Christianity - The Scrutiny Of [Archive]

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 17:04

It doesn't make any odds to me.

However some christians believe that good people will go to heaven. If god is forgiving then would he forgive that I don't believe in him.

My problem was that child molesters would get into heaven before a decent person. as long as he had god in his heart. it doesn't make sense to me, why forgive a person like that just because he believes.

Maybe I can help.

The reason for someone who has led a sinful life, even to the extent noted above, can get into Heaven while a nominally good person might not has to do with Repentance. I know that might seem obvious, but bear with me a sec.

Repentance is the idea that you
1)Admit you've done wrong
2)Ask forgiveness from God
3)Accept Jesus as your Savior
4)Make a firm commitment to leave those sins behind.

Behind the scenes here's how it works:

All humans sin. Some more than others, perhaps, but nobody is perfect. Nobody.

To be able to return to Heaven, which is God's presence, we have to be free from sin. We have to be pure.

Well, right there we have a problem, don't we? If no humans are perfect, yet in order to be in God's presence we must be perfect, then no human can be in His presence. Kinda discouraging.

In order to be pure, those sins must be paid for. Justice must be served. Problem is that we, as mortals, can't possibly truly pay the price for that sin. It's just too much. Well what do we do now? We're still screwed.

That's where Jesus Christ comes in. Essentially by accepting Him as Savior, you enter into a deal. He pays for your sins in return for your following Him. By accepting this offer, you are purified because your sins have been atoned for, and you can now get to God's presence.

Think about the Chronicles of Narnia. That story was symbolic of what's going on here. Edmund was tainted by his allegiance with the White Witch. His taint had to be paid for in blood. Aslan agreed pay this price for him, thus freeing Edmund from the bonds of that taint. By suffering and dying Aslan did so and freed Edmund from this taint. But only after Edmund committed himself to come back to the good side.

What's interesting to note here is that salvation isn't a function of your works. No matter how many old ladies you help to cross the street, no matter how much money you give to the poor, it doesn't earn you salvation. You get that by accepting Christ. Nothing more.

I mentioned that one of the steps was a firm commitment to leave that sin behind. That's important because as you continue to live your life, you will be tempted to sin again. Maybe the same sin, maybe something else. Will you falter? Possibly. But if you renew that sincere and honest commitment and keep trying, then by that process you will improve yourself.

That isn't a pass to say "Well, I'm saved so now I can go sin all I want because it's all paid for." That is not how it works, since there's no sincere commitment being made to leave sin behind. That isn't Repentance.

Hope this helps.

Icovir

15-02-2007, 17:09

That's a greay question: Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you believe that what I believe it false? Answer the question in an unbiased way (as in, don't answer by saying: "You are wrong because my religion says so").

Maraque

15-02-2007, 17:17

Ugh, gag me with a spork.LOL!

Cabra West

15-02-2007, 17:25

Icovir

15-02-2007, 17:26

Deus Malum

15-02-2007, 17:31

Icovir

15-02-2007, 17:36

My only question, in general to those of you of the Christian faith, is why you feel the need to impress upon others your beliefs without provocation and often without our asking. I say our as I am referring to non-believers.

I feel your pain. I just got "preached the Gospel" 2 days ago. After telling the person that I was Christian, he/she believed that I was just born in a Christian home. After refuting that common Christian argument (for they can't think of anything else as to why someone left Christian) by stating that I used to be a conservative Christian who practiced AGAINST the will of my family, he/she STILL believed that I was just Christian by name...

"Lakum Deenukum waliya Deen" as the Qur'an says. Translated: "To you be your religion, and to me my religion". Good quote to use in these situations.

Vorlich

15-02-2007, 17:53

I do understand that Neo Bretonnia, thats the along the lines my boss stated. But it still doesn't sit pretty with me. I still think that someone can abuse the system. i.e. i believe in god and accept jesus so i'm gonna do all this bad stuff and He will accept me because i love him and believe in him. Would god send a person like that to Hell, cos he is taking the pee.

Christianity is too easy and is unjust, in my opinion. All a man has to say is "Jesus, I accept you" and then do anything he wants and he'll still get into Heaven. Paul said that people's evil are covered up with their acceptance of Christ.

However, the pious Muslim who fasts for a month or the pious Buddhist who eats nothing and focuses on his religion or the kindest Atheist will go to Hell no matter what and stay there forever. That isn't justice to me, and God is The Just.

This is further adding to my point.

Further more, this Martin Luther person - did a lot in the Reformation and all that, but he also hated the Jews, encouraged the persecution of Jews, Hitler thought Luther was right on with the way Jews should be treated. (Jesus was a Jew), so did Luther go to Heaven?

The Atlantic Territory

15-02-2007, 17:55

Ugh, gag me with a spork.

I don't believe we've met.

I hope being bitter and snide makes you happy :)

Fassigen

15-02-2007, 18:06

I don't believe we've met.

I hope not, at least.

I hope being bitter and snide makes you happy :)

It nails Martin Luther to a wall.

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 18:15

My only question, in general to those of you of the Christian faith, is why you feel the need to impress upon others your beliefs without provocation and often without our asking. I say our as I am referring to non-believers.

I have, on several occasions, been solicited either on the street or in my home with information regarding your religion, often with the express intent of the solicitor that I review the information he has provided and then, and I mean no sarcasm in saying this, "Come to Jesus." Their disappointment when I politely decline to entertain such a notion, and the often belligerent manner in which I am treated shortly thereafter, leaves me to wonder why it is that one must impress their Christian beliefs on another, and, failing to do so, is more than welcome to turn around and become an asshole, for lack of a better word.

I have a couple thoughts on this..

I can't defend people who become hostile or belligerent when you decline. That sort of behavior is indefensible and against the true teachings of Christianity.

The reason you see so many missionaries is because it's an element of Christianity to take the message of Forgiveness and Repentance and offer it to those who don't know about it. If you had a really wonderful piece of information that others didn't have, you'd want to share it... So it is with missionaries...

...ideally. Unfortunately, sometimes people go out and push the Gospel as a way to self-validate or to satisfy feelings of self-righteousness. The true missionary will be polite, even after you decline to talk with them, and by so doing will set an example.

I think the reason there seem to be many examples of "bad Christians" is because so many of the teachings of the religion run counter to some of our worst instincts, which are the ones that drive us to aggression, meanness, self-validation, etc. To be a Christian is to try and control those things and be a better person. Some are successful, some aren't, and many who think they're successful are just fooling themselves. It's human nature.

It's good that you're asking these things though... Much appreciated.

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 18:19

I do understand that Neo Bretonnia, thats the along the lines my boss stated. But it still doesn't sit pretty with me. I still think that someone can abuse the system. i.e. i believe in god and accept jesus so i'm gonna do all this bad stuff and He will accept me because i love him and believe in him. Would god send a person like that to Hell, cos he is taking the pee.

Further more, this Martin Luther person - did a lot in the Reformation and all that, but he also hated the Jews, encouraged the persecution of Jews, Hitler thought Luther was right on with the way Jews should be treated. (Jesus was a Jew), so did Luther go to Heaven?

It sure can look that way... But God knows what's in the heart of a person who says he/she has Repented, and forgiveness is based upon sincerity. A person who tries to abuse the system must fail, because they cannot fool God.

I used to have a brother in law who used his "Saved" status to justify having an affair. He was fooling himself because by comtinuing to persue this affair he was proving that he had not repented of that sin. How can one expect forgiveness when they're not truly sorry for the sin?

I don't know about Martin Luther, it isn't my place to judge. Did he go to Heaven? Maybe he did, although that would presume that he had found true repentance at some point, and let go of that hatred. Maybe he didn't. How can we know?

Kamsaki

15-02-2007, 18:22

Something that has arisen from another thread is the amount of Christian-bashing and the amount of non-sensical Christian arrogance that happens on this board.

As a socially conservative protestant, I wondered if anyone had any debates/queries they wanted to have out with a Christian without it descending into backbiting and snide comments?
This isn't really a question aimed at Christianity; it's directed at what you (or anyone who cares to try to answer), specifically, think.

Is Christianity is something for which any Christian can speak as a representative? Or, to put it another way, do you think that there is only one way in which one can claim to be a "Christian" and be right in doing so?

Ifreann

15-02-2007, 18:22

New Manvir

15-02-2007, 18:55

whats up with purgatory?

is it heaven's waiting room or like Hell lite?

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 19:28

whats up with purgatory?

is it heaven's waiting room or like Hell lite?

Purgatory is a belief held by Catholics referring to a place where the soul goes to be purified before it can proceed to Heaven. If a person dies with no sins on their conscience, they can bypass Purgatory.

I believe Catholicism is the only denomination of Christianity that holds to this belief.

RLI Rides Again

15-02-2007, 19:53

RLI Rides Again

15-02-2007, 19:57

Hmmm, just sounds like your regular christian then haha!

Was that really necessary?

Hoyteca

15-02-2007, 20:38

Shotagon

15-02-2007, 21:13

If you take out a cog of bigotry from the machine of hate, the thing begins to not work. Take out enough cogs and there's no cycle of hate. Kill everyone and no mortal-related hate can exist.

2. About WHY anyone believes anything, I ask you this: Why not? Why not believe what you do? Why shouldn't he believe what he believes? What makes his beliefs so wrong that he has to change them? I'm kind of a Catholic/Protestant. My mother is Catholic and my father is Protestant. I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe. Sure, it's not proven right. Then again, no form of religion is proven right. Not Christianity. Not Bhuddism. Not Islam. Not Atheism. None of those are proven wrong either. They're unproveable and they're undisproveable. That's why everyone believes what they believe.So there's a couple of things to take out just from this:

No bashing.
No trying to convince, because what will you convince with?
No knowledge, because there's nothing to know.

I think I will switch over to using E-prime now. I think I'm so happy we understand each other!

edit: oops, i tried to convince..

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 21:21

1. Christian bashing is a mere cog in the machine on (insert whatever here) bashing. It's a bit of wire in the simple circut of bigotry. You see, it's like this:
Person A bashes Person B.
B bashes A back.
A then bashes B in retaliation.
B retaliates against A.

It's like Iraq. The Sunnis attack the Shiites and the Shiites attack the Sunnis.

If you take out a cog of bigotry from the machine of hate, the thing begins to not work. Take out enough cogs and there's no cycle of hate. Kill everyone and no mortal-related hate can exist.

2. About WHY anyone believes anything, I ask you this: Why not? Why not believe what you do? Why shouldn't he believe what he believes? What makes his beliefs so wrong that he has to change them? I'm kind of a Catholic/Protestant. My mother is Catholic and my father is Protestant. I believe what I believe because I believe what I believe. Sure, it's not proven right. Then again, no form of religion is proven right. Not Christianity. Not Bhuddism. Not Islam. Not Atheism. None of those are proven wrong either. They're unproveable and they're undisproveable. That's why everyone believes what they believe.

1)I think the bashing issue is more complex than that. I think many times the most vocal and mean-spirited criticisms come from people who need to validate themselves by breaking others' faith.

2)I think that very often this is why people believe what they do. No argument here. I also think, however, that there are better reasons and that not nearly as many people are aware of it.

Consider that God loves all of His children, and wants for them to know Him and return home to Him. That being the case, then logically there must be a mechanism for letting people know how to find the truth, the path to return to Him. That mechanism was revealed in the New Testament when the Holy Spirit (The Comforter that Jesus promised) came upon the Apostles.

That's how we can know. It takes only an open mind and a little prayer to communicate to God that you need the answer. This is the ONLY way yo truly know for sure, and once you do, things become remarkably clear.

Infinite Revolution

15-02-2007, 21:30

Something that has arisen from another thread is the amount of Christian-bashing and the amount of non-sensical Christian arrogance that happens on this board.

As a socially conservative protestant, I wondered if anyone had any debates/queries they wanted to have out with a Christian without it descending into backbiting and snide comments?

christianity is the dominant religion in the locations where most of the posters on this forum reside. it is also gaining an alarming amount of influence in politics (particularly your socially conservative protestantism). therefore, in the interest of democracy, free speech and enlightened debate, christianity must be scrutinised and called to account for the opinions and politics and influence of its adherents.

Kryozerkia

15-02-2007, 21:37

I think you're rather too hasty. Give him/her a chance.

Well... they did post but it wasn't in reply to the actual questions. I will stand by my previous statement until that person is able to reply to the questions posed.

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 21:38

christianity is the dominant religion in the locations where most of the posters on this forum reside. it is also gaining an alarming amount of influence in politics (particularly your socially conservative protestantism). therefore, in the interest of democracy, free speech and enlightened debate, christianity must be scrutinised and called to account for the opinions and politics and influence of its adherents.

I can't agree with this. Looking at it form the point of view of Christians, politics is on a steady heading away from traditionally Christian related ideas and values. The truth is, as it usually is, probably somewhere in between.

Just remember that the Constitution was written by a bunch of Christians a couple centuries ago. What, exactly, do you want to call Christianity to account for? What injuries have you suffered?

Arthais101

15-02-2007, 21:50

Just remember that the Constitution was written by a bunch of Christians a couple centuries ago. What, exactly, do you want to call Christianity to account for? What injuries have you suffered?

The bolded part is one of the biggest lies of american history. The fact that this lie has become mainstream, that the belief of "the founding fathers were christian" has become so mainstream and accepted even in the face of overwhelming historical evidence shows just how much power the religious right holds, in that they've been quite successfully attempting to rewrite history to shape their view of how america should be.

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 21:56

The bolded part is one of the biggest lies of american history. The fact that this lie has become mainstream, that the belief of "the founding fathers were christian" has become so mainstream and accepted even in the face of overwhelming historical evidence shows just how much power the religious right holds, in that they've been quite successfully attempting to rewrite history to shape their view of how america should be.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten us, from that vast storehouse of overwhelming historical evidence.

Kaoumini

15-02-2007, 21:57

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten us, from that vast storehouse of overwhelming historical evidence.

Okay.

Clicky (Notice: Some coarse language in the replies to the post) (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=12272)

And, according to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm):

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

So, yes, some Christians see politics as getting farther and farther away from traditional Christian values. I would agree, simply because less and less people are Christian. I think that the current political climate is a temporary thing. Just as an aside.

Kaoumini

15-02-2007, 22:01

And what is up with it not letting me post?

Edit:
Actually, they're not as Christian as some people assume...

Clicky (Notice: Some coarse language in the replies to the post) (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=12272)

And, according to the American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm):

76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

So, yes, some Christians see politics as getting farther and farther away from traditional Christian values. I would agree, simply because less and less people are Christian. I think that the current political climate is a temporary thing.

Arthais101

15-02-2007, 22:07

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten us, from that vast storehouse of overwhelming historical evidence.

we can start with James Madison, you know, the "father of the constitution",

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

John Adams?

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Now I know Jefferson was in France the time the constitution was drafted, but he does have a few words to say on the matter:

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which makes for an interesting point in that there is no mention of god, jesus, or christianity ANYWHERE in the constitution what so ever, except for one. In the date, the year of our lord 1789, which at the time was as part of common speech as "god bless you" is today, which is to say, without any real religious implications what so ever.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 22:37

James Madison, John Adams?
Jefferson

Ok that's 2. I say 2 because your quotes are pretty straightforward on Adams and Madison, but Jefferson is writing there about keeping the religion out of Government, something we all agree on. What did he believe personally?

Jefferson was raised in the Church of England, at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially. During his Presidency, Jefferson attended the weekly church services held in the House of Representatives.

He did convert to Deism, but that's neither here or there.

George Washington

Washington was baptized as an infant into the Church of England.[24][25] In 1765, when the Church of England was still the state religion,[26] he served on the vestry (lay council) for his local church. Throughout his life, he spoke of the value of righteousness, and of seeking and offering thanks for the "blessings of Heaven". He endorsed religion rhetorically and in his 1796 Farewell Address remarked on its importance in building moral character in American citizenry, believing morality undergirded all public order and successful popular government.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton died the next day and was buried in the Trinity Churchyard Cemetery in Manhattan (Hamilton was Episcopalian).

John Jay

Jay had been a warden of Trinity Church, New York since 1785; and, as Congress's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, supported the proposal after the revolution that the Archbishop of Canterbury approve the ordination of bishops for the Protestant Episcopal Church in America.

I could go on and on but hopefully there's no need.

I point this out not for the sake of proving somehow that Christianity ought to be officially endorsed. As it happend I agree with Jefferson. I point it out because so many people want to villify Christians as if they were trying to take over, forgetting that the Founding Fathers were in a prime position, as the founders of the country to do exactly that, and they did not do so because they, as Christians and Deists, believed in the freedom of religion.

Neo-Erusea

15-02-2007, 22:38

hell, which I hear is actually freezing cold instead of vaporizingly hot.

Actually, no one knows what hell is like. The only thing that is certain is seperation from God. In the "Divine Comediy," written by Dante, hell is described to be cold, and he also wrote that there are nine levels of hell, 9 being the worst.

Economic Associates

15-02-2007, 22:47

I can't agree with this. Looking at it form the point of view of Christians, politics is on a steady heading away from traditionally Christian related ideas and values. The truth is, as it usually is, probably somewhere in between.

Except the thing is many of the christian moral stances involve placing their morality over other people in the form of laws. An example would be the gay marraige amendment proposed by conservatives. If you don't like something because it offends your religion well then you really don't have to do it, acknowledge it, or whatever. But attempting to make laws to regulate how people act because of religious motivation is not something I'd agree with. You wouldn't be too happy if a muslim group got a law making it illegal to eat pork because it was contrary to their religion would you? I don't suppose you'd like it if a jewish group got together and got a law passed that made all food have to be kosher would you?

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 23:00

Except the thing is many of the christian moral stances involve placing their morality over other people in the form of laws. An example would be the gay marraige amendment proposed by conservatives. If you don't like something because it offends your religion well then you really don't have to do it, acknowledge it, or whatever. But attempting to make laws to regulate how people act because of religious motivation is not something I'd agree with. You wouldn't be too happy if a muslim group got a law making it illegal to eat pork because it was contrary to their religion would you? I don't suppose you'd like it if a jewish group got together and got a law passed that made all food have to be kosher would you?

But here's the thing... Everybody votes according to what they believe is right and wrong, for the candidate who most closely matches those values. Sometimes they're religious, sometimes not, but that's how Government by majority rule works. You can't expect people to take a moment and specifically ignore political issues just because their religion might have something to say about it. To do so is exactly the reason why people automatically assume that any vote against gay marriage must be religiously motivated and therefore invalid.

I see your point, I honestly do, and I used to agree with that completely, but the fact is you're asking Christians to vote against their conscience, something you wouldn't expect of anyone else.

Zarakon

15-02-2007, 23:06

Why the fuck is your thread called "Christianity-The Scrutiny of"? What is this, a fucking encyclopedia index?

I'm sorry. I had to take issue with your title.

Economic Associates

15-02-2007, 23:07

But here's the thing... Everybody votes according to what they believe is right and wrong, for the candidate who most closely matches those values. Sometimes they're religious, sometimes not, but that's how Government by majority rule works. You can't expect people to take a moment and specifically ignore political issues just because their religion might have something to say about it. To do so is exactly the reason why people automatically assume that any vote against gay marriage must be religiously motivated and therefore invalid.

I'm not asking people not to vote with their values. I'm asking people to stop asking for laws based on beliefs which are religiously based and really have no other ways to be supported. If you want to vote for George Bush fine but if your going to vote in a referendum to deny people a right because it doesn't agree with your religious view I can't agree with that.

I see your point, I honestly do, and I used to agree with that completely, but the fact is you're asking Christians to vote against their conscience, something you wouldn't expect of anyone else.

I expect the same from all be it from atheists, muslims, christians, etc. Your more than welcome to vote for the candidate you want but when it comes to laws that limit rights because of religious beliefs I can't agree with that.

Neo Bretonnia

15-02-2007, 23:59

I'm not asking people not to vote with their values. I'm asking people to stop asking for laws based on beliefs which are religiously based and really have no other ways to be supported. If you want to vote for George Bush fine but if your going to vote in a referendum to deny people a right because it doesn't agree with your religious view I can't agree with that.

I expect the same from all be it from atheists, muslims, christians, etc. Your more than welcome to vote for the candidate you want but when it comes to laws that limit rights because of religious beliefs I can't agree with that.

That's where we agree to disagree, I guess. I will point out though, that we already have a great many laws based on little more than people's sense of right and wrong, which, for the vast majority of the population, is from their religion. It's also not fair to say there is no other way to support the rationale behind those votes, since you'll find there are a great many people prepared to argue those issues on grounds other than religion.

Also, you're using the phrase "right" to describe something that doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Until an Ammendment puts it there, it isn't completely correct to refer to it as such.

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 00:04

That's where we agree to disagree, I guess. I will point out though, that we already have a great many laws based on little more than people's sense of right and wrong, which, for the vast majority of the population, is from their religion. It's also not fair to say there is no other way to support the rationale behind those votes, since you'll find there are a great many people prepared to argue those issues on grounds other than religion.

Would you agree with a law passed by a muslim majority outlawing pork if it was based soley on their religious beliefs.

Also, you're using the phrase "right" to describe something that doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Until an Ammendment puts it there, it isn't completely correct to refer to it as such.

There are plenty of things in the constitution not expressly said but have been interpreted so. So don't go with the whole if its not stated its not there arguement.

Deus Malum

16-02-2007, 00:04

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 00:13

Oh for the love of god, this is the second time in the past week that someone has hijacked a thread into a discussion on whether or not this is a Christian nation.

Take a look at the "gays trying to destroy our way of life" thread.

Except that the current discussion isn't about whether this is a Christian Nation, but rather whether people ought to vote in accordance with their beliefs. That comes from the charge that the Christian majority was taking over, which in turn was a response to the OP.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 00:23

Would you agree with a law passed by a muslim majority outlawing pork if it was based soley on their religious beliefs.

Would I agree with it personally? No I'd have voted against it. Majority rule is majority rule, however.

There are plenty of things in the constitution not expressly said but have been interpreted so. So don't go with the whole if its not stated its not there arguement.

Why not? If we don't adhere to what's written then people can come up with all kinds of rights that never existed before. Prior to 1990 Gay Marriage was unherad of in the mainstream, and certainly nobody considered it a right. Now the debate is on. If it's to be a right then it ought to be a Constitutional Ammendment.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 00:28

My only question, in general to those of you of the Christian faith, is why you feel the need to impress upon others your beliefs without provocation and often without our asking. I say our as I am referring to non-believers.

I don't. I tend to agree with Francis of Assisi on this one - "Preach the gospel at all times -- If necessary, use words."

The sort of approach you describe is unlikely to bring many people to God in any way. As you said, you just get annoyed by it, and this is true of most people who are "preached to" unless they are there for the preaching.

This isn't really a question aimed at Christianity; it's directed at what you (or anyone who cares to try to answer), specifically, think.

Is Christianity is something for which any Christian can speak as a representative? Or, to put it another way, do you think that there is only one way in which one can claim to be a "Christian" and be right in doing so?

