Originally posted by FMF
How can societies go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" that are culturally and spiritually relevant at a local level?

Why should they care? That is the great thing about democracy and mob rule, one size fits all.

Originally posted by whodey
Why should they care? That is the great thing about democracy and mob rule, one size fits all.

OK then, so how do you think a society should go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" that are culturally and spiritually relevant at a local level?

Originally posted by FMF
OK then, so [b]how do you think a society should go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" that are culturally and spiritually relevant at a local level?[/b]

In the US, a long time ago in a land far away, it was a country that practiced a thing called Federalism. Essentially, it gave power to local areas at the state and local level, with a weak federal government playing the role of referee.

It worked fine till the progressive movement.

Originally posted by whodey
In the US, a long time ago in a land far away, it was a country that practiced a thing called Federalism. Essentially, it gave power to local areas at the state and local level, with a weak federal government playing the role of referee.

It worked fine till the progressive movement.

So if you were an activist in Lhokseumawe who disagreed with this bye law, what would you do? This story is essentially to do with a federal government having given power to local areas at provincial and local levels. The local officials imposing this ban are not "progressives". What would be your strategy for arguing against what has happened in Lhokseumawe?

Originally posted by whodey
In the US, a long time ago in a land far away, it was a country that practiced a thing called Federalism. Essentially, it gave power to local areas at the state and local level, with a weak federal government playing the role of referee.

It worked fine till the progressive movement.

Unless you were black/gay/Hispanic/Non-Christian/poor/female living in any state south of the Mason-Dixon line...

For protestant rich white men it worked perfectly...


EDIT: In fairness, You were (and still are) at a disadvantage in any of those groups anywhere in the USA but it got
more extreme in the 'southern' states.

Originally posted by FMF
So if you were an activist in Lhokseumawe who disagreed with this bye law, what would you do? This story is essentially to do with a federal government having given power to local areas at provincial and local levels. The local officials imposing this ban are not "progressives". What would be your strategy for arguing against what has happened in Lhokseumawe?

Actually I"m a propoent of limited government since laws inherently diminish our freedoms. By in large, laws are a necessary evil, and as such, should be passed sparingly and with great trepidation.

Originally posted by whodey
Actually I"m a propoent of limited government since laws inherently diminish our freedoms. By in large, laws are a necessary evil, and as such, should be passed sparingly and with great trepidation.

What would be your strategy for arguing against what has happened in Lhokseumawe?

Originally posted by FMF
OK then, so [b]how do you think a society should go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" that are culturally and spiritually relevant at a local level?[/b]

Has anyone asked the women there what they think about that law?

Just another example of religion controlling women, making it completely clear women are second or third class citizens. Way to go.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just another example of religion controlling women, making it completely clear women are second or third class citizens. Way to go.

I don't disagree. But how do you propose a society should go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" in accordance with their spiritual and cultural norms and values?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Has anyone asked the women there what they think about that law?

When I came to Indonesia over 20 years ago, I would say about 80% of women were riding side saddle at a time when there were no bye laws. That was in a somewhat atypical 'liberal' university town. Back then I had never been to Lhokseumawe but, judging by what I saw in less "devout" places elsewhere in this country, I would imagine the figure there would have been 100%. Nowadays, here where I live [in the same 'liberal' town], about 20% of women ride side saddle. What you see more of now, also, is the woman driving the motorbike and the man riding pillion. That was relatively rare 20 years ago.

Originally posted by FMF
What would be your strategy for arguing against what has happened in Lhokseumawe?

Arguing? What is there to argue? It all comes down to political power. Those with the most power will decide what is "right" and "wrong" for everyone else. If you can't overcome their political power, then people should move if they can't tolerate the laws. It's just that simple.

I think we both know where arguing gets you regarding religion or politics.

Originally posted by whodey
Arguing? What is there to argue? It all comes down to political power. Those with the most power will decide what is "right" and "wrong" for everyone else. If you can't overcome their political power, then people should move if they can't tolerate the laws. It's just that simple.

I think we both know where arguing gets you regarding religion or politics.

So your answer in Lhokseumawe is that people should "move away" if they can't tolerate the impositions upon their freedom? And yet on the Debates Forum you post endlessly and strenuously about "those with the most power [deciding] what is "right" and "wrong" for everyone else" in ways that you cannot tolerate, and yet you have never advocated that you - or people like you who can't tolerate the impositions upon your freedom - should just "move away". In more than 6 years of reading your posts I cannot remember you once suggesting to people with dissenting political views like yours that they should just "move away". Not even once. What's different in this case?

Originally posted by whodey
Actually I"m a propoent of limited government since laws inherently diminish our freedoms. By in large, laws are a necessary evil, and as such, should be passed sparingly and with great trepidation.

Doesn't the US have laws guaranteeing religious freedom? How do these laws inherently diminish an individual's freedom.

Does not a law against murder actually increase the total amount of freedom by allowing us to walk more safely along the streets than we might otherwise be able to?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't disagree. But how do you propose a society should go about deciding how to regulate "morals and behaviours" in accordance with their spiritual and cultural norms and values?

Well you could argue that it is discriminatory, are men allowed to straddle the passenger seat behind a male or female driver.

But to be realistic, if the powers that be in any given location are of that mindset then there probably is no rational argument available.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well you could argue that it is discriminatory, are men allowed to straddle the passenger seat behind a male or female driver.

But to be realistic, if the powers that be in any given location are of that mindset then there probably is no rational argument available.

People of that mindset believe they will be rewarded with 70 virgins if the blow themselves up for the cause of Allah. 😀