even oral sex (or so I was told). I doubt the constitution contains something like 'thou shalt not commit fellatio on thy partner'
And Bush is doing plenty of things that I would think are unconstitutional so the US system is not perfect either.

Given that our system is not perfect, I'll just avoid the fine by turning up.
Not that it matters to me because I would vote anyway.

And no I would not obey a law telling me how to vote, or telling me that I have to report all crimes to big brother...
Btw, this brings me to my next question (which I will post in a separate post.)

How important is religion in your countries when it comes to government issues like elections and representation? Is it important enough to be an issue?

Belgium is a secular state with an official separation of state and church.
Nobody cares about an offical's religion on way or the other.

Ostensibly, Australia has been similar to Beligium in that respect Bruno, in that overt religious doctorine has never really been an election issue or platform base. However, in recent years religion has become an overt issue - I think there are several religion - based parties, but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the "Family First".

We are still dominated by the two major parties (Liberal/National: conservative; Labour: Socialist roots).

But religion, or the appearance of piety, at least, has always played a role in our politics to a greater or lesser degree.

James.

Over here Religion doesn't relly get much of a peek into politics. I don't mind much but I would't mind much if it did either being a religious person.

Thing is that I agree with a previous posters statements about homosexuality...but that doesn't mean that I'd like to see a law to enforce that. Things such as that are a personal choice that no government should ever have the right to regulate.

Pretending however that it's normal is quite another thing. I hear people in my country complain about how there are civil office representatives who refuse to perform gay mariage. The whine about how they should be forced and how if they don't like it they should get another job. That Irks me bigtime. I think that if someone chooses to stand up for what they believe in (no matter what) and it doesn't harm anyone (after all there are plenty of people who WILL perform those mariages) they should be left alone.

Originally Posted by Bruno

How important is religion in your countries when it comes to government issues like elections and representation? Is it important enough to be an issue?

Traditionally in Canada, religion has played a very minor role at best in Canadian politics, but there are forces at work who would like to change that and they're gaining ground, unfortunately.

X

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Thing is that I agree with a previous posters statements about homosexuality...but that doesn't mean that I'd like to see a law to enforce that. Things such as that are a personal choice that no government should ever have the right to regulate.

Pretending however that it's normal is quite another thing. I hear people in my country complain about how there are civil office representatives who refuse to perform gay mariage. The whine about how they should be forced and how if they don't like it they should get another job. That Irks me bigtime. I think that if someone chooses to stand up for what they believe in (no matter what) and it doesn't harm anyone (after all there are plenty of people who WILL perform those mariages) they should be left alone.

LX, when I read this I felt I couldn't agree more. If you believe in something you should not be forced, in your job, to break your principles... and the important line there is "and it doesn't harm anyone". But, as we've read elsewhere on this thread, prejudice and intolerance can harm. Which is why most countries in the western world legislate against it. Your example above struck a note with me. But then I got to thinking: what if your beliefs mean you refuse to perform interracial marriages? There is legislation against racism in the Netherlands I assume. And many states see homophobia in the same light as racism. So should I be forced to marry black and white people if I have views against it? Should I marry homosexuals if I have views against it? Seems to be the same thing to me, yet one seemed less repugnant at first? Perhaps they're as repugnant as each other and thus the calls to legislate against your example.

On a different note, I was always facinated by the story behind Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. An openly gay, far-right politician with outspoken views which included banning Muslims from the country. He was assssinated by an animal right activist. Now there's complexity in a can! Here's his Wikipedia link.