Man, if there is only one way to come to Christ, everyone but one person is screwed. We all travel our own paths, and come to God (hopefully) in different ways.

Any Christian can speak as a representative of their own beliefs. But, aside from a few unifying factors, there are very few things that all Christians will believe. Every person, Christian or not, deals with the divine in their own way.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 00:36

Would I agree with it personally? No I'd have voted against it. Majority rule is majority rule, however.

Luckily, our government is not strictly majority rule. There are specific rules in place to prevent such an occurrence.

Why not? If we don't adhere to what's written then people can come up with all kinds of rights that never existed before. Prior to 1990 Gay Marriage was unherad of in the mainstream, and certainly nobody considered it a right. Now the debate is on. If it's to be a right then it ought to be a Constitutional Ammendment.

Marriage has been held to be a right for quite some time. "Gay marriage" is not a right - MARRIAGE is. And it is a right currently denied to people because of their sexual orientation, just as it was once denied because of ethnicity. And since the Constitution is clear about equal protection under the law.....

And if we want to adhere to what's written, we have to remember that the Bill of Rights was explicit in stating that Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments were never meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights that must be preserved for the people - that the enumeration of certain rights does not in any way imply that there are not other rights to be held by the people, that the government cannot intrude upon.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 00:38

Would I agree with it personally? No I'd have voted against it. Majority rule is majority rule, however.

But we aren't a country that relies only on marority rule. If that was the case then slavery/segregation/other idiotic policys would have remaind in place instead of being reversed as they were.

Why not? If we don't adhere to what's written then people can come up with all kinds of rights that never existed before. Prior to 1990 Gay Marriage was unherad of in the mainstream, and certainly nobody considered it a right. Now the debate is on. If it's to be a right then it ought to be a Constitutional Ammendment.

If you interpet the constitution literally then things such as Congress having the power to make banks/post offices/etc doesn't exist. If you interpret the constitution literally there is no process of judicial review which makes the judicary branch essentially a lame duck. Hell the right for straights to marry doesn't exist in the constitution literally. There are countless other issues with the constitution which arise from the interpretation of it not the literal words there. To say its only whats in the constitution and nothing else when in the document there is wording which just not the way its been viewed by the gov throughout history.

Zarakon

16-02-2007, 00:41

whats up with purgatory?

is it heaven's waiting room or like Hell lite?

It's both, If I remember right. You hang out there for a while, then go to heaven. According to the Catholics.

The Catholics, have, If I remember correctly, 4 afterlifes. Possibly 3, they might have gotten rid of limbo.

Limbo: Unbaptized catholics. Like earth, only no disease.
Hell: Where all the noncatholics go.
Heaven: Where all the catholics go.
Purgatory: Where all the catholics who weren't totally devout go for a little while.

Good Lifes

16-02-2007, 00:45

Why do you believe it would be morally justifiable to send millions of people to an eternal torment, just on the basis of them not even hearing of 'god' or 'christianity'?

Although that's what many Fundies say, it isn't Biblical. According to the Bible, if you can look at nature and see a creator, and honor that Creator, you have thereby honored "Jesus" who was in the beginning the Creator part of God. Since everyone has a chance to look at nature, there isn't a problem with "hadn't heard".

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 00:46

Even if this was the case, what would happen to the people who live in places where it is impossible to have a christian wedding? Meaning the people here would inevitably commit fornication and be sentenced to hell.

One doesn't have to even have a wedding to be married in the eyes of God.

Pyotr

16-02-2007, 00:47

But we aren't a country that relies only on marority rule. If that was the case then slavery/segregation/other idiotic policys would have remaind in place instead of being reversed as they were.

I don't know what country your talking about, if its America you're wrong. We elected a president who was for emancipation, and we elected a president who was pro-civil rights.

Good Lifes

16-02-2007, 00:48

My boss at work is very Christian - not sure what faction - loves Martin Luther.

Anyhoo the other day we were talking (he does some work with his local prison and has recently worked with a child molester, listening to what the monster has to say and praying).

Now my question to him was "If the molester believes in god and feels bad for what he has done, will he get into heaven?"

My boss is of the opinion that he would - as long as he truely has god in his heart.

I then asked "I do not believe in god, however, i abide by the law and treat others as i would wish to be treated, my 'sins' are as lowly as having sex, drinking, and telling the occasional lie (normally - no you look fine in that).
Will i go to hell?"

Hi response is that i would becuase i don't believe in god.

So is it ok for me to properly start sinning now or can my soul still be saved?
I need clarification on this matter you see.

Ask him about Jesus opinion expressed through the "Good Samaritan" parable.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 00:49

Luckily, our government is not strictly majority rule. There are specific rules in place to prevent such an occurrence.

Exactly right, the Supreme Court would decide whether the law were Constitutional, presumably by ruling on whether or not the law was a form of Government endorsement of that religion. But all of that could only happen when people of good conscience vote according to their belief, and let the system do its job.

Marriage has been held to be a right for quite some time. "Gay marriage" is not a right - MARRIAGE is. And it is a right currently denied to people because of their sexual orientation, just as it was once denied because of ethnicity. And since the Constitution is clear about equal protection under the law.....

Prior to 1990 you'd have found very little support for that argument in the mainstream. What changed? The Constitution? No. Public Opinion is what changed. Culture changed. That in no way obligates anyone to put aside what they believe.

And if we want to adhere to what's written, we have to remember that the Bill of Rights was explicit in stating that Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments were never meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights that must be preserved for the people - that the enumeration of certain rights does not in any way imply that there are not other rights to be held by the people, that the government cannot intrude upon.

Which is precisely why the Bill of Rights can still be ammended. Otherwise there'd be no need to ammend it to guarantee the right of women to vote, would there? As rights have become defined over the years they have been, as apropriate, codified in the Constitution through Ammendments.

People talk a lot about a variety of rights they want to claim. You don't automatically have a right just because it seems like a good idea. There are those who feel they have a right to a television and thus the Government ought to provide one (Seriously.) Does such a right exist? Of course it doesn't.

And if in the near future a vote passes that Ammends the Constitution to guarantee the right of Marriage to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones, then as an American I will be obligated to accept that, but in the meantime, I am not obligated to vote for it.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 00:54

But we aren't a country that relies only on marority rule. If that was the case then slavery/segregation/other idiotic policys would have remaind in place instead of being reversed as they were.

This has already been answere by another poster, and I agree with him/her. Those idiotic policies were abolished precisely because of majority rule.

And by the way, In the north, most Abolitionists were Abolitionist because of their religion.

If you interpet the constitution literally then things such as Congress having the power to make banks/post offices/etc doesn't exist. If you interpret the constitution literally there is no process of judicial review which makes the judicary branch essentially a lame duck. Hell the right for straights to marry doesn't exist in the constitution literally. There are countless other issues with the constitution which arise from the interpretation of it not the literal words there. To say its only whats in the constitution and nothing else when in the document there is wording which just not the way its been viewed by the gov throughout history.

In many cases, you're absolutely right. Frankly, I think it's dangerous for the Government to institute things like a Federal Bank and so forth without Constitutional backing. Each time the Government takes liberties with the wording of that document it chips away at Constitutional authority. Making Ammendments isn't difficult if a great enough majority agrees.

Kamsaki

16-02-2007, 01:05

Any Christian can speak as a representative of their own beliefs. But, aside from a few unifying factors, there are very few things that all Christians will believe. Every person, Christian or not, deals with the divine in their own way.
Could you perhaps enlighten me on what these unifying factors are?

(This isn't Socratic ignorance, by the way; the question of what makes Christian-ness seems to constantly evade definition)

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 01:06

I don't know what country your talking about, if its America you're wrong. We elected a president who was for emancipation, and we elected a president who was pro-civil rights.

Electing presidents doesn't mean it will get laws passed especially in the state legislature. In the case of segregation the Supreme Courts had to get involved in order to override policies that were used to circumvent what the Congress/President signed into law. In the case of slavery a war was fought to change it and a country split in half so to simply say a president got those things done doesn't really cover it.

This has already been answere by another poster, and I agree with him/her. Those idiotic policies were abolished precisely because of majority rule.

Slavery was taken care of by a war and segregation was taken care of by the courts.

And by the way, In the north, most Abolitionists were Abolitionist because of their religion.

Really because I could have sworn that in the South most slave owners were Christian. Interesting little fact to juxtapose with your comment here.

In many cases, you're absolutely right. Frankly, I think it's dangerous for the Government to institute things like a Federal Bank and so forth without Constitutional backing. Each time the Government takes liberties with the wording of that document it chips away at Constitutional authority. Making Ammendments isn't difficult if a great enough majority agrees.

See I'm not saying those things were right. I'm saying if the courts/U.S. government viewed the constitution the way you do those things wouldn't be around today. Instead the courts/gov had the forethought to realize the document was a flexible one which was left open ended for a reason. And yes making ammendments is increadibly difficult process period. Saying its easy to get one with a majority supporting it still doesn't mean the process is easy/will work in all cases. Which is why we have the Supreme Court which interprets the constitution.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 01:10

Exactly right, the Supreme Court would decide whether the law were Constitutional, presumably by ruling on whether or not the law was a form of Government endorsement of that religion. But all of that could only happen when people of good conscience vote according to their belief, and let the system do its job.

People of good conscience wouldn't feel the need to force their religion upon others. It is generally those who are weak of faith who think they need their religious principles to be encoded in law.

Prior to 1990 you'd have found very little support for that argument in the mainstream. What changed? The Constitution? No. Public Opinion is what changed. Culture changed. That in no way obligates anyone to put aside what they believe.

Prior to the 1960's, you would have found little support for the idea that black and white people should be treated equally under the law. The fact that public opinion hadn't accepted it didn't change the fact that it was clearly mandated by the Constitution.

Which is precisely why the Bill of Rights can still be ammended. Otherwise there'd be no need to ammend it to guarantee the right of women to vote, would there? As rights have become defined over the years they have been, as apropriate, codified in the Constitution through Ammendments.

(I think you mean the Constitution can still be amended. The Bill of Rights simply refers to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.)

Or, they've simply been held to by the courts. There are two ways to define the unenumerated rights - two branches of government that can do so, and, of course, they serve as checks and balances upon one another.

Do you know how many legally recognized rights you have that are not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution? I'd be willing to bet that you'd argue staunchly that just about all of them were rights.

People talk a lot about a variety of rights they want to claim. You don't automatically have a right just because it seems like a good idea. There are those who feel they have a right to a television and thus the Government ought to provide one (Seriously.) Does such a right exist? Of course it doesn't.

If the Supreme Court held that it did, it would legally exist, unless the Constitution were amended otherwise. Of course, I'd like to see the legal argument someone would make for government-provided televisions....

And if in the near future a vote passes that Ammends the Constitution to guarantee the right of Marriage to homosexual couples as well as heterosexual ones, then as an American I will be obligated to accept that, but in the meantime, I am not obligated to vote for it.

Such an Amendment already exists. It is the 14th, which states that all citizens of this country are entitled to equal protection under the law. If marriage is to be recognized by the law, homosexuals cannot be denied that recognition any more than people of different ethnicities can.

If the government tried to deny driver's licenses to homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, do you think that would be considered constitutional? If homosexuals were told that they could not have jury trials because they are homosexual? If the wills of homosexuals were not recognized?

The answer to all of these questions is no - it would not be constitutional, because homosexuals are guaranteed equal protection under the law. If the government is going to offer driver's licenses, it cannot deny them to certain citizens except on the basis of a compelling government interest. Jury trials are guaranteed to all citizens. If the government is going to recognize wills as legally binding documents, it must recognize those of homosexuals just as it does those of heterosexuals.

Likewise, if the government is going to provide a contractual agreement between consenting adults who choose to live as a single legal entity, it cannot deny to recognize that agreement between those who are homosexual simply because they are homosexual.

This has already been answere by another poster, and I agree with him/her. Those idiotic policies were abolished precisely because of majority rule.

Like segregated schools and bigoted hiring practices and Jim Crow laws? Oh, wait, those were abolished against the wishes of the majority by a court meant to interpret the Constitution, not the will of a majority wishing to oppress a minority.

And by the way, In the north, most Abolitionists were Abolitionist because of their religion.

And most slaveowners and those who agreed with slavery supported it with their religion. See the problem here?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 01:14

Could you perhaps enlighten me on what these unifying factors are?

(This isn't Socratic ignorance, by the way; the question of what makes Christian-ness seems to constantly evade definition)

Belief in God and the teachings of Christ.

.....that's probably about it. One might argue that belief in the teachings of Christ would be it, but Christ had an awful lot to say about God, so I think that could be seen as a unifying factor.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 01:15

Slavery was taken care of by a war and segregation was taken care of by the courts.
Slavery was taken care of by an Executive order issued by an Elected President.

Segregation was taken care of by an Ammendment to the Constitution enacted by elected members of Congress.

Really because I could have sworn that in the South most slave owners were Christian. Interesting little fact to juxtapose with your comment here.

The majority of Southerners were not slave owners. They fought against the North to establish the right to state sovereignty in internal matters. The fact that most slave owners were Christians is about as relevant as saying most international terrorists are Muslims. We'd all agree they're pretty poor examples, at best.

The point is that those issues were resolved by the principle of majority rule.

See I'm not saying those things were right. I'm saying if the courts/U.S. government viewed the constitution the way you do those things wouldn't be around today. Instead the courts/gov had the forethought to realize the document was a flexible one which was left open ended for a reason. And yes making ammendments is increadibly difficult process period. Saying its easy to get one with a majority supporting it still doesn't mean the process is easy/will work in all cases. Which is why we have the Supreme Court which interprets the constitution.

Getting an Ammendment is easy if it's supported by the population, which is exactly how it should be. Time consuming, but fairly straightforward. You're right in saying the Constitution is flexible, but that flexibility was meant to be manifested by the ability to ammend it.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 01:17

Belief in God and the teachings of Christ.

.....that's probably about it. One might argue that belief in the teachings of Christ would be it, but Christ had an awful lot to say about God, so I think that could be seen as a unifying factor.Who and what is Christ (=Messiah) for you? Yeshua? And what did he say about "God" ? Have Yeshua's writings?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 01:21

Slavery was taken care of by an Executive order issued by an Elected President.

....which wouldn't have applied in much of the US if it hadn't been for the war, and most likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time strategic decision, meant to try and increase the pool of fighters for the US by recruiting the newly freed slaves into the cause.

Segregation was taken care of by an Ammendment to the Constitution enacted by elected members of Congress.

Really? Which one? Note that segregation lasted until the '70's (and beyond, in some cases).

The point is that those issues were resolved by the principle of majority rule.

And the point is clearly wrong.

Getting an Ammendment is easy if it's supported by the population, which is exactly how it should be. Time consuming, but fairly straightforward. You're right in saying the Constitution is flexible, but that flexibility was meant to be manifested by the ability to ammend it.

Even if it is supported, it is still a lengthy process that may or may not have anything to do with the general level of support for the amendment. After the Civil War, Southern states were essentially forced to ratify two amendments - votes which had nothing to do with majority opinion.

And to say that the flexibility of the Constitution was meant to be manifested by the ability to amend it is ludicrous. Amendment of the Constitution was made difficult for a reason. If it was meant to be the basis of legal changes, it wouldn't be any more difficult than simply passing a law. If we amended the Constitution every time the rule of law was to change, we'd have a document so large and unwieldy (not to mention full of contradictions) that it would be useless as a basis of law.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 01:21

Who and what is Christ (=Messiah) for you? Yeshua? And what did he say about "God" ? Have Yeshua's writings?

I have writings that were based in Christ's teachings and the guidance of Christ when I ask for it.

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 01:26

Slavery was taken care of by an Executive order issued by an Elected President.

Segregation was taken care of by an Ammendment to the Constitution enacted by elected members of Congress.

Slavery was ended by an executive order after a long/bloody/devestating civil war which ended up causing a large amount of resentment from the south.

Segregation was taken care of by the courts as states passed laws to get around things such as the civil rights and voting rights acts.

Neo BretonniaThe majority of Southerners were not slave owners. They fought against the North to establish the right to state sovereignty in internal matters. The fact that most slave owners were Christians is about as relevant as saying most international terrorists are Muslims. We'd all agree they're pretty poor examples, at best.

We aren't talking about the majority of southerners. We are talking about the slaver owners who were a majority of if not almost totally christians. If your going to try to say look abolitionists were christians I can just as well say slave owners were christian as well.

The point is that those issues were resolved by the principle of majority rule.

No they were delt with by a war and the courts. If it was done just by majority rule then the South would never have pulled its little we cecede bout and formed its own country. If majority rule ended segregation we wouldn't have had a mayor standing infront of a school baring black children from going in and the "majority" in that state supporting him.

Getting an Ammendment is easy if it's supported by the population, which is exactly how it should be. Time consuming, but fairly straightforward. You're right in saying the Constitution is flexible, but that flexibility was meant to be manifested by the ability to ammend it.

Please explain to me how the process of amendmending the constitution, which is deliberately difficult to do and requires a majority to do, helps a minority group which is being disenfranchised by the masses who are wrong.

And the constitution is flexible in its wording because if a document like that were only to be taken on the merits of whats in it then we'd have to write up new parts to the constitution everytime something new happened/something was discovered.

Kamsaki

16-02-2007, 01:38

Belief in God and the teachings of Christ.

.....that's probably about it. One might argue that belief in the teachings of Christ would be it, but Christ had an awful lot to say about God, so I think that could be seen as a unifying factor.
Well, what is God? Is there a single notion of what God is in Christianity? How does Christianity get its idea of God? Does it have any ties or links with similar ideas of the same kind? What do you mean by "belief in God"; is the understanding of God such that all you have and/or need of it is a belief?

Maybe those are obvious to you, but to many of us, "Belief in God" is a buzz-phrase that can be twisted in a variety of ways according to circumstance. It would be helpful to tie down what you mean by it.

And with Christ, is there a particular series of canonical interpretations of what Christ was said to have said? Is there variation with regards to the authority and intent with which Christ speaks? Does the understanding of Christ necessitate a particular understanding of History, or is Christ regarded as valid even in mythology?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 01:41

Well, what is God? Is there a single notion of what God is in Christianity? How does Christianity get its idea of God? Does it have any ties or links with similar ideas of the same kind? What do you mean by "belief in God"; is the understanding of God such that all you have and/or need of it is a belief?

Maybe those are obvious to you, but to many of us, "Belief in God" is a buzz-phrase that can be twisted in a variety of ways according to circumstance. It would be helpful to tie down what you mean by it.

And with Christ, is there a particular series of canonical interpretations of what Christ was said to have said? Is there variation with regards to the authority and intent with which Christ speaks? Does the understanding of Christ necessitate a particular understanding of History, or is Christ regarded as valid even in mythology?

All good questions. But to answer them, I'd step outside of the unifying factors of Christianity and give you my own beliefs on the subject.

Like I said before, there's very little that ties all Christians together.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 01:42

People of good conscience wouldn't feel the need to force their religion upon others. It is generally those who are weak of faith who think they need their religious principles to be encoded in law.
In some cases that's true, but it's unfair to say that anyone who votes their conscience is somehow trying to self-validate. It's also not apropriate to characterize such a vote as an attempt to force their religion on others. I assure you, people who disagree with gay marriage or abortion are not, as a general rule, attempting to impose their beliefs on people. They vote their conscience. That's what majority rule is all about.

Prior to the 1960's, you would have found little support for the idea that black and white people should be treated equally under the law. The fact that public opinion hadn't accepted it didn't change the fact that it was clearly mandated by the Constitution.

Yes, but it was, in fact, codified in the Constitution.

(I think you mean the Constitution can still be amended. The Bill of Rights simply refers to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.)

Yes I did, thank you.

Or, they've simply been held to by the courts. There are two ways to define the unenumerated rights - two branches of government that can do so, and, of course, they serve as checks and balances upon one another.

Courts aren't supposed to legislate from the bench. A court opinion can be overturned. In the 70s the Supreme Court rules women had a right to abort. That decision could, theoretically, be overturned by a future Supreme Court ruling. Constitutional Ammendments aren't subject to the whim of a handful of judges.

Do you know how many legally recognized rights you have that are not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution? I'd be willing to bet that you'd argue staunchly that just about all of them were rights.

Possibly. I'd feel better of they were codified in the Constitution, though.

If the Supreme Court held that it did, it would legally exist, unless the Constitution were amended otherwise. Of course, I'd like to see the legal argument someone would make for government-provided televisions....

Subject to what I said above regarding Supreme Court decisions.

Heh you'd be amazed at what people will argue they have a right to. It happened near here in Baltimore. I'll try and find an article for you. It should be good for a chuckle.

Such an Amendment already exists. It is the 14th, which states that all citizens of this country are entitled to equal protection under the law. If marriage is to be recognized by the law, homosexuals cannot be denied that recognition any more than people of different ethnicities can.

The problem is that there's no definable connection between legal protection and a marriage license. A marriage license isn't a form of protection, it's a document that certifies that if you get married, it's in accordance with state law. It's not even a Constitutional right to even have one. Not even for heterosexuals, ironically.

If the government tried to deny driver's licenses to homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, do you think that would be considered constitutional? If homosexuals were told that they could not have jury trials because they are homosexual? If the wills of homosexuals were not recognized?

The answer to all of these questions is no - it would not be constitutional, because homosexuals are guaranteed equal protection under the law. If the government is going to offer driver's licenses, it cannot deny them to certain citizens except on the basis of a compelling government interest. Jury trials are guaranteed to all citizens. If the government is going to recognize wills as legally binding documents, it must recognize those of homosexuals just as it does those of heterosexuals.

It would be wrong to deny these benefits to a homosexual strictly on the basis of their sexuality. Why? Because it's irrelevant. The problem with these 3 examples is that they have nothign to do with a person's sexuality, wheras marriage is directly related to it.

Just by the way:
A driver's license isn't a Constitutional issue. Nobody has a right to a driver's license. A driver's license is considered a privilege. Look in any MVA/DMV issued driving manual. It's therefore not applicable in this case.
While I agree that it would be unfair to deny one based on a person's sexuality, one must be careful to keep perspective.

The jury trial issue is clear and not applicable here, since a jury trial IS guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. A homosexual is a citizen.

A legally drafted will is what it is. It's either legally drafted in the first place or not.

Likewise, if the government is going to provide a contractual agreement between consenting adults who choose to live as a single legal entity, it cannot deny to recognize that agreement between those who are homosexual simply because they are homosexual.

Sure, and if that's all there was to it, you and I would be in complete agreement. In fact, I've heard of a pretty good idea that was going to be presente dto the Congress in which any 2 people could form such a contract for any reason. It would be like a sort of mini-corporation, if you will. That would also enable all sorts of other arrangements like perhaps a brother and sister who want to maintain family property between them because they share a home and want to avoid the complexity of a will or probate court.

The problem is that as long as people want to define it as "marriage" as such, then there's going to be conscientious objection.

Like segregated schools and bigoted hiring practices and Jim Crow laws? Oh, wait, those were abolished against the wishes of the majority by a court meant to interpret the Constitution, not the will of a majority wishing to oppress a minority.

A court which was appointed by a majority-elected official.

And most slaveowners and those who agreed with slavery supported it with their religion. See the problem here?

That's different. Religion isn't what led them to become slave owners. They distorted their religion to justify a decision they'd already made or were living with. The logic flow is reversed.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 01:50

....which wouldn't have applied in much of the US if it hadn't been for the war, and most likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time strategic decision, meant to try and increase the pool of fighters for the US by recruiting the newly freed slaves into the cause.

Why is that relevant? The war was brought about by elected officials.

Really? Which one? Note that segregation lasted until the '70's (and beyond, in some cases).

Equal Protection, of course. It wasn't Constitutionally justifiable even before it was illegal.

And the point is clearly wrong.

That's your opinion.

Even if it is supported, it is still a lengthy process that may or may not have anything to do with the general level of support for the amendment. After the Civil War, Southern states were essentially forced to ratify two amendments - votes which had nothing to do with majority opinion.

Of course they did. The majority of the population was in the North, as it happens.

And to say that the flexibility of the Constitution was meant to be manifested by the ability to amend it is ludicrous. Amendment of the Constitution was made difficult for a reason. If it was meant to be the basis of legal changes, it wouldn't be any more difficult than simply passing a law. If we amended the Constitution every time the rule of law was to change, we'd have a document so large and unwieldy (not to mention full of contradictions) that it would be useless as a basis of law.

It's not ludicrous at all. It's about sticking to the established rules in a way that isn't subject to the whim of political current. THAT is why it requires such a majority.

Kamsaki

16-02-2007, 01:52

All good questions. But to answer them, I'd step outside of the unifying factors of Christianity and give you my own beliefs on the subject.

Like I said before, there's very little that ties all Christians together.
Presumably there's more than that, though. Otherwise, in an assertion that God is some guy down the street that I know rather well and an understanding that Jesus wants us all to enjoy the company of our friends, I would hold as much of a claim to Christianity as anyone else.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 01:55

Slavery was ended by an executive order after a long/bloody/devestating civil war which ended up causing a large amount of resentment from the south.

Segregation was taken care of by the courts as states passed laws to get around things such as the civil rights and voting rights acts.

Slavery was taken care of by an Executive order issued DURING a civil war and subsequently codified in the Constitution by the Congress. Segregation was already nominally illegal and was ultimately releaped by judges who were elected (in some jurisdictions) or appointed by elected officials.

We aren't talking about the majority of southerners. We are talking about the slaver owners who were a majority of if not almost totally christians. If your going to try to say look abolitionists were christians I can just as well say slave owners were christian as well.

The difference is that Abolitionists were, by and large, abolitionist BECAUSE of their religion. Slave owners were slave owners DESPITE their religion.

No they were delt with by a war and the courts. If it was done just by majority rule then the South would never have pulled its little we cecede bout and formed its own country. If majority rule ended segregation we wouldn't have had a mayor standing infront of a school baring black children from going in and the "majority" in that state supporting him.

Was the mayor elected by a minority?

Please explain to me how the process of amendmending the constitution, which is deliberately difficult to do and requires a majority to do, helps a minority group which is being disenfranchised by the masses who are wrong.

It worked for the slaves.

And the constitution is flexible in its wording because if a document like that were only to be taken on the merits of whats in it then we'd have to write up new parts to the constitution everytime something new happened/something was discovered.
It surprises me that you see that as a bad thing. I'd have thought folks who are of the opinion you are would be clamoring for an Ammendment to solidify the "right."

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 02:07

In some cases that's true, but it's unfair to say that anyone who votes their conscience is somehow trying to self-validate.

Yes, it is. But voting to force your personal viewpoints on others is not the same thing as "voting your conscience."

It's also not apropriate to characterize such a vote as an attempt to force their religion on others. I assure you, people who disagree with gay marriage or abortion are not, as a general rule, attempting to impose their beliefs on people. They vote their conscience. That's what majority rule is all about.

No, they are attempting to impose their beliefs on people. When you vote to have a belief of your religion put into law, that is, by definition, an attempt to impose your belief on others. If all you have to back up your belief is "my religion says so," or, "I just think so," then you have nothing that is adequate to force it upon others.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times, our government is not and has never been meant to be "majority rule." In fact, there are quite a few restrictions on the government specifically meant to prevent such rule.

Yes, but it was, in fact, codified in the Constitution.

Just as it still is - and is still being violated.

Courts aren't supposed to legislate from the bench.

No, they aren't. But they are supposed to interpret the law, including the 9th Amendment.

A court opinion can be overturned.

And an amendment can be as well - by further amendment. What's your point?

In the 70s the Supreme Court rules women had a right to abort. That decision could, theoretically, be overturned by a future Supreme Court ruling. Constitutional Ammendments aren't subject to the whim of a handful of judges.

No, they are subject to the whim of a handful of legislators.

Possibly. I'd feel better of they were codified in the Constitution, though.

Then push to have them codified there.

The problem is that there's no definable connection between legal protection and a marriage license. A marriage license isn't a form of protection, it's a document that certifies that if you get married, it's in accordance with state law. It's not even a Constitutional right to even have one. Not even for heterosexuals, ironically.

Yes, actually, a marriage license and all of the legal issues that go along with it is legal protection. It is meant to protect both the citizens entering into the contract (who are in legal and financial situations that would otherwise be either impossible or simply very difficult to deal with) and those they interact with (who will interact with them as a single legal entity whether they are officially recognized as such or not).

If it were simply a document that said, "Hey, you guys are married!" there would be no legal purpose at all to the document. Instead, the document involves a huge set of legal responsibilities and protections that we see as inherent in living as a single legal entity.

It would be wrong to deny these benefits to a homosexual strictly on the basis of their sexuality. Why? Because it's irrelevant. The problem with these 3 examples is that they have nothign to do with a person's sexuality, wheras marriage is directly related to it.

Marriage, from a legal point of view, is a construct in which two people merge their assets and live as a single legal entity. The situation of a couple that chooses to do so is the same regardless of the sex of the two people within the couple.

Just by the way:
A driver's license isn't a Constitutional issue. Nobody has a right to a driver's license. A driver's license is considered a privilege. Look in any MVA/DMV issued driving manual. It's therefore not applicable in this case.
While I agree that it would be unfair to deny one based on a person's sexuality, one must be careful to keep perspective.

That is irrelevant to the point. Equal protection under the law means equal protection under the law. If the government is going to provide a privilege, it must do so equally.

The jury trial issue is clear and not applicable here, since a jury trial IS guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. A homosexual is a citizen.

....so is equal protection under the law.

A legally drafted will is what it is. It's either legally drafted in the first place or not.

Yes, but there is nothing at all in the Constitution about recognizing legally drafted wills. So, according to you, we could decide tomorrow that the government should completely ignore them. Interestingly enough, the law of inheritance (as well as contract law) is almost completely found in common law - court decisions.

Sure, and if that's all there was to it, you and I would be in complete agreement. In fact, I've heard of a pretty good idea that was going to be presente dto the Congress in which any 2 people could form such a contract for any reason. It would be like a sort of mini-corporation, if you will. That would also enable all sorts of other arrangements like perhaps a brother and sister who want to maintain family property between them because they share a home and want to avoid the complexity of a will or probate court.

The problem is that as long as people want to define it as "marriage" as such, then there's going to be conscientious objection.

From a legal point of view, that is precisely what marriage is. When the government recognizes marriage, it isn't recognizing the other things that people in society may attribute to it. Many of us attribute religious meaning. Many attribute emotional meaning. And so on...

But the law recognizes the legal meaning of a marriage, which is exactly as I have described. And none of the other issues will change for anyone if the law extends equal marriage protection to all citizens.

A court which was appointed by a majority-elected official.

A fact which, quite often, turns out to be rather irrelevant. The structure of the Supreme Court was meant to insulate the court from the changing tides of public opinion. It has happened quite often that a very conservative president has appointed a Supreme Court justice that ends up agreeing with more liberal decisions than the president in question would ever agree with, and vice versa. Two of the current Supreme Court justices hold legal opinions that almost nobody would agree with.

But that is the way the court is supposed to work. Justices are not meant to be beholden to the sways of public opinion - hence the lifetime appointments. Their personal political opinions should play as little part as possible in their decisions. They are there to interpret the law - nothing more, nothing less.

That's different. Religion isn't what led them to become slave owners. They distorted their religion to justify a decision they'd already made or were living with. The logic flow is reversed.

Distortion? God was quite clear about slave ownership - that it was not only ok, but mandated in some cases. God was also clear that those of a different ethnic background were fair game for slavery, but men of your own ethnicity were to be treated differently. ((If, that is, you see the Old Testament as truly being the word of God.))

I would be wary of ascribing motives to people you don't know. One could just as well say that the abolitionists had decided that slavery was wrong, and looked for justification in their religion for that decision.

Pirated Corsairs

16-02-2007, 02:09

Neo Bretonia. Provide a single argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with forcing your religion upon "teh ebil gayz." Just one valid argument. You have claimed more than once in this thread that such reasons exist, so prove it.

Anyway, the real point. Do you object to, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia's theocracies? Would you object to a Muslim nation that gave the death penalty to women for being too revealing (that is, showing more than what you can see through an eyeslit), if the majority of the people in the country were Muslims? There is no difference between the two cases, except as a matter of degree.

Also, you keep saying slavery was overturned by majority rule. But it was also upheld by majority rule for a long time. Are you saying that slavery was fine, then?

The difference is that Abolitionists were, by and large, abolitionist BECAUSE of their religion. Slave owners were slave owners DESPITE their religion.
You've got it backwards. The Bible is clearly either pro-slavery, or at least not hostile to it. Everything that is "wrong" according to the Bible is explicitly condemned at one (or several, in most cases) points within those pages, and slavery is condemned a grand total of zero times in the Bible. (Exodus doesn't count because that's not God being opposed to slavery in general, but to the specific slavery of the Hebrews) Therefore, it is not morally wrong, according to the Bible.

Also, because you ignored it last time somebody posted it, read the ninth amendment. You have unenumerated rights, despite what most American Christians love to claim. (And yes, I recognize that some Christians don't believe such silly ideas. I'm not talking about any of you five. I'm talking about the majority.)

Essentially, Christians, if you want a theocracy, you're in the wrong country. Please get out so the US can go back to being a good secular nation.

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 02:11

Slavery was taken care of by an Executive order issued DURING a civil war and subsequently codified in the Constitution by the Congress. Segregation was already nominally illegal and was ultimately releaped by judges who were elected (in some jurisdictions) or appointed by elected officials.

Actually saying the emancipation proclemation ended slavery is not true.

Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order in 1863 by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, which declared the freedom of all slaves in those areas of the rebellious Confederate States of America that had not already returned to Union control.

This did not affect the border states/territories of the union but would have left had he actually outlawed slavery there. Its a little quirk in the whole proclemation because it was a policy proposal that in essense did nothing except garner support internationaly. Its like all the constitutional amendment referendums outlawing homosexuality in states that already have laws on the book which outlaw it. Its just policy that gets people out to the poles which had no real effect.

The difference is that Abolitionists were, by and large, abolitionist BECAUSE of their religion. Slave owners were slave owners DESPITE their religion.

No the point is your saying chrisitans did a good thing because they were abolitionists and I'm saying christains can still do bad things regardless of the fact that they are christians. So trying to say look at the good deed these christians did doesn't win me favor when I can point to the opposite side and say look christians.

Was the mayor elected by a minority?

The mayor was elected by the white majority allowed to vote.

It worked for the slaves.

Really so it immediately ended the whole racial issue when stuff such as the voting rights and civil rights act occured? I mean really your grasping for straws there if your trying to say it worked for slaves when it took from the 1860s to the 1960s for legislation that worked to get passed. Thats 100 years right there so please tell me how that worked out so well for them.

It surprises me that you see that as a bad thing. I'd have thought folks who are of the opinion you are would be clamoring for an Ammendment to solidify the "right."

if you limit the constitution to rights that are on it then you have to add every single new right that comes about on it which is a painstaking and long process. By keeping it vague and open to interpretation it does not take nearly as long to fix a right being denied then the time it takes to do an amendment. While you favor a process that can take years to achieve I favor a process which takes far less time to stop any violations of rights.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 02:18

Also, you're using the phrase "right" to describe something that doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Until an Ammendment puts it there, it isn't completely correct to refer to it as such.

Without wading into the argument, there are numerous rights not articulated in the bill of rights.

More to point the bill of rights itself states that the constitution is NOT an exhaustive list.

Pirated Corsairs

16-02-2007, 02:20

Without wading into the argument, there are numerous rights not articulated in the bill of rights.

More to point the bill of rights itself states that the constitution is NOT an exhaustive list.

Silly, the laws don't apply to Christianity. Jesus can do whatever he wants.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 02:47

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 03:10

Yes, it is. But voting to force your personal viewpoints on others is not the same thing as "voting your conscience."

No, they are attempting to impose their beliefs on people. When you vote to have a belief of your religion put into law, that is, by definition, an attempt to impose your belief on others. If all you have to back up your belief is "my religion says so," or, "I just think so," then you have nothing that is adequate to force it upon others.

I think the disparity here is that when people vote on certain issues, there are some who characterize it as a sinister effort to subvert freedom and make everybody else conform to their beliefs. That sort of portrayal is not constructive because for one thing, it's false and for another, it sets up a situation where debated are based more on emotion than on reason-a bad move.

People vote based on their beliefs. That's simple. For some, the beliefs come form their religion. For others, it comes form elsewhere. Doesn't matter.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times, our government is not and has never been meant to be "majority rule." In fact, there are quite a few restrictions on the government specifically meant to prevent such rule.

Oh it's been pointed out quite a few times but that certainly doesn't make it true. Majority rule is the very definition of Democracy. We do live in a Democracy-a representative democracy.

Just as it still is - and is still being violated.

Yes, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

No, they aren't. But they are supposed to interpret the law, including the 9th Amendment.

And an amendment can be as well - by further amendment. What's your point?

No, they are subject to the whim of a handful of legislators.

My point is simple: An Ammendment process more directly represents the will of the people.

Yes, actually, a marriage license and all of the legal issues that go along with it is legal protection. It is meant to protect both the citizens entering into the contract (who are in legal and financial situations that would otherwise be either impossible or simply very difficult to deal with) and those they interact with (who will interact with them as a single legal entity whether they are officially recognized as such or not).

If it were simply a document that said, "Hey, you guys are married!" there would be no legal purpose at all to the document. Instead, the document involves a huge set of legal responsibilities and protections that we see as inherent in living as a single legal entity.

The marriage license not a protection. If it were, then all of those factors would exist from the moment the license was issued. As it stands, they do not. A marriage license expires after a set period of time if no wedding takes place.

Marriage, from a legal point of view, is a construct in which two people merge their assets and live as a single legal entity. The situation of a couple that chooses to do so is the same regardless of the sex of the two people within the couple.

See my previous post on this.

That is irrelevant to the point. Equal protection under the law means equal protection under the law. If the government is going to provide a privilege, it must do so equally.
Subject to legally established eligibility requirements. The difference between a priviledge and a right is that the Government cannot deny a right without due process. A right is something you have by virtue of your citizenship. A priviledge has no such guarantee. A priviledge has requirements that may or may not be met by all.

(For example: Blindness has absolutely no impact on your ability to exercise your rights. On the other hand, a blind person cannot acquire a driver's license.)

Yes, but there is nothing at all in the Constitution about recognizing legally drafted wills. So, according to you, we could decide tomorrow that the government should completely ignore them. Interestingly enough, the law of inheritance (as well as contract law) is almost completely found in common law - court decisions.
Except that generally you'll find legal measures are codified in State contitutions and law dealing with this.

From a legal point of view, that is precisely what marriage is. When the government recognizes marriage, it isn't recognizing the other things that people in society may attribute to it. Many of us attribute religious meaning. Many attribute emotional meaning. And so on...

But the law recognizes the legal meaning of a marriage, which is exactly as I have described. And none of the other issues will change for anyone if the law extends equal marriage protection to all citizens.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this debate.

A fact which, quite often, turns out to be rather irrelevant. The structure of the Supreme Court was meant to insulate the court from the changing tides of public opinion. It has happened quite often that a very conservative president has appointed a Supreme Court justice that ends up agreeing with more liberal decisions than the president in question would ever agree with, and vice versa. Two of the current Supreme Court justices hold legal opinions that almost nobody would agree with.

But that is the way the court is supposed to work. Justices are not meant to be beholden to the sways of public opinion - hence the lifetime appointments. Their personal political opinions should play as little part as possible in their decisions. They are there to interpret the law - nothing more, nothing less.
Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, more and more often judges are legislating from the bench. That's beside the point, however.

Distortion? God was quite clear about slave ownership - that it was not only ok, but mandated in some cases. God was also clear that those of a different ethnic background were fair game for slavery, but men of your own ethnicity were to be treated differently. ((If, that is, you see the Old Testament as truly being the word of God.))

I would be wary of ascribing motives to people you don't know. One could just as well say that the abolitionists had decided that slavery was wrong, and looked for justification in their religion for that decision.
Then I invite you to follow your own advice and stop accusing Christians generally of being power-mongering control freaks.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 03:18

Actually saying the emancipation proclemation ended slavery is not true.

Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order in 1863 by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, which declared the freedom of all slaves in those areas of the rebellious Confederate States of America that had not already returned to Union control.

This did not affect the border states/territories of the union but would have left had he actually outlawed slavery there. Its a little quirk in the whole proclemation because it was a policy proposal that in essense did nothing except garner support internationaly. Its like all the constitutional amendment referendums outlawing homosexuality in states that already have laws on the book which outlaw it. Its just policy that gets people out to the poles which had no real effect.

That's a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that all of the decisions that lead up to and included the abolition of slavery on a COnstitutional level were enacted by elected officials-majority rule.

No the point is your saying chrisitans did a good thing because they were abolitionists and I'm saying christains can still do bad things regardless of the fact that they are christians. So trying to say look at the good deed these christians did doesn't win me favor when I can point to the opposite side and say look christians.
It's not about trying to put Christians or anybody else in a positive light. It's about pointing out that people have always, and ought to continue to, vote their conscience. It leads to good things. It's not about casting a "Christian" vote or a "Jewish" or "Muslim" vote for that matter. It's about voting for what you believe is right. For most people, the sense of right and wrong comes from their religion. This is not a bad thing.

The mayor was elected by the white majority allowed to vote.

In the 1960s Black people could vote too. That from Ammendment 13.

Really so it immediately ended the whole racial issue when stuff such as the voting rights and civil rights act occured? I mean really your grasping for straws there if your trying to say it worked for slaves when it took from the 1860s to the 1960s for legislation that worked to get passed. Thats 100 years right there so please tell me how that worked out so well for them.

I said slaves, not blacks or even minorities in general... at least not right away. Real social change takes time, obviously, but it did work. White Christians are still the majority in this country.

if you limit the constitution to rights that are on it then you have to add every single new right that comes about on it which is a painstaking and long process. By keeping it vague and open to interpretation it does not take nearly as long to fix a right being denied then the time it takes to do an amendment. While you favor a process that can take years to achieve I favor a process which takes far less time to stop any violations of rights.
By that logic we didn't need any Ammendments to protect women's right to vote, or for blacks to vote either, for that matter.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 03:25

Neo Bretonia. Provide a single argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with forcing your religion upon "teh ebil gayz." Just one valid argument. You have claimed more than once in this thread that such reasons exist, so prove it.
This debate isn't about gay marriage per se, the issue is just being used as an example. The topic is the motivation behind votong your conscience.

RTFF.

Anyway, the real point. Do you object to, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia's theocracies? Would you object to a Muslim nation that gave the death penalty to women for being too revealing (that is, showing more than what you can see through an eyeslit), if the majority of the people in the country were Muslims? There is no difference between the two cases, except as a matter of degree.
The problem there is that those examples are governments that do not have codified Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment or due process. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Also, you keep saying slavery was overturned by majority rule. But it was also upheld by majority rule for a long time. Are you saying that slavery was fine, then?
There were those who were against slavery-for religious reasons-from the very beginning. If they had voted their conscience rather than trying to compromise with states that supported it, there wouldn't have been Constitutionally authorized slavery in the first place.

You've got it backwards. The Bible is clearly either pro-slavery, or at least not hostile to it. Everything that is "wrong" according to the Bible is explicitly condemned at one (or several, in most cases) points within those pages, and slavery is condemned a grand total of zero times in the Bible. (Exodus doesn't count because that's not God being opposed to slavery in general, but to the specific slavery of the Hebrews) Therefore, it is not morally wrong, according to the Bible.
So you're saying that Christians who are against slavery aren't voting according to their beliefs? I'd have thought that would make you happy.

Also, because you ignored it last time somebody posted it, read the ninth amendment. You have unenumerated rights, despite what most American Christians love to claim. (And yes, I recognize that some Christians don't believe such silly ideas. I'm not talking about any of you five. I'm talking about the majority.)
I didn't ignore it. RTFF.

Essentially, Christians, if you want a theocracy, you're in the wrong country. Please get out so the US can go back to being a good secular nation.
I invite you to show me where I, or any Christian who has posted in this thread, has advocated a Theocracy.

Pirated Corsairs

16-02-2007, 03:39

You believe laws should have scriptural basis. Therefore, you advocate theocracy, even if not to the extreme that is found in some countries.

Flatus Minor

16-02-2007, 04:25

Could you perhaps enlighten me on what these unifying factors are?

(This isn't Socratic ignorance, by the way; the question of what makes Christian-ness seems to constantly evade definition)

Pardon me for horning in, but although I am no longer a Christian, I prefer to think that the following scriptural passage is the most important when looking for any "core" Christian beliefs and behaviour:

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

You often see "John 3:16" placards at televised sporting events; personally, I think Luke 10:27 (above) is more significant.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 06:28

I'm not going to go back and correct every one of the many, many, many factual and logical errors that NB has set forth.

But let's address a couple of points.

1. Our nation is not based on simple majority rule, but by the rule of the Constitution.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

2. Marriage is a constitutional right. See Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

3. You can no more deny two people the right to marry on the basis of gender than you can on the basis of race. To do so is directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lydiardia

16-02-2007, 07:24

Further, is it just me or are those who whine about the bashing of Christianity tend to be Protestant Christian and not Catholic or any of the other sects, such as Eastern Orthodox or Pentecostal.

Of course, this isn't to say it can't happen, but on this forum, this has been my experience with such here.

Nazi Edit: Pentecostals are "protestants" - however they're so so off base they can't afford to whine about anything..

Lydiardia

16-02-2007, 07:29

Pardon me for horning in, but although I am no longer a Christian, I prefer to think that the following scriptural passage is the most important when looking for any "core" Christian beliefs and behaviour:

You often see "John 3:16" placards at televised sporting events; personally, I think Luke 10:27 (above) is more significant.

The arguement is that "Loving your God with all your MIGHT" includes following his word.. it follows that you have to discern which of the man-produced words are his.

Frankly, you're focusing on "love thy neighbour".. A tennant that will get you far in life and the after-life - but it's not the focus of the command...

Economic Associates

16-02-2007, 07:30

That's a good point, but it doesn't change the fact that all of the decisions that lead up to and included the abolition of slavery on a COnstitutional level were enacted by elected officials-majority rule.

Not all the reforms were done on a constitutional level there were a number of laws put into effect that were circumvented by the majority of people who didn't like the idea of african americans voting or having a relationship with white women. The point is it took in the case of african americans over 100 years for them to get where they are now because people used the system including the "majority rules" arguement to keep them down.

It's not about trying to put Christians or anybody else in a positive light. It's about pointing out that people have always, and ought to continue to, vote their conscience. It leads to good things. It's not about casting a "Christian" vote or a "Jewish" or "Muslim" vote for that matter. It's about voting for what you believe is right. For most people, the sense of right and wrong comes from their religion. This is not a bad thing.

It is if it infringes upon the rights of others for things which do no harm. Religious arguements against homosexual marriage are about as good as an arguement by a muslim to outlaw pork because of their religion or any other religious doctrine. And your presuposing that people voting with their conscience is a good thing. Once upon a time people voted to keep blacks as property based on their conscience and other lovely things. Use reason not morals given by a book which may or may not be true.

In the 1960s Black people could vote too. That from Ammendment 13.
The thirteenth amendment deals with slavery being outlawed not that african americans could vote.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 15th amendment delt with the right to vote but states got around that with literacy tests and the like. Those weren't delt with until the passing of the civil and voting rights acts of 1964. Now the whole issue with dear old govener Orval Fabus used said national guard to keep african american students from going into the schools in 1957. The voting rights act was in 1964. Which means that even though your whole thing about constitutional amendments doesn't really seem so great when you look at the fact that the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870 but african americans were denied that right by a number of different state tactics. It took about a little over 90 years for them to be able to secure those rights and it was because of court cases which interpreted the constitution in a flexible manner along with legislative initiatives.

I said slaves, not blacks or even minorities in general... at least not right away. Real social change takes time, obviously, but it did work. White Christians are still the majority in this country.

Yea the slaves got off real well once slavery was ended. They only had 100 years to wait before they were allowed to vote, be treated equally, and even date white women. Your advocating a form of change which causes injustices like this to happen. Because if the minority can't be protected by the constitution unless they change it in a manner which requires a majority said majority disadvantaging them will make sure they stay oppressed.

By that logic we didn't need any Ammendments to protect women's right to vote, or for blacks to vote either, for that matter.

Oh I'm not saying we don't need those I'm saying that the constitution is a flexible document and that there are rights enumerated there not expressly stated.

The Atlantic Territory

16-02-2007, 12:58

He is, as we refer to them in these parts, a troll. They enjoy posting inflammatory, unsubstantiated remarks and then not replying to the answers because the answers contain too much substance for them to refute and for them to do that, they would have to justify their position. They don't like using evidence to prove their point.

1. You are wrong.

2. I posted this yesterday, and have come back on today to answer a few questions where I can. However, many have already been answered so it seems.

3. So, amazingly wrong.

4. The vast majority of this thread is now about the US Constitution and the founding fathers. If there are any questions that have remained entirely unaswered, please point them out.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 13:17

....which wouldn't have applied in much of the US if it hadn't been for the war, and most likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time strategic decision, meant to try and increase the pool of fighters for the US by recruiting the newly freed slaves into the cause.

Most people don't realize that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those slaves in areas of the Confederate States of America that had not already returned to Union control. There were still slaves held in border states until the 13th Amendment was ratified. And, from a strictly legal standpoint, the EP didn't free slaves; the 13th Amendment did.

EDIT: Oh, somebody helpfully pointed that out already! Kudos. It's also worth re-emphasizing that actual legal equality for black citizens did not happen when the slaves were freed. The majority of the country had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a world of equality, and it took a century to do it. The majority didn't want brown people voting or owning a business or marrying their nice white daughter. And the majority has had to be told to get the fuck over itself time and time again.

It's true, a lot of advances toward equality have come when majority opinion finally swings in favor of equality. I think that is disgusting and shameful and something we should all be deeply embarassed about. Equality should NEVER have to wait that long. It is pathetic and cowardly to suggest that your fellow citizens should have to wait until the majority of other citizens agree to treat them like equal human beings under the law. That's just a chickshit excuse for your personal desire to impose an inequality that YOU happen to like. Grow up. (And no, the "you" in here was most definitely not aimed at Dem.)

Kamsaki

16-02-2007, 13:27

Pardon me for horning in, but although I am no longer a Christian, I prefer to think that the following scriptural passage is the most important when looking for any "core" Christian beliefs and behaviour:
While I don't doubt that it's a necessary part, I do question whether that is what defines what it means to be a Christian. One can love God, and certainly love their neighbour, without any exposure to Christianity, and indeed a great many do.

Kamsaki

16-02-2007, 13:30

The arguement is that "Loving your God with all your MIGHT" includes following his word.. it follows that you have to discern which of the man-produced words are his.
Hrm. Something about that doesn't gel. If it is possible to love God, it must be possible to do so without exposure to history or literature of any sort, right? A love with necessary basis in the works of the past is not much of a love, really.

Minaris

16-02-2007, 13:31

UpwardThrust

16-02-2007, 13:33

The arguement is that "Loving your God with all your MIGHT" includes following his word.. it follows that you have to discern which of the man-produced words are his.

Frankly, you're focusing on "love thy neighbour".. A tennant that will get you far in life and the after-life - but it's not the focus of the command...

Loving your neighbor has proven beneficial effects ... following his word does not appear to do so and seems rather more hit and miss ... and assumes you found the correct word, and that it is believable to you (which most of the bible is not to me) its rather more complicated and has a whole lot less basis for observation before the supposed judgement

The Atlantic Territory

16-02-2007, 13:53

How would you describe the opposite ideology of Jesus (a left-libertarian "hippie" for the time... and probably now) and the Church (an economic right, authoritarian organization)?

(OK, it's not a smackdown, nor was it meant to be. It's just a very relevant question)

I agree that's a good question.

He was a hippy for the time: He mingled with the prostitutes, women and so forth.

However, I think it's often the case people forget SOME of what Jesus was teaching. Yes, he was friends with all sorts, he embraced all, (what I too believe) but he told them to sin no more, and those who joined him took up his ideals.

When I say socially conservative, I mean things such as:

Not having sex outside of marriage
Opposition to same-sex marriages

And issues like that. And it's important to remember that Jesus said he came to fulfil the law, not reverse the older law.

However, I am obviously moderated by other parts of his teaching. I am anti-death penalty. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord etc. is a founding principle and I combine that with teachings from Jesus about "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" and so on.

I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, and by our MODERN standards he is a social conservative I would say. The reason I do not belong to any denomination though is that many of the churches I have been to do not seem to show Jesus' message of loving your neighbour and doing unto them what you would have done to you.

So although yes I'm socially conservative, I try my best not to be a hypocrite - it's more trying to listen to the message of the Bible, and not interpret it how many do today.

Kryozerkia

16-02-2007, 14:42

Nazi Edit: Pentecostals are "protestants" - however they're so so off base they can't afford to whine about anything..

I am aware of that; I also knew they were off base (I do have a friend of that religion). I made its own because it doesn't fit in with mainstream Protestantism. Though, I reckon I should have also mentioned LDS and Jehovahs' Witnesses... oh well.

1. You are wrong.

2. I posted this yesterday, and have come back on today to answer a few questions where I can. However, many have already been answered so it seems.

3. So, amazingly wrong.

4. The vast majority of this thread is now about the US Constitution and the founding fathers. If there are any questions that have remained entirely unaswered, please point them out.

1 - No, I'm insane, but thanks for trying to label me.

2 - the only one I saw didn't answer anything and the post was initially in response to someone else asking why you didn't respond.

3 - No, I am never wrong, just blindingly insane.

4 - Yes, threads do go massively off topic when given the chance and it seems to be the case here because someone had hijacked it when speaking about rights. So, when rights come up, because most posters are American, the US Constitution becomes an inevitable part of the debate.

Modsouls

16-02-2007, 15:34

Okay, I guess I'll weigh in here, though I usually don't in discussions such as these -- they frustrate me.

First off, I don't recall who asked this, but about people who've never heard the Gospel going to hell...

In Romans, I believe, Paul mentions that even those who have not heard about Jesus have creation all around them. This isn't saying that people who are not Christian can "honor God through nature" and somehow get to heaven. He's saying that these people have undeniable evidence that God exists (remember, evolution wasn't the big hairy deal then that it is today). These people, looking at creation, could say "Someone, somewhere, must have made this." and begin their search for God. Oftentimes, they stop somewhere along the way (as evidenced by various tribal religions and somesuch), but if a person is truly seeking to know God, God will make sure that a way is provided. Kamsaki, I think this also answers part of your question -- a person who truly wants to know and love God will be provided the opportunity, first by hearing of Jesus Christ and what He did, and then by living His teachings in their daily lives.

Sadly, too few people actually search for truth of any sort in today's world, preferring moral relativism ( which, if it were actually true, is even more completely illogical than many claim Christianity is).

That's why those who have not heard aren't can still go to hell. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." God is, above all, a just being. If His law has been broken, He must administer punishment. Some speculate on different degrees of punishment, but I'm not sure on that one.

UpwardThrust

16-02-2007, 15:37

Bottle

16-02-2007, 15:47

Sadly, too few people actually search for truth of any sort in today's world, preferring moral relativism ( which, if it were actually true, is even more completely illogical than many claim Christianity is).

I'm with UT on this: how is moral relativism more illogical that superstition?

Morality is a concept. It is a simple, verifiable fact that morality is a concept created and maintained by human beings. It is a simple, verifiable fact that different human beings hold different morals, and different human cultures have different aggregate moral codes. It is a simple, verifiable fact that all human beings make moral judgments and evaluate morality based on their subjective perceptions and context.

I have yet to see anybody present a single piece of evidence that there is any such thing as an objective moral truth.

Given the above, how could it be "illogical" to accept the principle of moral relativism? How would moral relativism be "more illogical" than believing that objective morality not only exists, but is determined by the will of a being that has never even been shown to exist?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 15:57

You believe laws should have scriptural basis. Therefore, you advocate theocracy, even if not to the extreme that is found in some countries.

No, I never said such a thing. I said people ought to be free to vote their conscience, which may or may not be based on religious values.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:07

I'm not going to go back and correct every one of the many, many, many factual and logical errors that NB has set forth.

Then they can't be worth mentioning, right?

1. Our nation is not based on simple majority rule, but by the rule of the Constitution.

...which was designed by men who were elected to do so by--majority vote. The document itself was ratified by--majority vote. That's a system that continues into today. We elect politicians by simple majority. Laws are enacted by simple majority. Vetos can be overriden by a 2/3 majority. etc etc etc.

Majority rule is what defines a Democracy. We live in a Democracy.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Because those rights are codified in the Constitution, which was... well I already said it.

2. Marriage is a constitutional right. See Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That's a court ruling and a good one... but marriage is not a Constitutional right per se. The court uses the 14th Ammendment as its basis, but that's not saying that marriage is, in and of itself, Constitutionally spelled out.

It's like saying the 15th Ammendment (which guarantees the right of all citizens to vote regardless of race) makes the 26th Ammendment (which guarantees that right to all citizens over 18) unecessary. Apparently, it was necessary.

3. You can no more deny two people the right to marry on the basis of gender than you can on the basis of race. To do so is directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That's your opinion. The thing is, this thread isn't even about gay marriage per se, it is just the example used to discuss voting one's conscience. Seems like suddenly everybody wants to shift the topic. There are already other threads that are discussing that.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:28

Not all the reforms were done on a constitutional level there were a number of laws put into effect that were circumvented by the majority of people who didn't like the idea of african americans voting or having a relationship with white women. The point is it took in the case of african americans over 100 years for them to get where they are now because people used the system including the "majority rules" arguement to keep them down.

The thirteenth amendment deals with slavery being outlawed not that african americans could vote.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 15th amendment delt with the right to vote but states got around that with literacy tests and the like. Those weren't delt with until the passing of the civil and voting rights acts of 1964. Now the whole issue with dear old govener Orval Fabus used said national guard to keep african american students from going into the schools in 1957. The voting rights act was in 1964. Which means that even though your whole thing about constitutional amendments doesn't really seem so great when you look at the fact that the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870 but african americans were denied that right by a number of different state tactics. It took about a little over 90 years for them to be able to secure those rights and it was because of court cases which interpreted the constitution in a flexible manner along with legislative initiatives.

Yea the slaves got off real well once slavery was ended. They only had 100 years to wait before they were allowed to vote, be treated equally, and even date white women. Your advocating a form of change which causes injustices like this to happen. Because if the minority can't be protected by the constitution unless they change it in a manner which requires a majority said majority disadvantaging them will make sure they stay oppressed.

The thirteenth amendment deals with slavery being outlawed not that african americans could vote.

I'm rearraging some of what you wrote only to group related topics together. I'm not deleting anything :)

Yes you're right, the 15th. I hit the wrong number and made a typo. What is being forgotten here is that any kind of major social change like that necessarily takes a long time when the Government is a democracy precisely because people disagree and slows change. In time, majority rule won out and did the right thing. The process began with the abolition of slavery and culminated in the various civil rights laws we've seen since. None of that disproves the fact and the value of majority rule. eople who were pro slavery were natinally in the minority, and they lost. People who were pro racism lost. Why? because the majority rule Ammended the Constitution to end it. You can't deny that the Ammendments and laws we've been discussing were enacted/ratified by majority votes in governing bodied like the Congress, and that those representatives were, in turn, elected by simple majorities in their home districts.

It is if it infringes upon the rights of others for things which do no harm. Religious arguements against homosexual marriage are about as good as an arguement by a muslim to outlaw pork because of their religion or any other religious doctrine. And your presuposing that people voting with their conscience is a good thing. Once upon a time people voted to keep blacks as property based on their conscience and other lovely things. Use reason not morals given by a book which may or may not be true.

A Muslim would be perfectly within his rights to vote for a law to ban pork food products. Heck, a few non-Muslims would probably vote for it too for opinions based on health reasons. I'd imagine Jewish voters would vote for it too. Nothing in Christianity or any other religion says we MUST eat pork, so whose rights are being violated by such a law? There are already jurisdictions in this country where I could not eat say, a cat if I wanted to. What's the basis for that law? I have no idea. Maybe it's religion, maybe it's just feel good legislation. Who knows? Surely if I have an implied right to eat pigs then I have an implied right to eat cats, too... And yet the law says otherwise. Since the Constitution doesn't protect the consumption of any particular animal, such a law could happen.

Oh I'm not saying we don't need those I'm saying that the constitution is a flexible document and that there are rights enumerated there not expressly stated.
I understand, but why do we need them? I would argue that the right for women to vote was implied already by the 15th Ammendment and yet it was still necessary to codify it in the 19th Ammendment. Rights that are implied aren't secure without written guarantee. Otherwise there'd be no 19th Ammendment.

Now all that stuff is a tangent. The fact is that at the end of the day, a democracy is a Government by majority rule. The Constitution contains the rules. It's simple. To try and separate the Constitution from the concept of majority rule is nonsensical, since it didn't just pop up pot of a cabbage patch.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:34

Most people don't realize that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to those slaves in areas of the Confederate States of America that had not already returned to Union control. There were still slaves held in border states until the 13th Amendment was ratified. And, from a strictly legal standpoint, the EP didn't free slaves; the 13th Amendment did.

EDIT: Oh, somebody helpfully pointed that out already! Kudos. It's also worth re-emphasizing that actual legal equality for black citizens did not happen when the slaves were freed. The majority of the country had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a world of equality, and it took a century to do it. The majority didn't want brown people voting or owning a business or marrying their nice white daughter. And the majority has had to be told to get the fuck over itself time and time again.

If the majority wasn't for it, the Ammendments to the Constitution would never have been made in the first place.

It's true, a lot of advances toward equality have come when majority opinion finally swings in favor of equality. I think that is disgusting and shameful and something we should all be deeply embarassed about. Equality should NEVER have to wait that long. It is pathetic and cowardly to suggest that your fellow citizens should have to wait until the majority of other citizens agree to treat them like equal human beings under the law. That's just a chickshit excuse for your personal desire to impose an inequality that YOU happen to like. Grow up. (And no, the "you" in here was most definitely not aimed at Dem.)

I agree with the first half of this paragraph, and to the second I say: This is the Government we live in. This is how it works. Love it or not, there it is. Don't blame me for seeing it the way it is, rather than through a pair of filtered feel-good lenses.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:37

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:44

I'm with UT on this: how is moral relativism more illogical that superstition?

Morality is a concept. It is a simple, verifiable fact that morality is a concept created and maintained by human beings. It is a simple, verifiable fact that different human beings hold different morals, and different human cultures have different aggregate moral codes. It is a simple, verifiable fact that all human beings make moral judgments and evaluate morality based on their subjective perceptions and context.

I have yet to see anybody present a single piece of evidence that there is any such thing as an objective moral truth.

Given the above, how could it be "illogical" to accept the principle of moral relativism? How would moral relativism be "more illogical" than believing that objective morality not only exists, but is determined by the will of a being that has never even been shown to exist?

First of all, moral relativism is illogical because it claims that *any* individual human being is just as qualified as *every* other human being in determining what's right and what's wrong. It presupposes that all people will choose some sort of harmless path that's "right for them."

That's one step away from anarchy. Why? because having a Government and submitting to it is to acknowledge a higher authority, whether that higher authority is a governing body or a god doesn't matter. It all points to the same concept: universal right and wrong. We live in a Government, a democracy, where nominally the laws are based on a common set of beliefs on what is right and wrong. It's wrong to harm others. It's wrong to take other people's stuff. It's wrong to intrude on other's privacy, etc. There's nothing relativistic about it.

If you choose to refer to religion as superstition then by all means be my guest. I will say that this "superstition" is the origin for most laws we find today, and you ar eprotected by those laws.

So that's a helluva lot more logical then "moral relativism."

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 16:49

Now that I'm all caught up...

I see little value in continuing the tangent on Constitutional rights and the nature of Government. I've said everything I had to say and you guys I've been debating probably have, too. The argument is beginning to go in circles. We must agree to disagree, I guess. Some people have pointed out how off-topic we've gotten and they're right. For my part, I'll say that my intention was only to demonstrate the value in voting one's conscience and that it is the core of what makes up a democracy. Hopefully I've stated that clearly.

Back to the point. It's illogical to suggest that somehow Christianity is the bane of freedom and progress. Look at Europe, wher emost of the countries there actually HAVE an official national religion. They're almost all Christian and they have freedom, sometimes more than we have here in the USA. Does that say nothing to you? I think our secular Government is a good thing and it should stay that way... but please, to portray Christians as enemies of freedom is irrational and runs counter to observable history.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 17:13

First of all, moral relativism is illogical because it claims that *any* individual human being is just as qualified as *every* other human being in determining what's right and what's wrong.

They are.

Now, an individual human being is obviously going to be less effective at ENFORCING their moral judgments when compared to a large group of human beings. But that has nothing to do with the determination itself.

Of course, even if you want to assume an objective morality, the above would still remain true. An individual human is perfectly capable of testing and measuring objective realities, and a majority of people are perfectly capable of being wrong in their beliefs regarding that objective reality. We see this in science all the time. A million people can be dead wrong, and a single individual can step up and find the correct answer over the protestations of all those others.

It presupposes that all people will choose some sort of harmless path that's "right for them."

No, it doesn't.

That's one step away from anarchy. Why? because having a Government and submitting to it is to acknowledge a higher authority, whether that higher authority is a governing body or a god doesn't matter.

None of which has anything to do with moral relativism. The fact that a group of people agree to live under a particular set of laws does not in any way conflict with moral relativism. The fact that authority figures or enforcing agencies are recognized does not in any way conflict with moral relativism.

It all points to the same concept: universal right and wrong.

No, it doesn't. Indeed, it points to the opposite. Different governments, with different "moral" codes, exist all over the world. Humans frequently over throw governments and install new moral systems. Humans frequently make moral decisions and take actions that are directly opposed to the authority of the government or supposed moral authority over them.

We live in a Government, a democracy, where nominally the laws are based on a common set of beliefs on what is right and wrong. It's wrong to harm others. It's wrong to take other people's stuff. It's wrong to intrude on other's privacy, etc. There's nothing relativistic about it.

Again, the fact that a group of humans choose to abide by a shared set of laws does not in any way contradict moral relativism.

If you choose to refer to religion as superstition then by all means be my guest.

I wasn't really looking for permission, but thanks anyhow.

I will say that this "superstition" is the origin for most laws we find today, and you ar eprotected by those laws.

Actually, most of the laws that protect me predate every religion in my society. Most human laws that are nominally grounded in religion are actually pragmatic or culturally-motivated at their core. Religion is simply one means of enforcing morals that a culture has already established.

So that's a helluva lot more logical then "moral relativism."
What is? Systems of law in which members of a society abide by a common code? That is perfectly compatible with moral relativism, and does not in any way require objective morality or objective truth of any kind.

Bruarong

16-02-2007, 17:15

Bottle

16-02-2007, 17:16

Isn't the equality of every human kinda like an absolute moral, or an objective moral truth?

Nope.

One could argue, I suppose, that it is a human invention.

Yup.

Or perhaps it is more reasonable to argue that humans discovered it. I think the second option is more logical.
No, I'd say "invented" is far more accurate, since there was nothing to discover before humans came up with the concept.

Intelistan

16-02-2007, 17:17

Ha ha, religion. First, it was science. Why does it rain? How does the sun rise? Then, there was the Roman Empire. Big, vast, and exceedingly difficult to manage (the US can hardly monitor the country with modern communications, imagine a bigger empire) the people in the Empire were quite a bit unruly. This was not a good time to be a Roman soldier. Morals defunct, the populus was out of control with crime, poverty, disease, and over-population (for the food supply at that time). There were various "cults," or crazed lunatics screaming and yelling their "sermons" about this God, these sets of morals, why everyone's going to die, et cetera. One such cult became one of the more popular ones, touting this Jesus of Nazareth, and tales of him doing amazing things, such as doing the impossible, healing the sick, caring for the poor, and being Mr. Nice Guy to everyone, and going to be the king of Isreal and make everyone's problems bugger off. The Jews apparently got mad at this character claiming he's the son of their god (imagine of "Jesus" were to appear nowadays- mental ward for sure), so they decide to complain to the soldiers to silence him for good. He gets crucified, like all other criminals, and three days later his devoted cult memebers (disciples) steal his body from either a sleepy or "for hire" Roman guard, and hide it. "Oh look, he rose from the dead!" And now you have leverage to spread your "religion." Obviously, the poor cannot read or write, so they use verbal stories. As you should know, verbal stories constantly change (also called "fish tales," as it gets more grand the more its told) and evolved into a good show. Naturally, they begin to attempt writing these down. And the Romans are afraid this cult is too powerful, so they feed them to lions. Which, by the way, makes the poor who believe in the morals being taught upset, and they lose more trust in the Roman government. The religion spreads, and the Empire is near widespread rebellion. Finally, Mr. Emperor Constantine decided, after feeding Christians to lions and nailing them to wood, maybe the scary stuff about going to Hell and being a good little peasant so Jesus and God can save you after you die, could help control the problems the Romans have, instead of worshipping the god that throws lightning bolts. Basically, the moral controls set in place by Roman (Greek) mythology were no longer effective. Policy change! Christianity is now the new religion of the Roman Empire. Everything is great for a while, but some tweaking is in order for this nifty book they wrote, called the "Bible". Of course, the poor can't read or write, so they have no idea where it came from or what this book means. BUT! The educated, wealthy priests (you have to give money to your church, as you have to educate and feed your priest and his replacements) made sure the people knew what was going on. Of course, it's the same way modern Christians accuse news stations of doing, like CNN, Reuters, and whatnot- they "slant" everything in their favor and push their point of view. Oh yeah, and the book that says "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD AND IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH," has some problems with the truth. SO, King James, King Solomon, and various popes decide they should modify parts of the Bible. If you didn't catch that, I'll run it by again. Mortal men changed the word of God. Anyway, after years of preaching, we have several issues arise. Especially after the Dark Ages, ugly.

1. Hate for Jews. The bible doesn't say to hate directly, but it does scream that Jews killed Jesus. And the church made sure to include this in their agendas.

2. Hate for Islam. Uhhh, how many Crusades were there? We should simply this for "intolerance of other religions". However, Christianity began to break up into different flavors. BTW, both of these worship the same God. Why did He tell His follwers to kill each other? Boredom?

3. Excuses to sin. Well, even the priests and ruling classes were still sinning! Well, we could make sure they just give up some money and say they're sorry. Cha-ching, it's win-win for the church, win-lose for the rich.

4. God said "Thou shalt not kill." Oh, and in case you didn't know, He did say it was okay to kill for your country, lord, king, pope, laws, and in His name as long as He told you to do it. Spanish Inquisition? Oops, where'd the forgiveness of Jesus go?

5. Catholicism. OMG, I have an idea. I'm going to *insert "sin" here* then go to confession (for free!) and say I'm sorry for *insert sin here* and I won't do it again, at least until next week.

6. Science? We don't need no science. The Earth is the center of the universe! The Bubonic Plague? Ah! God is mad! Whack ourselves for being bad, that'll fix everything. How dare you question (read:discredit) the word of God! To death!

I could go on and on. I just find it quite funny that people cannot deal with the fact that they're just one, insignificant person. Or that people die. Or the fact that people are just animals, and bad things happen. I say I don't care if you have to worship something to go through the daily grind of being alive, I believe in the individual and their freedom to be a living creature. I only hate when my belief is not only stepped on, but kicked in the crotch. When Christians harrass me about no abortions or no gay marriages or maybe we should ban red meat on fridays or why can't we force EVERYONE to say "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance or stem cell research is like playing God and evil or

My wrists hurt, I have tendonitis. I could go on, but not now. BTW, I probably won't find my way back onto this thread today, and certainly not over the weekend. So, don't expect me to perch myself here like some loser with no life outside of the internet, send me a message directly so I might realize you want to say something to me. Let's see how many people don't even read this part. 1, 2, 3, go!

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 17:17

What makes a good Christian? :p

Bottle

16-02-2007, 17:23

What makes a good Christian? :p
Have you ever played that game where you read a fortune cookie and then you add "...in bed" to it?

In my experience, defining a "good Christian" is a bit like that, only instead of "...in bed" you add "...because Jesus said so" or "because God said so." You think of things that make a good person, and then tack on the Christ-belief at the end.

This is because most of the values that most Christians espouse are basic human decency. Don't kill people. Don't steal stuff. Don't be a lying asshole. Don't be rude or cruel to others. Etc. These are all good HUMAN values. Christians happen to put these values in the context of their religion, but when you get right down to it a "good Christian" is pretty much just a good person who happens to also believe in Jesus. Not fundamentally different from any other good person.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 17:25

Have you ever played that game where you read a fortune cookie and then you add "...in bed" to it?

In my experience, defining a "good Christian" is a bit like that, only instead of "...in bed" you add "...because Jesus said so" or "because God said so." You think of things that make a good person, and then tack on the Christ-belief at the end.

This is because most of the values that most Christians espouse are basic human decency. Don't kill people. Don't steal stuff. Don't be a lying asshole. Don't be rude or cruel to others. Etc. These are all good HUMAN values. Christians happen to put these values in the context of their religion, but when you get right down to it a "good Christian" is pretty much just a good person who happens to also believe in Jesus. Not fundamentally different from any other good person.what? :p I didn't expect such a long answer. just a word or two...

Intelistan

16-02-2007, 17:39

Wow, this really flared up. Ha, I love the assumption that our laws come from Christinaity!! Well, Hammurabi's code came before the bible. The prophet Zoroaster invented the concept of Heaven and Hell. Previous religgions stated that everyone who died went to Hades, for example. It was changed to state good people went to a nice place (Heaven) and bad people went to a bad place (Hell).

And about "morals," I could go on and explain how primitive man may have acted. Well, you'll say thats not enough hard facts. Okay, lets move on to something else. Chimpanzees. Try to kill one by stabbing it with a knife- it doesn't like it, and will try to defend itself. Try to steal one of its toys- it gets mad/ upset and tried to take it back. Try to let another unknown male chimp fornicate with a female chimp who has already decided a mate- that previous male chimp will get mad/ upset. As far as I can recall, I've never seen a chimpanzee giving ten percent of his bananas to another chimp preaching the word of God, nor have I seen one stopping to pray on Sundays or looking at a picture book about Bobo the son of God. So, where do these morals come from if they can only originate from religion?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 17:40

As before I'm gonna rearrange this a little so similar statements are together. Nothing is being deleted.

They are.

Now, an individual human being is obviously going to be less effective at ENFORCING their moral judgments when compared to a large group of human beings. But that has nothing to do with the determination itself.

Of course, even if you want to assume an objective morality, the above would still remain true. An individual human is perfectly capable of testing and measuring objective realities, and a majority of people are perfectly capable of being wrong in their beliefs regarding that objective reality. We see this in science all the time. A million people can be dead wrong, and a single individual can step up and find the correct answer over the protestations of all those others.

5 minutes' observation of any group of humans will prove that wrong decisively. Some people aren't capable of choosing right from wrong at the sale level as their neighbor. If they were, the prisons would be empty. By the fact that moral judgements must be enforced in the first place is proof of that.

Don't confuse objective morality with objective reality. Objective reality can be tested and evaluated scientifically. 2+2=4 for all people, at all times and can be proven. Individual judgement has nothing to do with it. Morality isn't scientifically provable precisely because of its religious origin. It can be observed, its effects can be quantified, but no element of it is scientifically provable and yet we all live uner it. If I come to your house and steal your car, can it be scientifically proven that I've done a bad thing? No, but observing the effects of my theft can be said to be bad. You were deprived of yoru means to go to work. You were made to feel violated. You may have had property in the car that you needed. Those things are bad because we agree by common consent that they are.

No, it doesn't.
Of course it does (presuppose that all people will choose some sort of harmless path that's "right for them.")

Otherwise we'd need no penal system because those individuals would not choose a path that was, at all times, harmless.

None of which has anything to do with moral relativism. The fact that a group of people agree to live under a particular set of laws does not in any way conflict with moral relativism. The fact that authority figures or enforcing agencies are recognized does not in any way conflict with moral relativism.

No, it doesn't. Indeed, it points to the opposite. Different governments, with different "moral" codes, exist all over the world. Humans frequently over throw governments and install new moral systems. Humans frequently make moral decisions and take actions that are directly opposed to the authority of the government or supposed moral authority over them.

Again, the fact that a group of humans choose to abide by a shared set of laws does not in any way contradict moral relativism.

What is? Systems of law in which members of a society abide by a common code? That is perfectly compatible with moral relativism, and does not in any way require objective morality or objective truth of any kind.[/

A group of people acknowledging a common law and authority is in clear contrast with moral relativism, based on common, objective ideas of right and wrong. Even when cultures around the world are very different they all still have a core of beliefs in common. The fact that those cultures are as different as they are is a direct result of the local moral norms as opposed to universal ones but they still supercede individual moral relativism. It's illegal in the USA and in China to steal a car. That's universal across cultures. In China it's legal to eat cats but not in the USA. Relatively different from one another, but still examples of cultural norms. Individuals don't get to decide that they have their own set of morals that enables them to take the vehicle owned by another, or to eat animals that are protected by animal cruelty laws.

Actually, most of the laws that protect me predate every religion in my society. Most human laws that are nominally grounded in religion are actually pragmatic or culturally-motivated at their core. Religion is simply one means of enforcing morals that a culture has already established.

No, the laws that protect you, at least at the moment are based upon laws enacted by men who believed that all rights ultimately come from God. (See the Declaration of Independence) And are patterned, in part, on the Ten Commandments. (Need proof? On your lunch break head over to the Supreme Court building and tell me what you see carved into the facade.)

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 17:48

What makes a good Christian? :p

Being a good Christian is a lot more than being a nice person who happens to worship Jesus, despite what's been said.

Being a Christian is much more than that. It's about serving others. It's about making the world better not only for yourself, but for others. It's about self sacrifice based on love, not fear. It's about understanding. It's about growth and learning. All of that comes from Jesus' example.

Do people lose sight of that? yeah. So the question becomes: Which do you want to focus on?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 17:50

Wow, this really flared up. Ha, I love the assumption that our laws come from Christinaity!! Well, Hammurabi's code came before the bible. The prophet Zoroaster invented the concept of Heaven and Hell. Previous religgions stated that everyone who died went to Hades, for example. It was changed to state good people went to a nice place (Heaven) and bad people went to a bad place (Hell).

So in your reality, where DID the Founding Fathers get their inspiration for the law?

And about "morals," I could go on and explain how primitive man may have acted. Well, you'll say thats not enough hard facts. Okay, lets move on to something else. Chimpanzees. Try to kill one by stabbing it with a knife- it doesn't like it, and will try to defend itself. Try to steal one of its toys- it gets mad/ upset and tried to take it back. Try to let another unknown male chimp fornicate with a female chimp who has already decided a mate- that previous male chimp will get mad/ upset. As far as I can recall, I've never seen a chimpanzee giving ten percent of his bananas to another chimp preaching the word of God, nor have I seen one stopping to pray on Sundays or looking at a picture book about Bobo the son of God. So, where do these morals come from if they can only originate from religion?

I prefer not to take my moral cues from the animal kingdom, thanks. Having a society and especially a religion means behaving in a manner contrary to animal instinct.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 17:57

Being a good Christian is a lot more than being a nice person who happens to worship Jesus, despite what's been said.

Being a Christian is much more than that. It's about serving others. It's about making the world better not only for yourself, but for others. It's about self sacrifice based on love, not fear. It's about understanding. It's about growth and learning. All of that comes from Jesus' example.

Do people lose sight of that? yeah. So the question becomes: Which do you want to focus on?

funny, I would have thought that all of that (removing the jesus part) is the definition of a good person. Thus I question what seperates a "good christian" from a "good person" other than a belief in jesus, and since I note that a belief in jesus is not required or necessary to be a good person, I wonder what the value of such a belief is, unless you posit that the belief itself is some sort of virtue, which I rather disbelieve.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 18:00

5 minutes' observation of any group of humans will prove that wrong decisively. Some people aren't capable of choosing right from wrong at the sale level as their neighbor. If they were, the prisons would be empty.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of people in prison are perfectly capable of identifying right and wrong. Most are in prison for one of several reasons:

1) They intentionally did something they knew, and know, is wrong according to the standards of their society.

2) They do not agree with their society's standards, and did something which they believe is right but which their society's rules state is wrong.

3) They did something that they were not aware is wrong based on the laws of their society, and which they believed was right.

By the fact that moral judgements must be enforced in the first place is proof of that.

Yes, you have to enforce shared morality in many cases, because individual people will often choose not to conform to the shared morality of the given society. How does this conflict with moral relativism?

Don't confuse objective morality with objective reality.

If morality objectively exists, and if there is some objective Moral Truth, then it IS a part of objective reality.

Objective reality can be tested and evaluated scientifically. 2+2=4 for all people, at all times and can be proven. Individual judgement has nothing to do with it.

Correct. Individual judgment simply determines how well a given person is able to correctly identify the objective reality; it does not determine what the objective reality IS.

Morality isn't scientifically provable precisely because of its religious origin.

Morality does not originate in religion.

It can be observed, its effects can be quantified, but no element of it is scientifically provable and yet we all live uner it.

"Morality" cannot be observed or quantified. Human behaviors can be observed, and human reactions and judgments can be observed, but "morality" is a concept.

It's like how "fair" cannot be observed. You can observe various events or actions and judge whether or not they are fair, but "fair" is not something you can observe by itself.

If I come to your house and steal your car, can it be scientifically proven that I've done a bad thing? No, but observing the effects of my theft can be said to be bad. You were deprived of yoru means to go to work. You were made to feel violated. You may have had property in the car that you needed. Those things are bad because we agree by common consent that they are.

Yes, those are all pragmatic reasons why a human society would choose to prohibit theft. None of them require that there be any objective MORAL truth that theft is wrong.

Of course it does (presuppose that all people will choose some sort of harmless path that's "right for them.")

Otherwise we'd need no penal system because those individuals would not choose a path that was, at all times, harmless.

Moral relativism is the idea that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths. Nothing about this presupposes anything about which path individual humans will choose to take.

A group of people acknowledging a common law and authority is in clear contrast with moral relativism, based on common, objective ideas of right and wrong.

There are no objective ideas of right and wrong.

People with different individual moral codes can very easily choose to live under one shared moral code. Indeed, this is pretty much always the case when you have large groups of humans trying to live together.

Even when cultures around the world are very different they all still have a core of beliefs in common.

Not really. There are some moral rules that tend to be frequently held in human societies (such as restrictions on how and when you are permitted to kill another person), but this does not remotely require any objective morality. It simply reflects the fact that, pragmatically speaking, there are certain things that need to happen for a human society to be able to function.

If a group of humans wants to get along, they need to make sure that individuals in their group have some reason to be part of that group. As a species, we have some fundamental qualities that lend themselves to certain rules. For instance, humans don't like to starve to death. Humans tend to dislike having pain inflicted upon them. Humans dislike being murdered. Etc. These are not "moral" values, they're just pragmatic realities. If you want to have a group of people work together, you generally have to have ground rules in place that make everybody willing to work together. No objective morality is required here.

The fact that those cultures are as different as they are is a direct result of the local moral norms as opposed to universal ones but they still supercede individual moral relativism. It's illegal in the USA and in China to steal a car. That's universal across cultures.

No, it's not. Indeed, there are several cultures in which theft is codified and used as an honor-practice.

In China it's legal to eat cats but not in the USA. Relatively different from one another, but still examples of cultural norms.

Um. You seem to be arguing against yourself, here.

Individuals don't get to decide that they have their own set of morals that enables them to take the vehicle owned by another, or to eat animals that are protected by animal cruelty laws.

Yes, they absolutely do get to decide that. It's just that their personal decision will not be without consequences. The fact that consequences exists does not negate the fact that each individual makes their own moral choices.

No, the laws that protect you, at least at the moment are based upon laws enacted by men who believed that all rights ultimately come from God. (See the Declaration of Independence)

Incorrect. (Don't want to hijack this, but we've had threads about this in the past, and I know another will crop up any day now. :D)

And are patterned, in part, on the Ten Commandments. (Need proof? On your lunch break head over to the Supreme Court building and tell me what you see carved into the facade.)
Only 3 out of the 10 Commandments can be reasonably said to be included in our system of law. 3 or 4 of the 10 Commandments are actually prohibited from being enforced in our system of law (depending on which count you use). The remainder are not laws, but are also not illegal.

Seriously, using the 10 Commandments is a really bad choice of example. The only three Commandments that are upheld by our system of law are actually rules that predate the Commandments by thousands of years. They are ideas that have been a part of many different secular and religious cultures throughout human history, and are not remotely unique to Christianity or Judaism. And our system of law clearly and specifically prohibits the legal enforcement of more commandments than it upholds; you are clearly and specifically forbidden to legally enforce Commandments 1-4 (or 1-3 if you are Catholic).

The fact that there is religious graffiti on much of our public property is irrelevant to this discussion.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 18:09

funny, I would have thought that all of that (removing the jesus part) is the definition of a good person. Thus I question what seperates a "good christian" from a "good person" other than a belief in jesus, and since I note that a belief in jesus is not required or necessary to be a good person, I wonder what the value of such a belief is, unless you posit that the belief itself is some sort of virtue, which I rather disbelieve.

Doesn't the fact that the two coincide tell you anything at all?

The thing that differentiates a Christian from any other "good person" gets into the spiritual concepts of repentance, forgiveness, etc... but that wasn't the question.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 18:29

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 18:30

Doesn't the fact that the two coincide tell you anything at all?

Frankly it tells me that as a moral code christianity is, at best, redundant.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 18:31

I think the disparity here is that when people vote on certain issues, there are some who characterize it as a sinister effort to subvert freedom and make everybody else conform to their beliefs. That sort of portrayal is not constructive because for one thing, it's false and for another, it sets up a situation where debated are based more on emotion than on reason-a bad move.

It isn't always false. The person doing it may not see it as a sinister action, but a person voting to outlaw something their religion is opposed to, for no other reason than their religious beliefs, is logically exactly the same as those who force shariah law on women in some predominantly Muslim countries. Do you think that is a sinister action?

The minute you are voting based on nothing more than religious beliefs, the debate is already based in emotion, and is outside of a purely rational discussion.

People vote based on their beliefs. That's simple. For some, the beliefs come form their religion. For others, it comes form elsewhere. Doesn't matter.

Religion is a personal thing. If, "My religion says so," is your only reason for believing something, then you should live up to it. You have no right to expect or attempt to force others to.

Oh it's been pointed out quite a few times but that certainly doesn't make it true. Majority rule is the very definition of Democracy. We do live in a Democracy-a representative democracy.

Actually, we live in a Democratic Republic which is governed by a Constitution. Our government is just about as far separated from a true democracy as it can be and still incorporate democratic principles.

Yes, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Of course it is.

My point is simple: An Ammendment process more directly represents the will of the people.

Indeed. And the courts (and the Constitution) were meant, in large part, to be a check on the changing will of the people - especially the will of a majority to oppress a minority.

The marriage license not a protection. If it were, then all of those factors would exist from the moment the license was issued. As it stands, they do not. A marriage license expires after a set period of time if no wedding takes place.

No, a marriage license is not, in any way, legally binding until a wedding has taken place and an agent of the government (clergy are extended this power in the case of marriage) has signed off on it. The piece of paper is not legally binding until the wedding takes place. It has nothing to do with any expiration.

And the legal protections associated with marriage begin the moment the marriage license becomes legally binding. At that point, it can only be dissolved through an annulment (within a short period of the wedding) or a divorce.

Subject to legally established eligibility requirements.

....which must represent a compelling government interest. We couldn't, for instance, make one of those eligibility requirements, "Must be heterosexual," because there is no reason that a non-heterosexual person couldn't drive just as well as a heterosexual person. We can deny driver's licenses to the blind because allowing them to drive would endanger others.

Except that generally you'll find legal measures are codified in State contitutions and law dealing with this.

No, you'll find some measures dealing with issues that are not found in common law or were not being dealt with in a manner that the populace agreed with through common law. The vast majority of contract law and inheritance law is not encoded anywhere. It is simply a matter of judicial precedence.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this debate.

That is true, and it should end the debate. But people who have no idea what they are talking about still want to insist that the government somehow grants them a religious marriage.

Ideally, yes. Unfortunately, more and more often judges are legislating from the bench. That's beside the point, however.

Usually, when someone says, "legislating from the bench," they actually mean, "making decisions I don't personally agree with." There are a few judges, usually people with extremist views, who truly attempt to change the law from the bench. The others interpret it - sometimes in ways that not everyone agrees with.

Then I invite you to follow your own advice and stop accusing Christians generally of being power-mongering control freaks.

*boggle* What? I've made no such accusations. I am, in fact, a Christian myself, so I don't really see why I would or why anyone would accuse me of such a thing. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 18:40

Presumably there's more than that, though. Otherwise, in an assertion that God is some guy down the street that I know rather well and an understanding that Jesus wants us all to enjoy the company of our friends, I would hold as much of a claim to Christianity as anyone else.

Well, God as the Creator is pretty much a standard. I didn't think that needed to be pointed out. But, I'm quite certain that there are many Christians who think that Jesus wants us to be happy - which would include enjoying the company of our friends.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 18:45

It is worth noting that an inabiliy to distinguish right from wrong is a key element in a claim of diminished mental capacity. As such, individuals who are truly, pathologically incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong typically (if they have a good lawyer) do not end up in jail in the first place.
Exactly.

It is only a very, very small minority of (adult) human beings who are actually incapable of grasping right and wrong. The very reason why minors are treated different under the law is because we recognize that minors do not have the capacity for moral judgment that we expect from adults.

Most people in jail and prison are completely and totally able to understand right and wrong. Indeed, in a way they support my case: they are individuals who, for whatever reason, decided to behave in a manner that does not conform with their society's moral code. Some will identify their behaviors as "wrong," but will admit that they did wrong anyway. Others feel that they did the right thing, but their society's moral rules are wrong. Still others feel that they did something that is technically wrong, but which should not be illegal. (There are many other possibilities, too, of course.) Point being, a lot of them have moral systems that do not line up with the moral system of their society.

Now, you could argue that these individuals are, for whatever reason, unable to correctly grasp the "True Morality" that objectively exists. However, if you want to assert that, you would then have to prove that this True Morality exists and is different from what the convicts believe. The fact that they are in prison or have morality that differs from their society is not evidence of this.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 18:54

Something that has arisen from another thread is the amount of Christian-bashing and the amount of non-sensical Christian arrogance that happens on this board.

As a socially conservative protestant, I wondered if anyone had any debates/queries they wanted to have out with a Christian without it descending into backbiting and snide comments?

You said at one point the New testiment was the one in which you found most reliable... why follow a faith in which the text you speak of is the one which has been altered from its orginal state the most times (over the Torah and the Koran who are largely in their orginal form)

and why is it people continually feel the need to have others question them.. I find as a catholic, atheists are by far more informed about the exact wording of the bible more so then most actual christians (for the mere purpose of arguing it that is :'P)

Are you so insecure about your faith that you must have others test you ?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 18:56

If the majority wasn't for it, the Ammendments to the Constitution would never have been made in the first place.

Are you under some impression that the entire nation votes directly on Amendments? I certainly hope you are not.

Being a good Christian is a lot more than being a nice person who happens to worship Jesus, despite what's been said.

Being a Christian is much more than that. It's about serving others. It's about making the world better not only for yourself, but for others. It's about self sacrifice based on love, not fear. It's about understanding. It's about growth and learning. All of that comes from Jesus' example.

Is it impossible to follow Christ's example without realizing that you are following Christ's example? Those actions would pretty much define a good person - a nice person, would they not? Even if that person had never heard of Christ, they could follow His example in those manners.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:07

Actually, the overwhelming majority of people in prison are perfectly capable of identifying right and wrong. Most are in prison for one of several reasons:

1) They intentionally did something they knew, and know, is wrong according to the standards of their society.

2) They do not agree with their society's standards, and did something which they believe is right but which their society's rules state is wrong.

3) They did something that they were not aware is wrong based on the laws of their society, and which they believed was right.

Ok cool so we agree. All people can't be counted upon to know right from wrong on their own.

Yes, you have to enforce shared morality in many cases, because individual people will often choose not to conform to the shared morality of the given society. How does this conflict with moral relativism?

You just said it.

If morality objectively exists, and if there is some objective Moral Truth, then it IS a part of objective reality.

Correct. Individual judgment simply determines how well a given person is able to correctly identify the objective reality; it does not determine what the objective reality IS.
Objective Rality and Objective Morality are different things and don't overlap. What makes Objective Morality un-provable scientifically is that it's the idea of how things *ought* to be, as opposed to what's observably happening, as in a math equation.

Morality does not originate in religion.
Of course it does. Some people don't even view universal concepts such as theft and murder as moral precisely because they are universal and not held to any one religion in particular, or to any at all. Morality is typically viewed as non-universal because it deals with issues that aren't universally agreed upon, like adultery, idolatry, honesty, etc.

"Morality" cannot be observed or quantified. Human behaviors can be observed, and human reactions and judgments can be observed, but "morality" is a concept.

It's like how "fair" cannot be observed. You can observe various events or actions and judge whether or not they are fair, but "fair" is not something you can observe by itself.
Exactly. So we agree on that.

Yes, those are all pragmatic reasons why a human society would choose to prohibit theft. None of them require that there be any objective MORAL truth that theft is wrong.
That's just a case where pragmatism and morality happen to coincide. That doesn't disqualify morality as a factor.

Moral relativism is the idea that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths. Nothing about this presupposes anything about which path individual humans will choose to take.

There are no objective ideas of right and wrong.

People with different individual moral codes can very easily choose to live under one shared moral code. Indeed, this is pretty much always the case when you have large groups of humans trying to live together.

By definition it MUST deal with what path individual humans will take. If what's right and wrong is different for every individual, then steps must be taken for a society to protect itself from individuals who will take a path that harms others. In effect, society is creating a universal set of basic truths. It doesn't have to come from religion, but religion is what refines that basic set into something more constructive.

Don't forget, we, as individual humans do not choose to live under Government. No matter where you go on Earth you're under the jurisdiction of some form of civil authority (unless you go to Antarctica).

Not really. There are some moral rules that tend to be frequently held in human societies (such as restrictions on how and when you are permitted to kill another person), but this does not remotely require any objective morality. It simply reflects the fact that, pragmatically speaking, there are certain things that need to happen for a human society to be able to function.
It doesn't matter. Even if you believe it for strictly pragmatic reasons, there is still some core of universal right and wrong. Sure, in some places killing is easier to justify than in others, but nowhere is it permissible to simply walk up and kill some stranger on the street.

If a group of humans wants to get along, they need to make sure that individuals in their group have some reason to be part of that group. As a species, we have some fundamental qualities that lend themselves to certain rules. For instance, humans don't like to starve to death. Humans tend to dislike having pain inflicted upon them. Humans dislike being murdered. Etc. These are not "moral" values, they're just pragmatic realities. If you want to have a group of people work together, you generally have to have ground rules in place that make everybody willing to work together. No objective morality is required here.
When you get mad at someone, do you refrain from killing them simply because it's illegal to do so? If you saw a person on the brink of death on the side of the road, would you share your sandwich with them only because to let them die is to commit the crime of Depraved Indifference?

Of course not. You know that killing someone, or allowing them to die by omission of action is wrong. Even if it were, for some weird reason, legal... You'd still react in this way.

No, it's not. Indeed, there are several cultures in which theft is codified and used as an honor-practice.

This I'd like to see.

Um. You seem to be arguing against yourself, here.
No, just a misunderstanding is all. Allow me to clarify. The fact that the laws differ between the US and China is not proof of moral relativism. It's an example of two different societies, within each of which there are absolute rights and wrongs.

Yes, they absolutely do get to decide that. It's just that their personal decision will not be without consequences. The fact that consequences exists does not negate the fact that each individual makes their own moral choices.

Sure they do, when those consequences are imposed by other people. Getting sent to prison for murder isn't just a consequence in the same way that jumping off a roof will result in a broken leg. Those consequences are imposed by a society that holds to standards of right and wrong.

Incorrect. (Don't want to hijack this, but we've had threads about this in the past, and I know another will crop up any day now. :D)

Yeah good call. Let's wait for that one :)

Only 3 out of the 10 Commandments can be reasonably said to be included in our system of law. 3 or 4 of the 10 Commandments are actually prohibited from being enforced in our system of law (depending on which count you use). The remainder are not laws, but are also not illegal.

Seriously, using the 10 Commandments is a really bad choice of example. The only three Commandments that are upheld by our system of law are actually rules that predate the Commandments by thousands of years. They are ideas that have been a part of many different secular and religious cultures throughout human history, and are not remotely unique to Christianity or Judaism. And our system of law clearly and specifically prohibits the legal enforcement of more commandments than it upholds; you are clearly and specifically forbidden to legally enforce Commandments 1-4 (or 1-3 if you are Catholic).

The fact that there is religious graffiti on much of our public property is irrelevant to this discussion.

It's very relevant. In fact, it's probably the most relevant element of all. it's proof that the Founding Fathers, most of whom were religious, the majority of whom were Christian, founded a Secular Government. They used, as inspiration, their religious ideals of right and wrong. It is for that reason that I take exception to people who portray Christianity as some kind of evil that ust be held in check. It was mostly Christian men who created this country. if theocracy was the intent, it woul dhave been done long, long ago.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:07

Is it impossible to follow Christ's example without realizing that you are following Christ's example? Those actions would pretty much define a good person - a nice person, would they not? Even if that person had never heard of Christ, they could follow His example in those manners.
Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying.

When I've asked Christians what qualities a good Christian would show, they virtually always list qualities that a good PERSON would show. The only distinction is that Christ is a...motivation? for striving to have these qualities. In other words, Christ is your "role model" for good behaviors, but the behaviors are still good ones even for people who don't know of or believe in Christ.

There is a small but loud minority of Christians who claim that being a good Christian simply requires a whole lot of belief in various details of Christian mythology, regardless of what kind of a person you are. However, considering the number of people on this thread arguing that majority rules, I assume we can just ignore the minority of Christians who do this. :D

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:09

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:10

Doesn't the fact that the two coincide tell you anything at all?

The thing that differentiates a Christian from any other "good person" gets into the spiritual concepts of repentance, forgiveness, etc... but that wasn't the question.

Repentance and Forgiveness are not elements exclusive to spirtuality. They exist in the world outside of religion as well. The only thing that makes these topics spiritual concepts is that you connect them to a spiritual figure.. being Jesus. You seem to make the argument that religion, and christianity, takes otherwise common values that exist outside of religion, and make them religious values simply by tieing them to something religious (ie. Jesus).

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:11

NB: I think that we are getting into a pretty large hijack of this thread, and I think it would be best if I stop contributing to that hijack. I hope you will understand that I am not in any way trying to insult you, and I find this conversation very interesting, I just think much of it needs a thread of its own. Actually, probably two or three threads! Objective vs. relative morality, religion and the American government, penal law and morality...oy vey! When we hijack, we REALLY hijack! :D

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:18

So, you acknowledge that there is a common right and wrong. Good, we agree.

well in that regard I never disagreed. I do believe there is some sense of universal right. Some things are universally wrong, even if truly believed to be right.

I disagree that religion or spiritualty are the origins for that universality.

The difference is, some people view somethng wrong AS something right, and some OTHER people are mentally incapable of distinguishing wrong from right. Very different things.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:24

Yeah, that's kinda what I was saying.

When I've asked Christians what qualities a good Christian would show, they virtually always list qualities that a good PERSON would show. The only distinction is that Christ is a...motivation? for striving to have these qualities. In other words, Christ is your "role model" for good behaviors, but the behaviors are still good ones even for people who don't know of or believe in Christ.

There is a small but loud minority of Christians who claim that being a good Christian simply requires a whole lot of belief in various details of Christian mythology, regardless of what kind of a person you are. However, considering the number of people on this thread arguing that majority rules, I assume we can just ignore the minority of Christians who do this. :D

While people like Neo make a bad argument in differentiating a good person and a good christian... I think I know where they are trying to go, they just say it poorly. I think the correct argument should be, you are unable to differentiate between the two.. because they are born of the same history. In that, they are not the same because these are just the values which make someone "good" and christianity just steals them and calls them religious values. But rather, the values which we hold as "good" in general whether we are religous or not come from a world there christianity once dictated what was good and what was not.

For example.. if we go back to a time when Christianity wasn't so influencial... Early roman empire perhaps, or even the times of antiquity in Greece.. the values which made a good person then are certianly not the same as what we hold as good today. The world then was not about protecting the meek, or repentance or forgiveness, but rather serving your family and honor etc.

However, today our value structure is built on a European one, whose own history is dominated by the Church through the middle ages when every aspect of life was centered around christianity. The core values which we to make a "good person" be it religious or not, is drawn from this history where the church dictated what was good.. and what was not. So you see, in essence, if you take the spirtuality away from a good christian, to make a good person... you still are working from a framework that was dictated by christianity. Thats why they are so similar.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:34

well in that regard I never disagreed. I do believe there is some sense of universal right. Some things are universally wrong, even if truly believed to be right.

I disagree that religion or spiritualty are the origins for that universality.

The difference is, some people view somethng wrong AS something right, and some OTHER people are mentally incapable of distinguishing wrong from right. Very different things.

hmmm I think I would have to wholeheartdly disagree with this statement in general. What exactly is universal rightness and wrongness.. things that are right and wrong that appear in every single culture ? I think you would be hard pressed to find such qualities, though I would set the challenge ~.^.

And I would say, in terms of western thought, western ideas of right and wrong ARE in fact born of christian ideals. Especially given how western culture was up until recent centuries so closely intertwined with christianity, the two are to my mind undividable!

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:34

It isn't always false. The person doing it may not see it as a sinister action, but a person voting to outlaw something their religion is opposed to, for no other reason than their religious beliefs, is logically exactly the same as those who force shariah law on women in some predominantly Muslim countries. Do you think that is a sinister action?

So where is the balance? I say it isn't always true, you say it isn't always false. Those two statements coexist just fine. The problem is that people tend to paint with a broad brush. You see it all the time. It's especially obvious in threads related to Gay Marriage and Abortion. People don't generally go out of their way to specify the select few they might disagree with, they just lump them ALL in, which, I believe is what the OP is getting at.

Which I find ironic because it's usually those same people who *will* go out of their way to carefully pick out the small minority of Muslims that support terrorist groups...

The minute you are voting based on nothing more than religious beliefs, the debate is already based in emotion, and is outside of a purely rational discussion.
Not all religious belief is seated in emotion. I believe what I do for reasons completely apart from emotion. If I were strictly after emotional gratification then I picked one of the worst religions in the world to associate myself with. Do you know what it's like to be freezing cold in the morning and have to watch the guys you work with enjoying their nice hot coffee that you can't partake of? (I REALLY need to get out to the grocery store and get that box of Swiss Miss packs, I tell ya...)

Religion is a personal thing. If, "My religion says so," is your only reason for believing something, then you should live up to it. You have no right to expect or attempt to force others to.

You're talking about moral relativism.

If you and Bottle are correct, and moral relativism is the way to go, then that would mean that my beliefs are subject only to my own understanding, right? That means if I choose to live a certain way I'm certainly free to do so, right? So if what I choose to do is right becaus eit's right for me, then who are you to question my motives for voting?

Actually, we live in a Democratic Republic which is governed by a Constitution. Our government is just about as far separated from a true democracy as it can be and still incorporate democratic principles.

And that Constitution came from where? Not from a cabbage patch. As I said in an earlier post, it was drafter by elected representatives from the various constituents, and were sent by majority consent.

Indeed. And the courts (and the Constitution) were meant, in large part, to be a check on the changing will of the people - especially the will of a majority to oppress a minority.
No, the courts were meant to arbitrate. The power to rule on the Constitutionality of a law was a power that the Superme Court created for itself. It ain't in the Constitution. (Go ahead and check.)

No, a marriage license is not, in any way, legally binding until a wedding has taken place and an agent of the government (clergy are extended this power in the case of marriage) has signed off on it. The piece of paper is not legally binding until the wedding takes place. It has nothing to do with any expiration.
I happen to have a link handy, since I'll be applying for one in the next few weeks.

http://www.goprincegeorgescounty.com/Government/JudicialBranch/Clerk/marriage_license.asp?nivel=foldmenu(2)

You will find that the marriage license itself does expire if a marriage does not take place. This is why a license, in and of itself, is not in any way a legal protection or contract. It's just a statement that the marriage is in accordance with state law.

And the legal protections associated with marriage begin the moment the marriage license becomes legally binding. At that point, it can only be dissolved through an annulment (within a short period of the wedding) or a divorce.
The legal issues involving marriage begin when the marriage begins and has no direct connection to the license. A marriage license is, essentially, the state granting permission to marry.

....which must represent a compelling government interest. We couldn't, for instance, make one of those eligibility requirements, "Must be heterosexual," because there is no reason that a non-heterosexual person couldn't drive just as well as a heterosexual person. We can deny driver's licenses to the blind because allowing them to drive would endanger others.

That's exactly right. That, my friend, is why a driver's license isn't a right. Rights cannot be denied to someone based upon a disability. Rights have no eligibility requirements beyond citizenship. They must not, or they cease to be rights.

No, you'll find some measures dealing with issues that are not found in common law or were not being dealt with in a manner that the populace agreed with through common law. The vast majority of contract law and inheritance law is not encoded anywhere. It is simply a matter of judicial precedence.
It would be interesting to actually look up the laws in various jurisdictions to see how much this really applies.

That is true, and it should end the debate. But people who have no idea what they are talking about still want to insist that the government somehow grants them a religious marriage.
How do you define someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? I would hope it isn't simply someone who doesn't see things your way.

The Government doesn't *grant* marriage, either religious or otherwise. It merely stands out of the way while one goes on, subject to the laws of the land.

Usually, when someone says, "legislating from the bench," they actually mean, "making decisions I don't personally agree with." There are a few judges, usually people with extremist views, who truly attempt to change the law from the bench. The others interpret it - sometimes in ways that not everyone agrees with.
Judges have legislated from the bench on plenty of issues, some of which are in accorance with the side I support, sometimes not, but in no case is it apropriate for judges to set policy. That's for the legislative branch to do. Judges, as you said, are meant to interpret law, not create new ones.

*boggle* What? I've made no such accusations. I am, in fact, a Christian myself, so I don't really see why I would or why anyone would accuse me of such a thing. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
No, not confusing you with someone else. You've made statements to that effect in the recent past on an abortion thread.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:34

While people like Neo make a bad argument in differentiating a good person and a good christian... I think I know where they are trying to go, they just say it poorly. I think the correct argument should be, you are unable to differentiate between the two.. because they are born of the same history. In that, they are not the same because these are just the values which make someone "good" and christianity just steals them and calls them religious values. But rather, the values which we hold as "good" in general whether we are religous or not come from a world there christianity once dictated what was good and what was not.

One clarification, if you don't mind: who is "we"?

I only ask because my own system of values and morals run directly contrary to the moral systems established when Christianity dictated right and wrong for the majority of people in my region.

For example.. if we go back to a time when Christianity wasn't so influencial... Early roman empire perhaps, or even the times of antiquity in Greece.. the values which made a good person then are certianly not the same as what we hold as good today. The world then was not about protecting the meek, or repentance or forgiveness, but rather serving your family and honor etc.

However, today our value structure is built on a European one, whose own history is dominated by the Church through the middle ages when every aspect of life was centered around christianity. The core values which we to make a "good person" be it religious or not, is drawn from this history where the church dictated what was good.. and what was not. So you see, in essence, if you take the spirtuality away from a good christian, to make a good person... you still are working from a framework that was dictated by christianity. Thats why they are so similar.
It is, of course, true that much of Western culture has been derived from Christian and Jewish religious traditions. However, the moral code (at least in my country) is pretty radically different from the morality that was enforced during the centuries when Christianity ruled Europe. Some of our most fundamental principles were only introduced during periods of rebellion against the entrenched Christian moral systems. Our notions of an individual's moral rights and moral responsibilities within society are largely grounded in secular philosophical ideas.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:38

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:39

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:39

hmmm I think I would have to wholeheartdly disagree with this statement in general. What exactly is universal rightness and wrongness.. things that are right and wrong that appear in every single culture ? I think you would be hard pressed to find such qualities, though I would set the challenge ~.^.

If a culture doesn't uphold certain moral values then that culture is wrong.

Sharia, for example, is wrong. Period, it is wrong. No relativism, no "well it's their culture". It's wrong, period.

And I would say, in terms of western thought, western ideas of right and wrong ARE in fact born of christian ideals. Especially given how western culture was up until recent centuries so closely intertwined with christianity, the two are to my mind undividable!

I would say that christianity was born as an attempt to codify those universal morals, not that the morals sprung from christianity. Read the old and new testament.

The ten commandments? Generally a combination of general moral codes along with rules to help propogate itself. It is my firm belief that religion, especialy judaiochristian religion, developed as recognition of good things and an attempt to enforce those good things by making it seem like god said it.

Soheran

16-02-2007, 19:41

Sharia, for example, is wrong. Period, it is wrong. No relativism, no "well it's their culture". It's wrong, period.

We can be relative about it while still insisting that it's wrong.

We just say it's wrong, relative to our standards.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:44

We can be relative about it while still insisting that it's wrong.

We just say it's wrong, relative to our standards.
Yep. That's what I say. :D

Sharia is unacceptable by my moral standards. There is no reason why I should have to accept it or like it or put up with it. There is no reason I can't do everything in my power to end it, while still freely admitting that Sharia is morally right from many peoples' perspectives. I don't need everybody to share my perspective in order to hold to it. I don't need to believe that there is some omnipotent Enforcer on my side. I hold my moral values because I believe they are sound, and I can hold them even if other people do not. I don't need to be "objectively right" to hold my morals.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:48

We can be relative about it while still insisting that it's wrong.

We just say it's wrong, relative to our standards.

To say it's wrong by our standards is to implicitly admit that it may be right by other standards.

When it comes to things like sharia, that is not a commitment I am willing to make. I steadfastly deny that it would be right under ANY standard, at ll.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:49

There is no reason I can't do everything in my power to end it, while still freely admitting that Sharia is morally right from many peoples' perspectives.

If they subjectively believe it to be right than they are objectively wrong.

I don't need to believe that there is some omnipotent Enforcer on my side.

Why do you think I do?

I hold my moral values because I believe they are sound, and I can hold them even if other people do not.

How can you believe your moral values are sound and at the same time believe that moral views in direct opposition to yours can be equally sound?

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:51

To say it's wrong by our standards is to implicitly admit that it may be right by other standards.

Um. It is.

It is right by other standards. We don't share those standards. I don't happen to think we should. But that doesn't change the fact that Sharia IS right by other standards.

When it comes to things like sharia, that is not a commitment I am willing to make. I steadfastly deny that it would be right under ANY standard, at ll.
That's like steadfastly denying that anybody could possibly like the taste of broccoli.

Sharia is right under standards that say Sharia is right. Whether or not you AGREE with those standards, or LIKE them, or SUPPORT them, or CONDONE them does not change the fact that they do exist.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:51

Yep. That's what I say. :D

Sharia is unacceptable by my moral standards. There is no reason why I should have to accept it or like it or put up with it. There is no reason I can't do everything in my power to end it, while still freely admitting that Sharia is morally right from many peoples' perspectives. I don't need everybody to share my perspective in order to hold to it. I don't need to believe that there is some omnipotent Enforcer on my side. I hold my moral values because I believe they are sound, and I can hold them even if other people do not. I don't need to be "objectively right" to hold my morals.

Hence, the US forgein policy :'D

Bottle

16-02-2007, 19:51

Hence, the US forgein policy :'D
Oh man, don't get me started about that one...:P

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:52

To say it's wrong by our standards is to implicitly admit that it may be right by other standards.

When it comes to things like sharia, that is not a commitment I am willing to make. I steadfastly deny that it would be right under ANY standard, at ll.

who are you to dictate what is right and what is wrong. :confused:

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:53

Suddenly Arthais101 and I seem to be defending comparable positions...

How in the HELL did THAT happen?!?!?!?:eek:

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:54

Suddenly Arthais101 and I seem to be defending comparable positions...

How in the HELL did THAT happen?!?!?!?:eek:

The difference being you defend them through religion, i do not.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 19:56

who are you to dictate what is right and what is wrong. :confused:Arthais101 is the superhuman, didn't you know?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 19:57

The difference being you defend them through religion, i do not.

True.

So what's your excuse?

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:57

That's like steadfastly denying that anybody could possibly like the taste of broccoli.

No, because you necessitate an assumption I don't agree with. Taste is subjective, therefore saying nobody could like the taste of broccoli is silly because it would mean nobody could have a subjective taste.

Some morality is not subjective. Some things are objectively wrong. Those that are objectively wrong are wrong regardless of whether someone THINKS it is right.

It's more akin to me steadfastly denying that the broccoli on the table is, in fact, a carrot, despite how you really, TRULY believe it to be a carrot. You believe it to be a carrot, but it's still broccoli. You could in your heart of hearts really, absolutly, TRULY believe you are right.

But you're still wrong.

Sharia is right under standards that say Sharia is right. Whether or not you AGREE with those standards, or LIKE them, or SUPPORT them, or CONDONE them does not change the fact that they do exist.

Yeah, I know the standards SAY Sharia is right. Of course there are standards that SAY sharia is right. And you may really truly believe that the broccoli is a carrot.

But it's not a carrot, and sharia is not right.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 19:59

True.

So what's your excuse?

something even more flimsy (if possible) than religion. A steadfast belief in the dignity and nobility of humanity.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 19:59

I would say that christianity was born as an attempt to codify those universal morals, not that the morals sprung from christianity. Read the old and new testament.

The ten commandments? Generally a combination of general moral codes along with rules to help propogate itself. It is my firm belief that religion, especialy judaiochristian religion, developed as recognition of good things and an attempt to enforce those good things by making it seem like god said it.

AGain, what are the universal morals ? how do we know what they really are ?

And I think we lack the real evidence to be able to decerin what the motivation was for the propagation of the judaiochristian religions.. lacking such, we can only look at what facts remain... what were "good values" before these religions, what these religions subsequently say SHOULD be "good values" and eventually what we came to say are "Good values". Following this line of evidence, it would be clear most of these core values of what is good and bad, are drawn from Christianity (atleast in western thought)

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 20:02

AGain, what are the universal morals ? how do we know what they really are ?

And I think we lack the real evidence to be able to decerin what the motivation was for the propagation of the judaiochristian religions.. lacking such, we can only look at what facts remain... what were "good values" before these religions, what these religions subsequently say SHOULD be "good values" and eventually what we came to say are "Good values". Following this line of evidence, it would be clear most of these core values of what is good and bad, are drawn from Christianity (atleast in western thought)

Not at all, we can look at a few provision and see.

For instance, my favorite, the kosher rules. Some of the things banned by kosher are pigs, carrion birds, and shellfish.

Now, there are two possibilities. First god decided (or people believed god decided) that these things just should not be eatten.

Second, let's look at them. Carrion birds are frequent carriers of disease, pigs can be deadly if not prepared right, and shellfish tends to spoil real fast when you're living in the desert. And people noticed that when you eat these things, you have a good tendancy to DIE.

So which is more likely, god decided that we shouldn't eat these things, OR that people, noticing quite a high fatality rate when these things are consumed, said "god said not to eat this" to discourage people from doing something to kill themselves (or, as I believe, it went from "hey folks, it may not be a good idea to eat this because you're going to get sick" to "god said not to eat this so don't" over hundreds of years of oral tradition and evolution"

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 20:03

Yeah, I know the standards SAY Sharia is right. Of course there are standards that SAY sharia is right. And you may really truly believe that the broccoli is a carrot.

But it's not a carrot, and sharia is not right.While for vegetables there is a way of comparing them with each other, there is no absolute moral authority to compare the Sharia with.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 20:03

Yeah, I know the standards SAY Sharia is right. Of course there are standards that SAY sharia is right. And you may really truly believe that the broccoli is a carrot.

But it's not a carrot, and sharia is not right.

I love absolutes.. because they area almost always an undefendable position ~.^

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 20:04

something even more flimsy (if possible) than religion. A steadfast belief in the dignity and nobility of humanity.Is there something to demonstrate that dignity and nobility of humanity?

Intelistan

16-02-2007, 20:05

No, the laws that protect you, at least at the moment are based upon laws enacted by men who believed that all rights ultimately come from God. (See the Declaration of Independence) And are patterned, in part, on the Ten Commandments. (Need proof? On your lunch break head over to the Supreme Court building and tell me what you see carved into the facade.)

So why wasn't these men Jewish? Moses was a Jew, BTW. So, that makes the truth that Christianity isn't the originator of the laws, it's Judaism. So you're in the "wrong religion." Also, might I add that you LOOK at the Supreme Court building? What's it look like?

I'll help. A courthouse that looks like a Roman temple. Which looks like a Greek temple. A senator was invented under pagan religions. Laws are also pagan inventions. Our government was designed around Roman governemnt, a pagan invention. You're making the assumption that the world was lawless until Jesus came around. If I paint the trim around the top of my door red, does that mean I'm afraid my first son will die? The Ten Commandments are carved up there to remind people "Hey, don't think we're not the only ones watching. That God you worship, he has the same rules as us. But a different jurisdiction." The majority of the people are Christian, and there are plenty of people in jail that were Christian before commiting a crime. There have been rehabilitated criminals that claimed they found God, released, and commited the same crime. Read my post about what religion is. Observe:

Laws set in place by governments need to be enforced, and this is enforced by people that catch a person doing bad and enact a punishment. Similar to training a dog. Reward good behavior, punish bad. Of course, if there are no police around, you *could* get away with it. Speeding, for example, is easily the most escaped "crime."

Laws set in place by a religion are claimed to take place after death. You don't need a person to catch you, and dying is going to occur. Therefore, there is no chance to escape punishment for your crime.

What's it mean? People don't commit crimes because of basic morals and fear. Most people grow up in generally good households and in good societies. These people are law abiding by thier basic set of morals, and are hesitant to steal a candy bar because of fear of prosecution by law. Those who grow up in poor societies in, let's say the inner city ghetto, are subjected to abusive households, and a society run corrupt with crime. These people can go to to church, believing all they have to do is apologize for stealing that guy's wallet. That escalates into more crime. They have lower basic morals, and instead the only thing keeping them from crime is fear of beig caught. As they follow success in small crimes, they climb to higher ones believing they're too smart or fast or too good to get caught.

You're trying to say Christianity is our saviour, which is somewhat true. It keeps the masses in control. Thats what it's original intention was, after it was no longer applied to science.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 20:06

While for vegetables there is a way of comparing them with each other, there is no absolute moral authority to compare the Sharia with.

you can neither disprove t than I can prove it, that's the problem. The other problem is relativism is illogical.

For instance, let's take rape. We say rape is immoral. Now those of you who believe that morality is relative believe that in some cultures rape can be considerd moral.

But at the same time you believe that your moral position is valid. So how can your moral position be valid AND a position entirely contrary to it also be valid?

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 20:10

Not at all, we can look at a few provision and see.

For instance, my favorite, the kosher rules. Some of the things banned by kosher are pigs, carrion birds, and shellfish.

Now, there are two possibilities. First god decided (or people believed god decided) that these things just should not be eatten.

Second, let's look at them. Carrion birds are frequent carriers of disease, pigs can be deadly if not prepared right, and shellfish tends to spoil real fast when you're living in the desert. And people noticed that when you eat these things, you have a good tendancy to DIE.

So which is more likely, god decided that we shouldn't eat these things, OR that people, noticing quite a high fatality rate when these things are consumed, said "god said not to eat this" to discourage people from doing something to kill themselves (or, as I believe, it went from "hey folks, it may not be a good idea to eat this because you're going to get sick" to "god said not to eat this so don't" over hundreds of years of oral tradition and evolution"

OR ... since god generally dosn't really come down and just say... you.. dont eat that!!

He put diseases in these creatures to tell people.. hey... done eat that!!

Perspective is always a subjective thing ~.^ hence your indefendable position ":'D

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 20:11

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 20:14

you can neither disprove t than I can prove it, that's the problem. The other problem is relativism is illogical.

For instance, let's take rape. We say rape is immoral. Now those of you who believe that morality is relative believe that in some cultures rape can be considerd moral.

But at the same time you believe that your moral position is valid. So how can your moral position be valid AND a position entirely contrary to it also be valid?

Because in the moment that one considers other cultures, you are making such considerations outside the perameters of your own morality hence becomming objective. You do this because you realize there is no proof of a moral authority, hence it is impossible to truely say your moral position is superior to others.

The only true reason we follow the moral set of values laid out for us is because we were conditions to belive them, conditioning that has followed a long line of cultures all of which lead back to the middle ages when the Church ruled every aspect of life and dictated what was right and wrong.. IN CONCLUSION we can now see how no matter if you a religious person or not.. we are all following gods morals :D! (in western culture ~.^)

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 20:14

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 20:19

Not all religious belief is seated in emotion. I believe what I do for reasons completely apart from emotion.

How can you follow Christ's message without seating it in love?

If I were strictly after emotional gratification then I picked one of the worst religions in the world to associate myself with. Do you know what it's like to be freezing cold in the morning and have to watch the guys you work with enjoying their nice hot coffee that you can't partake of? (I REALLY need to get out to the grocery store and get that box of Swiss Miss packs, I tell ya...)

Your religion is anti-coffee?

Of course, I actually have watched others having coffee I couldn't partake of. I have, in the past, given up caffeine for Lent.

You're talking about moral relativism.

Not precisely, no. I am of the opinion that there is an objective right and wrong - as determined by God. The problem is, of course, that human beings are not God. We are fallible. We will have disagreements about right and wrong and no single one of us is objectively more qualified (with the exception of those who have not developed properly) to determine the truth. Even those of us who listen to God's voice in our lives can misinterpret it, and will disagree on what we are being told. As such, the morals we actually assert are relative - are subjective, even if there is an objective morality.

And, because we are a secular society in which the free practice of all religion is guaranteed, laws cannot be based in a single religious principle.

Muslims could push all they wanted for a law to ban all pork because they believe Allah has declared that pork is unclean. However, I am not Muslim, and I am guaranteed both free exercise of my own religion and freedom from state-imposed religion. As such, "Allah says so," is an unconstitutional reason to ban pork.

If, on the other hand, one person eating pork were shown to be harming others, the government would have an interest in banning the consumption of pork that is non-religious, and could impose such a law.

If your only reason to back a law is, "My religion says so," then enacting that law on your motivations would be state establishment of a religious principle and would infringe upon the rights of every person who does not follow your particular religious views. There's certainly nothing that says one can't vote for an unconstitutional law, but one cannot claim to uphold the Constitution and do so.

If you and Bottle are correct, and moral relativism is the way to go, then that would mean that my beliefs are subject only to my own understanding, right? That means if I choose to live a certain way I'm certainly free to do so, right? So if what I choose to do is right becaus eit's right for me, then who are you to question my motives for voting?

Your beliefs are subject only to your own understanding, as are all beliefs. You are certainly free to live as you choose, providing that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I can question your motives for voting because your votes do not only affect you. They affect me. They affect all other citizens. And, interestingly enough, the motive behind a law is a big part of determining whether or not it is in line with the Constitution.

And that Constitution came from where? Not from a cabbage patch. As I said in an earlier post, it was drafter by elected representatives from the various constituents, and were sent by majority consent.

Elected representatives who were elected by a tiny fraction of the population.

And even then, it doesn't mean that the majority of people agreed with everything there. Believe it or not, voting for a person does not physically force them to vote the same way you would on all issues. In fact, the representative nature of our government is another way in which we are separated from a true democracy. Our representatives are presumed to know more about the issues and the legal wrangling than the rest of us, and thus to be better, more informed voters. This is also the reason for the electoral college - to divorce the presidential vote from a true democracy.

No, the courts were meant to arbitrate. The power to rule on the Constitutionality of a law was a power that the Superme Court created for itself. It ain't in the Constitution. (Go ahead and check.)

And when Marbury v. Madison was decided, quite a few of those responsible for the Constitution were clear that this absolutely should be a power of the court.

Of course, if you'd like to be like Justice Thomas and argue every case by arguing against Marbury v. Madison, you go right on ahead. Not many people are going to listen, however.

I happen to have a link handy, since I'll be applying for one in the next few weeks.

http://www.goprincegeorgescounty.com/Government/JudicialBranch/Clerk/marriage_license.asp?nivel=foldmenu(2)

You will find that the marriage license itself does expire if a marriage does not take place. This is why a license, in and of itself, is not in any way a legal protection or contract. It's just a statement that the marriage is in accordance with state law.

And you will find that none of the legal protections which apply to marriage go into effect until the marriage license is signed and becomes legally binding - at the wedding ceremony, so nothing there contradicts what I already said.

The legal issues involving marriage begin when the marriage begins and has no direct connection to the license. A marriage license is, essentially, the state granting permission to marry.[/quote

No direct connection to the license? So, if I go get church-married and never get a government marriage license and have our reverend sign it, my fiance and I will gain all the legal protections of marriage?

[quote]It would be interesting to actually look up the laws in various jurisdictions to see how much this really applies.

Go right on ahead. Or, you could just study a little bit of basic law.

How do you define someone who doesn't know what they're talking about? I would hope it isn't simply someone who doesn't see things your way.

I define it as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. You hear people going on and on about how the government shouldn't force churches to perform weddings they don't agree with. You hear people going on and on about the "sanctity" of marriage. These things apply in religious marriage, not in civil marriage.

The Government doesn't *grant* marriage, either religious or otherwise. It merely stands out of the way while one goes on, subject to the laws of the land.

Stands out of the way, eh? Is that why there are over 1000 legal protections that apply only to married couples? The government absolutely does grant marriage - civil marriage. And, when it does, the couple is seen as a single legal entity for quite a few purposes, and the numerous laws governing marriage come into play.

Judges have legislated from the bench on plenty of issues, some of which are in accorance with the side I support, sometimes not, but in no case is it apropriate for judges to set policy. That's for the legislative branch to do. Judges, as you said, are meant to interpret law, not create new ones.

Interpreting the law will end up effectively setting policy. There is no way around that. You'd be hard pressed to find court decisions that created new laws, however.

No, not confusing you with someone else. You've made statements to that effect in the recent past on an abortion thread.

No, I haven't. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. I might have made statements that some Christians do so, but I have never even implied that all or even most Christians could be described in such a manner.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 20:20

So why wasn't these men Jewish? Moses was a Jew, BTW. So, that makes the truth that Christianity isn't the originator of the laws, it's Judaism. So you're in the "wrong religion." Also, might I add that you LOOK at the Supreme Court building? What's it look like?

I'll help. A courthouse that looks like a Roman temple. Which looks like a Greek temple. A senator was invented under pagan religions. Laws are also pagan inventions. Our government was designed around Roman governemnt, a pagan invention. You're making the assumption that the world was lawless until Jesus came around. If I paint the trim around the top of my door red, does that mean I'm afraid my first son will die? The Ten Commandments are carved up there to remind people "Hey, don't think we're not the only ones watching. That God you worship, he has the same rules as us. But a different jurisdiction." The majority of the people are Christian, and there are plenty of people in jail that were Christian before commiting a crime. There have been rehabilitated criminals that claimed they found God, released, and commited the same crime. Read my post about what religion is. Observe:

Laws set in place by governments need to be enforced, and this is enforced by people that catch a person doing bad and enact a punishment. Similar to training a dog. Reward good behavior, punish bad. Of course, if there are no police around, you *could* get away with it. Speeding, for example, is easily the most escaped "crime."

Laws set in place by a religion are claimed to take place after death. You don't need a person to catch you, and dying is going to occur. Therefore, there is no chance to escape punishment for your crime.

What's it mean? People don't commit crimes because of basic morals and fear. Most people grow up in generally good households and in good societies. These people are law abiding by thier basic set of morals, and are hesitant to steal a candy bar because of fear of prosecution by law. Those who grow up in poor societies in, let's say the inner city ghetto, are subjected to abusive households, and a society run corrupt with crime. These people can go to to church, believing all they have to do is apologize for stealing that guy's wallet. That escalates into more crime. They have lower basic morals, and instead the only thing keeping them from crime is fear of beig caught. As they follow success in small crimes, they climb to higher ones believing they're too smart or fast or too good to get caught.

You're trying to say Christianity is our saviour, which is somewhat true. It keeps the masses in control. Thats what it's original intention was, after it was no longer applied to science.

http://www.ldsknights.org/wha.jpg

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 20:24

Moses was a JewMoses was an Israelite, or rather a Hebrew. That's not equal to a Jew, that's not even Jew-ish.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 20:29

So which is more likely, god decided that we shouldn't eat these things, OR that people, noticing quite a high fatality rate when these things are consumed, said "god said not to eat this" to discourage people from doing something to kill themselves (or, as I believe, it went from "hey folks, it may not be a good idea to eat this because you're going to get sick" to "god said not to eat this so don't" over hundreds of years of oral tradition and evolution"

It's also a good idea to look at the society itself. Anything declared by the priests was believed to come from God. So, if the priests realized that people who ate pork were dying, they probably would have thought, "God must have cursed pork in some way...." and then would have declared, "These animals as unclean, so we must not eat them." To the general populace, that might as well have come from God, as it came from the priests.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 20:29

you can neither disprove t than I can prove it, that's the problem. The other problem is relativism is illogical.

For instance, let's take rape. We say rape is immoral. Now those of you who believe that morality is relative believe that in some cultures rape can be considerd moral.

But at the same time you believe that your moral position is valid. So how can your moral position be valid AND a position entirely contrary to it also be valid?
I think the best flavor of ice cream is rainbow sherbert. My boyfriend thinks the best flavor of ice cream is caramel somethingorother. I believe both positions are valid.

I believe rape is morally wrong, and completely unacceptable. This is a valid belief. I also know that there are people who believe rape is moral and acceptable. It is entirely possible to hold this belief for valid reasons, provided that you use particular moral premises. Validity simply refers to whether or not something is logically sound or consistent. Based on my set of moral premises, there is no logical way to argue for rape. However, based on other peoples' moral premises, there are logical ways to argue for rape. Thus, with their moral premises, rape can be a valid moral choice.

Intelistan

16-02-2007, 20:30

Second, let's look at them. Carrion birds are frequent carriers of disease, pigs can be deadly if not prepared right, and shellfish tends to spoil real fast when you're living in the desert. And people noticed that when you eat these things, you have a good tendancy to DIE.

So which is more likely, god decided that we shouldn't eat these things, OR that people, noticing quite a high fatality rate when these things are consumed, said "god said not to eat this" to discourage people from doing something to kill themselves (or, as I believe, it went from "hey folks, it may not be a good idea to eat this because you're going to get sick" to "god said not to eat this so don't" over hundreds of years of oral tradition and evolution"

I love this, this is exactly what I'm saying. The fact that Christianity and other religions state "God said that..." simply means someone decided that if we make them believe God said this, then they will have to listen. It's a somewhat complex but very simple concept.

Religion was first used as science, then became a tool of control. Normal laws are difficult and costly to enforce, because you need manpower and trials and prisons and executions, and they always come up with moral debates. Get rid of death penalty, or he's really not a bad guy just give him one more chance or that's a cruel and unusual way to punish someone. Religion just came outright and said "NO!" and the people said "Okay!"

Granted, without modern religion starting when it did, we would have much more smaller countries and a lot of problems regarding crime and warfare. However, as history has taught us (doesn't anyone pay attention to history?) methods of control work for so long before a change is needed. Example:

Mythology (paganism) had stories about the gods and their adventures/ misadventures, which had a moral installed into the plot of the story. Zeus had extramarital affairs with Europa, and was turned into a bull. DON'T HAVE AFFAIRS.

God said, 'DON'T HAVE EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL." End of story. But wait, eventually you could pay the church to be forgiven. 'DON'T HAVE EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, UNLESS OF COURSE YOU CAN AFFORD TO HAVE IT EXCUSED." Now, we have confession and did away with paying for forgiveness, and "Jesus forgives." Okay, "DON'T HAVE EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, UNLESS YOU APOLOGIZE TO ME AND SAY YOU'RE REALLY SORRY AND TRY HARD NEXT TIME NOT TO DO IT AGAIN. PLEASE." And thus, you have the downfall in moral fabrics, with people defending religion.

I believe that there are people who can fare their lives without needing to surrender to a god. These people are typically intelligent people. There's a trend for lower class people to attend church more often, and as you move up the ladder of wealth you can see it slowly declines. I'm not saying the middle class doesn't go to church, I'm saying there's more people in the middle class that either go to church intermittently, or belive you can worship god without going to church. I've known priests/ pastors that have even skipped church to watch a football game. And worse, the congregation thought it was humorous and laughed as if it were a joke.

Too many people look at this subject as black and white, but in fact there is a gray area. Some people cannot deal with greif, for example, when their mother dies and prefer to believe they are floating around in "heaven" waiting for them to die also to join them. Even better, I haven't heard of anyone going to Hell recently. Even murders being executed, there are religious groups claiming he has been pardoned from God and is going to heaven. Well, of course moral fabric is going to fade when the whole method of control is being wiped out not by atheists, but by those worshipping the religion themselves! Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot, eh?

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 20:37

I think the best flavor of ice cream is rainbow sherbert. My boyfriend thinks the best flavor of ice cream is caramel somethingorother. I believe both positions are valid.

Again, false analogy. You keep using things that are inherently subjective to prove your point.

The problem is, you're arguing with someone who doesn't believe in the inherent subjectivity of certain morals. You can't use an analogy of something to prove your point when the inherent disagreement is the fundamental basis for the analogy.

Again, I don't agree with the analogy. I think it's more proper to say that you're eatting rainbow sherbert and your brother thinks it's caramel. He may believe it's caramel, he may act as if it is caramel. He may base his entire life philosophy on it being caramel.

But it's still sherbert, and he's wrong.

The difference is you are arguing that the morality is subjective. I am arguing that the morality is objective but its interpretation is subjective. This can lead to cultures that believe rape is ok, but still being wong.

What the hell good is subjective morality? How do you make any real moral choices while at the same time believing there's nothing really guiding that? How can you work to eliminate rape, while at the same time going "oh, but it's ok for you"

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 20:39

<snip>

or..... god is actually saying those things >.> and one might go to hell..

whose to say :confused:

Intelistan

16-02-2007, 20:39

Moses was an Israelite, or rather a Hebrew. That's not equal to a Jew, that's not even Jew-ish.

Did he belive in Jesus? Jews don't, and thats plenty close enough for me. You're trying to hunt and peck at minor parts here. I might as reduce myself and pick out the fact that you hyphenated Jewish. There's no reason to hyphenate, except you were wanting to put a pause there to accent the "ish" part.

The important point you were supposed to pick up on was that Moses isn't a Christian. Notice the "Christ" in Christian.

Bottle

16-02-2007, 20:39

Again, false analogy. You keep using things that are inherently subjective to prove your point.

Morality is inherently subjective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that ice cream flavor deliciousness was not subjective.

What the hell good is subjective morality? How do you make any real moral choices while at the same time believing there's nothing really guiding that?

The second does not in any way relate to the first. There is no reason why subjective morality can't be guided by anything. My morality is purely subjective, and is guided by many things.

How can you work to eliminate rape, while at the same time going "oh, but it's ok for you"
I don't. I don't believe it's okay for anybody. But I acknowledge that this is my subjective moral belief, and there are plenty of people who do not share it.

I don't need other people to share my moral premises in order to hold them.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 20:40

The difference is you are arguing that the morality is subjective. I am arguing that the morality is objective but its interpretation is subjective. This can lead to cultures that believe rape is ok, but still being wong.

How do you know that their interpretation is the wrong one and yours is the right one? ((objectively, that is - I'm aware that you will certainly believe your interpretation to be the right one, or you'd believe the other instead))

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 20:40

How can you follow Christ's message without seating it in love?
Love and reason need not be mutually exclusive. The true seat of my belief is faith. It just happens that in my case, a logical and rational analysis of the info available to me opened my mind to it.

Your religion is anti-coffee? Or are you

Of course, I actually have watched others having coffee I couldn't partake of. I have, in the past, given up caffeine for Lent.

I used to give stuff up for anout the first 2 weeks of Lent in my Catholic days, but then I'd forget what I had given up and invariably fall on my face. To answer your question, the not drinking coffee is a church thing.

Not precisely, no. I am of the opinion that there is an objective right and wrong - as determined by God. The problem is, of course, that human beings are not God. We are fallible. We will have disagreements about right and wrong and no single one of us is objectively more qualified (with the exception of those who have not developed properly) to determine the truth. Even those of us who listen to God's voice in our lives can misinterpret it, and will disagree on what we are being told. As such, the morals we actually assert are relative - are subjective, even if there is an objective morality.
We almost agree here. The disparity is that where you seem to be asserting that morality is relative based on our understanding, I assert that it's our understanding alone that is subjective, and that we bear a certain responsibility to learn the objective moral truth.

(That's nothing to do with this topic, just a general statement.)

And, because we are a secular society in which the free practice of all religion is guaranteed, laws cannot be based in a single religious principle.

Muslims could push all they wanted for a law to ban all pork because they believe Allah has declared that pork is unclean. However, I am not Muslim, and I am guaranteed both free exercise of my own religion and freedom from state-imposed religion. As such, "Allah says so," is an unconstitutional reason to ban pork.

If, on the other hand, one person eating pork were shown to be harming others, the government would have an interest in banning the consumption of pork that is non-religious, and could impose such a law.

This brings up an interesting yet un-related point so I'll just briefely touch on it and suggest that we can debate it further sometime on another thread. There have been times when researchers have shown that certain moral issues involve harming others, but such researchers tend to be shouted down for making assertions that run contrary to the "politically correct" mode of thought.

If your only reason to back a law is, "My religion says so," then enacting that law on your motivations would be state establishment of a religious principle and would infringe upon the rights of every person who does not follow your particular religious views. There's certainly nothing that says one can't vote for an unconstitutional law, but one cannot claim to uphold the Constitution and do so.

Your beliefs are subject only to your own understanding, as are all beliefs. You are certainly free to live as you choose, providing that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. I can question your motives for voting because your votes do not only affect you. They affect me. They affect all other citizens. And, interestingly enough, the motive behind a law is a big part of determining whether or not it is in line with the Constitution.

That's a better reason than most people have for supporting laws and candidates. There are those who vote Republican no matter what simply because they're Republican. There are those who won't ever vote for a woman, or for a black man. There are those who vote for LaRouche. I would think religion is a much nobler motivator than any of those.

Elected representatives who were elected by a tiny fraction of the population.

And even then, it doesn't mean that the majority of people agreed with everything there. Believe it or not, voting for a person does not physically force them to vote the same way you would on all issues. In fact, the representative nature of our government is another way in which we are separated from a true democracy. Our representatives are presumed to know more about the issues and the legal wrangling than the rest of us, and thus to be better, more informed voters. This is also the reason for the electoral college - to divorce the presidential vote from a true democracy.

The apathy of those who don't participate in Government can't be accounted for.

When you go to vote for a political candidate, one of the things that might earn your vote is how he or she is expected to vote on certain legislative issues, is it not?

And when Marbury v. Madison was decided, quite a few of those responsible for the Constitution were clear that this absolutely should be a power of the court.

Of course, if you'd like to be like Justice Thomas and argue every case by arguing against Marbury v. Madison, you go right on ahead. Not many people are going to listen, however.

That misses the point. The point is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and you asserted that it was a Constitutionally granted power.

And you will find that none of the legal protections which apply to marriage go into effect until the marriage license is signed and becomes legally binding - at the wedding ceremony, so nothing there contradicts what I already said.

The legal issues involving marriage begin when the marriage begins and has no direct connection to the license. A marriage license is, essentially, the state granting permission to marry.

No direct connection to the license? So, if I go get church-married and never get a government marriage license and have our reverend sign it, my fiance and I will gain all the legal protections of marriage?
It doesn't. the license is, as I said, permission by the state to marry. Once the marriage is performed it's the marriage that defines the contract, not the license.

Go right on ahead. Or, you could just study a little bit of basic law.

Are you suggesting that all jurisdictions handle it the same way?

I define it as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. You hear people going on and on about how the government shouldn't force churches to perform weddings they don't agree with. You hear people going on and on about the "sanctity" of marriage. These things apply in religious marriage, not in civil marriage.
I haven't mentioned those things. How is this related to our discussion?

Stands out of the way, eh? Is that why there are over 1000 legal protections that apply only to married couples? The government absolutely does grant marriage - civil marriage. And, when it does, the couple is seen as a single legal entity for quite a few purposes, and the numerous laws governing marriage come into play.
The Government enables and enforces a marriage contract. In that way it isn't any different from any other legally entered contract.

You may have noticed a few pages back that if some kind of civil contract arrangement were created in which ANY two people could enter in (including siblings for the sake of family controlled property, for example) I'd support it.

Interpreting the law will end up effectively setting policy. There is no way around that. You'd be hard pressed to find court decisions that created new laws, however.
I could answer that, but that would trigger one MAJOR sidetrack.

No, I haven't. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. I might have made statements that some Christians do so, but I have never even implied that all or even most Christians could be described in such a manner.
You didn't say "all" but I do remember you painting the majority of politically active ones with that brush.

Is there a way to access old threads?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 20:42

Morality is inherently subjective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that ice cream flavor deliciousness was not subjective.

I think the real point here is that, whether you believe that there is an objective morality or not, the end result will be the same. We will still all hold to our own subjective morals because none of us has a direct line to the objective morality (or any more direct than the others, anyways) if it does exist.

There may be an objective right and wrong. Personally, I believe there is. But even if there is, I have only my own viewpoints, experiences, moral standards, etc. to go on in trying to find it. You have yours. We will inevitably disagree on some of it. Without declaring one of us the supreme overlord, how do we know which of us is objectively right (or even, with certainty, if there is an objective "right")?

Bottle

16-02-2007, 20:57

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 20:58

Morality is inherently subjective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that ice cream flavor deliciousness was not subjective.

Morality is inherently objective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that a brocolli was in fact a carrot.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 21:01

I think the real point here is that, whether you believe that there is an objective morality or not, the end result will be the same. We will still all hold to our own subjective morals because none of us has a direct line to the objective morality (or any more direct than the others, anyways) if it does exist.

There may be an objective right and wrong. Personally, I believe there is. But even if there is, I have only my own viewpoints, experiences, moral standards, etc. to go on in trying to find it. You have yours. We will inevitably disagree on some of it. Without declaring one of us the supreme overlord, how do we know which of us is objectively right (or even, with certainty, if there is an objective "right")?

The argument has gone beyond the individual morals themselves, to morals in a whole and whether or not morals can be objective. To be objective, they must be outside the realm of thought... Morals themselves are rules.. and since in the state of nature, no true rules exist to dictate the conduct of individuals we can say morality is an artifical system created by mans mind to establish order. (subtracting the religious elements of this that is.. ^.^)

Morality in of itself has to be subjective because it is the product of the mind.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:01

I think the real point here is that, whether you believe that there is an objective morality or not, the end result will be the same. We will still all hold to our own subjective morals because none of us has a direct line to the objective morality (or any more direct than the others, anyways) if it does exist.

There may be an objective right and wrong. Personally, I believe there is. But even if there is, I have only my own viewpoints, experiences, moral standards, etc. to go on in trying to find it. You have yours. We will inevitably disagree on some of it. Without declaring one of us the supreme overlord, how do we know which of us is objectively right (or even, with certainty, if there is an objective "right")?

That's the point. There is an objective. How do we know which is the objective? Introspection, thought, philosophy...my general belief is that which causes harm without consent is wrong, period.

I believe that to be objectively true

Bottle

16-02-2007, 21:01

Morality is inherently objective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that a brocolli was in fact a carrot.
If you are able to provide me with evidence that morality is objective, the way you would provide me with evidence that a particular object is broccoli as opposed to a carrot, then please do! Nobody has yet been able to do so.

EDIT: I think the problem is that you think "morality" is a "thing," rather than a category of qualities.

It's like how "a carrot" isn't a quality. A carrot is a particular thing that has a variety of qualities. We can measure and verify the objective qualities of a carrot. We cannot measure or verify the subjective qualities of a carrot (such as how "pretty" a carrot is, or how delicious it is). The subjective qualities are just that...subjective. They will depend on the individual's perspective. Different people can all acknowledge that an object is a carrot, but can have different beliefs about the subjective qualities of the carrot. You and I can both agree that an object is a carrot, even if we do not agree about the deliciousness of the carrot.

A given "thing" can have a variety of qualities. We've been using rape as our example, so I will continue with that. I'm going to try to keep my language free of emotion, but please don't read too much into that. Rape has objective qualities that we can measure and verify. We can observe rape and its physical consequences. Rape also has subjective qualities; these are subjective just as the deliciousness of a carrot is subjective, even though the existence of the rape, like the existence of the carrot, is not in dispute. Our beliefs about the "Goodness" or "morality" of rape are in the subjective category.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:02

The argument has gone beyond the individual morals themselves, to morals in a whole and whether or not morals can be objective. To be objective, they must be outside the realm of thought... Morals themselves are rules.. and since in the state of nature, no true rules exist to dictate the conduct of individuals we can say morality is an artifical system created by mans mind to establish order. (subtracting the religious elements of this that is.. ^.^)

Morality in of itself has to be subjective because it is the product of the mind.

in the state of nature, do those rules not exist, or are they simply ignored when convenient?

You use "nobody followed them" to be evident that they do not exist. One does not necessarily prove the other. If I murder someone andnever get punished, does the law against murder not exist?

or was it simply ignored?

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 21:03

We almost agree here. The disparity is that where you seem to be asserting that morality is relative based on our understanding, I assert that it's our understanding alone that is subjective, and that we bear a certain responsibility to learn the objective moral truth.

Actually, you just pretty much stated my belief. Our understanding is subjective. None of us is infallible, so none of us can be certain that we are not wrong when we disagree with others one what is and is not moral. We all have the responsibility to try and learn and follow objective moral truth, but none of us will fully achieve that goal and none of us would know for certain even if we had.

That's a better reason than most people have for supporting laws and candidates.

And yet the writers of the Constitution saw fit to ensure that the government would not be run on the principles of any particular religion.

When you go to vote for a political candidate, one of the things that might earn your vote is how he or she is expected to vote on certain legislative issues, is it not?

Of course. But I will never find a candidate (unless I get awfully lucky) who agrees completely with me on all issues. Issues will come up that weren't discussed during the election, so that I won't have any idea how that candidate would vote on them. The candidate may seem like they would vote one way, but end up voting the opposite when the time comes. The candidate may cave to pressure from her political party and vote against her own conscience. And so on and so forth.....

That misses the point. The point is that it wasn't in the original Constitution, and you asserted that it was a Constitutionally granted power.

The Constitution was interpreted as granting that power. The writers of the Constitution agreed. Thus, it is a Constitutionally granted power.

It doesn't. the license is, as I said, permission by the state to marry. Once the marriage is performed it's the marriage that defines the contract, not the license.

What other contract do you sign? You don't.

It is your signature on the marriage license (and that of a state representative who may be a member of the clergy) which cements the contract.

Are you suggesting that all jurisdictions handle it the same way?

Exactly the same way? No, of course not. Some will regulate a given issue, while others will leave that issue to common law. But the unifying factor is that contract law and inheritance law, pretty much everywhere you go, are governed more by common law than encoded law.

The Government enables and enforces a marriage contract. In that way it isn't any different from any other legally entered contract.

....except for the fact that the government denies the protections associated with that contract to some people on the basis of their sexuality.

You may have noticed a few pages back that if some kind of civil contract arrangement were created in which ANY two people could enter in (including siblings for the sake of family controlled property, for example) I'd support it.

You didn't say "all" but I do remember you painting the majority of politically active ones with that brush.

Then you remember incorrectly.

What you may remember is a comment on the majority of people active in a specific way in a specific political issue.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:03

I'm curious as to how someone can consider themselves to be a Christian and yet argue for moral relativism.

Honest, just curious.

W00T 700th post

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 21:08

Morality is inherently objective. I cannot help that you do not believe this, any more than I could help it if you believed that a brocolli was in fact a carrot.In what way is morality objective?
Take the example of death penalty: some say it's right, some say it's wrong. There is no absolute moral dimension to that question, it's all a matter of perspective and context.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:10

If you are able to provide me with evidence that morality is objective, the way you would provide me with evidence that a particular object is broccoli as opposed to a carrot, then please do! Nobody has yet been able to do so.

can you prove morality is subjective?

No?

Then we're at a stalemate. Unfortuntly for you there is no "default" position. You can't absoutely defed your position any more than I can absolutely defend mine. "because bottle said so" is no more valid than "because arthais said so"

Edit: I think as you said, the reason we're rguing is becuse we opeate under slightly different definitions. To you morality is subjective because your definition of what morality IS is that which is subjective. I hold a different principle of morality. Not, perhaps, a "thing", but more like, an inalienable principle. Not a thing, like a carrot, but an existance, like gravity. The principle, like gravity, exists, whether we ignore it or not.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:11

In what way is morality objective?
Take the example of death penalty: some say it's right, some say it's wrong. There is no absolute moral dimension to that question, it's all a matter of perspective and context.

just because someone SAYS something, doesn' mean they're right, how many times do I have to say that? Just because someone might believe rape is moral, and say rape is moal, doesn't mean it IS.

Otherwise...I am god.

Why? Becuse I said so.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:14

Actually, you just pretty much stated my belief. Our understanding is subjective. None of us is infallible, so none of us can be certain that we are not wrong when we disagree with others one what is and is not moral. We all have the responsibility to try and learn and follow objective moral truth, but none of us will fully achieve that goal and none of us would know for certain even if we had.
Won't we? One of the tenets of Christianity, which you have indicated a belief in, is that we are given a moral template to follow.

And yet the writers of the Constitution saw fit to ensure that the government would not be run on the principles of any particular religion.

Yep, but that's not the same as prohibiting people from voting their conscience.

And by the way, it's not just Christianity that holds certain views that get criticized on here. Judaism and Islam happen to share some of the same beliefs.

Of course. But I will never find a candidate (unless I get awfully lucky) who agrees completely with me on all issues. Issues will come up that weren't discussed during the election, so that I won't have any idea how that candidate would vote on them. The candidate may seem like they would vote one way, but end up voting the opposite when the time comes. The candidate may cave to pressure from her political party and vote against her own conscience. And so on and so forth.....

Correct we vote for the best of what's available. The winner is selected by a simple majority.

The Constitution was interpreted as granting that power. The writers of the Constitution agreed. Thus, it is a Constitutionally granted power.

I happen to think it was a good call too but it doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court legislated from the bench. Just call it what it is.

What other contract do you sign? You don't.

It is your signature on the marriage license (and that of a state representative who may be a member of the clergy) which cements the contract.

All of which dances around my basic point which was that the marriage license, in and of itself, is NOT a binding contract. Until marriage is performed it binds nothing.

Exactly the same way? No, of course not. Some will regulate a given issue, while others will leave that issue to common law. But the unifying factor is that contract law and inheritance law, pretty much everywhere you go, are governed more by common law than encoded law.

Well then a remark like "study basic law" isn't that helpul then.

....except for the fact that the government denies the protections associated with that contract to some people on the basis of their sexuality.

That's because marriage by its very nature relates to sexuality. It is relevant. But that's a hijack. Relating it back to the original point, if laws are to be enacted on this, then the fact that sexuality is absolutely relevant to a contract that is designed around the concept of sexuality makes it perfectly apropriate for people to vote their conscience.

You may have noticed a few pages back that if some kind of civil contract arrangement were created in which ANY two people could enter in (including siblings for the sake of family controlled property, for example) I'd support it.

This was my quote.

Then you remember incorrectly.

What you may remember is a comment on the majority of people active in a specific way in a specific political issue.
No, that isn't how you put it at the time, but it's pointless to argue about it now.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 21:16

just because someone SAYS something, doesn' mean they're right, how many times do I have to say that? Just because someone might believe rape is moral, and say rape is moal, doesn't mean it IS.

Otherwise...I am god.

Why? Becuse said so.But there is no absolute right or wrong. Morality is abstract. And there is no instance for comparison.
There is just no way to determine, whether death penalty is right or wrong. That has nothing to do with what people say about it.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 21:20

we are given a moral template to follow.such as?

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:21

But there is no absolute right or wrong. Morality is abstract. And there is no instance for comparison.
There is just no way to determine, whether death penalty is right or wrong. That has nothing to do with what people say about it.

why? because you said so?

Again, because you said so is no more or less valid than because I said so. As for there being "no way to determine what is right or wrong", entire branches of philosophy have been dedicated to just that principle.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:23

such as?

For Christians, the template is the Scriptures/Jesus' example.

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 21:28

in the state of nature, do those rules not exist, or are they simply ignored when convenient?

You use "nobody followed them" to be evident that they do not exist. One does not necessarily prove the other. If I murder someone andnever get punished, does the law against murder not exist?

or was it simply ignored?

All laws require a level of legitmacy which is passed on by those who are meant to follow it. If I were to draft a law which says you must at all times stand on one foot.. it would not actually be a law unless it was given legitmacy through compliance. Since in a state of nature, no compliance is given to any set of laws... laws do not exist.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 21:29

Won't we? One of the tenets of Christianity, which you have indicated a belief in, is that we are given a moral template to follow.

And another is that we are all fallible. We are given a template. We have the guidance of God, but we will sometimes misinterpret it. One Christian will disagree with another because we view the guidance through different eyes, with our own experiences and foibles coloring the guidance we receive.

Yep, but that's not the same as prohibiting people from voting their conscience.

No, it isn't.

And by the way, it's not just Christianity that holds certain views that get criticized on here. Judaism and Islam happen to share some of the same beliefs.

Indeed. But, in my experience at least (in this country), they tend to be less likely to vote to encode their personal religious views. They tend to be able to step back and say, "This is what I believe, and I will follow it, but I will not force it on other people." It could, of course, just be that I have interacted with a broader spectrum of Christians than I have Jews or Muslims.

Correct we vote for the best of what's available. The winner is selected by a simple majority.

....depending on the office that is being voted for.

And then laws are enacted, not by a majority vote of the citizens, but by a majority vote of representatives who may or may not be representing the majority of their constituents on that particular issue.

I happen to think it was a good call too but it doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court legislated from the bench. Just call it what it is.

They didn't create any new laws and the agreement of those who wrote the Constitution demonstrates that they weren't interpreting it in a way inconsistent with the intention of the writers. As such, it is not "legislating" anything.

All of which dances around my basic point which was that the marriage license, in and of itself, is NOT a binding contract. Until marriage is performed it binds nothing.

Until marriage is performed, it means nothing. It's simply a piece of paper that you paid to get.

Kind of like any contract. The written contract means nothing until it is signed by the governed parties (and, generally, some sort of government representative).

That's because marriage by its very nature relates to sexuality. It is relevant.

No, marriage generally relates to sex. The sexuality of the persons involved is irrelevant.

No, that isn't how you put it at the time, but it's pointless to argue about it now.

No, that isn't how you took it at the time. You seem to be equating "politically active Christians" with those who actively seek to legally ban abortion. The two are not equivalent by any stretch of the word.

The Rafe System

16-02-2007, 21:31

OOC

...why do i need forgiveness for my 'sins'?

Why do I believe you need forgiveness? Because you'll be entering into an afterlife and there will be two places from there: Heaven of Hell. God being all perfect, would not ordinarily have non-perfect beings in heaven. However, showing mercy, Jesus was sent, he pays the price for sin and so forth. It is a free gift, repentence, but you must take it.

[Side note, grew up Atheist, am now neoPagan]

I thought Jesus died for peoples sins so there is no reason for Hel, pergatory, penance, repenting, asking forgivness, et al.? :confused:

Rafe of "the Rafe System"

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:34

All laws require a level of legitmacy which is passed on by those who are meant to follow it. If I were to draft a law which says you must at all times stand on one foot.. it would not actually be a law unless it was given legitmacy through compliance. Since in a state of nature, no compliance is given to any set of laws... laws do not exist.

a) that's nonsense

b) that's not what I asked

To suggest a law is only a law if people follow the law is nonsense. It is a law that isn't obeyed, but it is a law.

Szanth

16-02-2007, 21:38

a) that's nonsense

b) that's not what I asked

To suggest a law is only a law if people follow the law is nonsense. It is a law that isn't obeyed, but it is a law.

You should read some Voltaire and Thomas Paine.

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 21:39

why? because you said so?

Again, because you said so is no more or less valid than because I said so. As for there being "no way to determine what is right or wrong", entire branches of philosophy have been dedicated to just that principle.so why haven't those branches of philosophy come up with a final conclusion?

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 21:39

Then they can't be worth mentioning, right?

No. It means they are too numerous to list. Numerous historical errors about slavery, segregation, etc.

...which was designed by men who were elected to do so by--majority vote. The document itself was ratified by--majority vote. That's a system that continues into today. We elect politicians by simple majority. Laws are enacted by simple majority. Vetos can be overriden by a 2/3 majority. etc etc etc.

Majority rule is what defines a Democracy. We live in a Democracy.

No. We don't. We live in a constitutional republic. The fact that majority rule usually holds sway does not diminish the limits on majority rule inherent in our system of government.

Because those rights are codified in the Constitution, which was... well I already said it.

Um. Note what you just said was "codified" in the Constitution. "Liberty." Liberty is protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. It encompasses a wide range of rights. Rights that are not otherwise expressly spelled out but that are essential to liberty, which as you say is a codified right.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

Excuse the long quote but your obtuseness requires strong response.

Don't make me give you further quotes explaining the 14th Amendment.

Don't make me list for you some of the codified rights protected by the 14th Amendment that are not otherwise expressly listed in the Constitution.

That's a court ruling and a good one... but marriage is not a Constitutional right per se. The court uses the 14th Ammendment as its basis, but that's not saying that marriage is, in and of itself, Constitutionally spelled out.

Is there something wrong with your ability to read.

The Court expressly says that marriage is not only a Constitutional right, but that it is one of the most fundamental freedoms, the most basic civil right of man. It expressly says that the decision to marry or not to marry is protected by the Constitution. (And it cites to 2 early cases saying the same basic thing.)

It's like saying the 15th Ammendment (which guarantees the right of all citizens to vote regardless of race) makes the 26th Ammendment (which guarantees that right to all citizens over 18) unecessary. Apparently, it was necessary.

Stupid, stupid example. The 15th Amendment only says the right to vote shall not be denied on the grounds of race, color, or former inservitude. It does not itself guarantee any right to vote. In fact, you'll find the right to vote is one of those rights that is not expressly named, but is nonetheless protected by the Constitution.

That's your opinion. The thing is, this thread isn't even about gay marriage per se, it is just the example used to discuss voting one's conscience. Seems like suddenly everybody wants to shift the topic. There are already other threads that are discussing that.

It's not shifting the topic. You just say that whenever you don't want to answer.

Under the 14th Amendment, a law saying that couples of different races cannot marry is unconstitutional -- it both denies a fundamental right to marry and violates equal protection under the law on the basis of race.

Under the same 14th Amendment, a law saying couples of the same gender cannot marry is unconstitutional -- it both denies a fundamental right to marry and violates equal protection under the law on the basis of gender.

It took around 100 years for the country to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited bans on interracial marriage. It was not a change in majority rule that finally guaranteed this right -- it was a decision by the Supreme Court.

The majority (and the Court) may not yet recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits bans on same-sex marriage. That does not change what the Fourteenth Amendment says.

Voting your conscience is all well and good. But doesn't your conscience seek the protection of liberty and equal rights?

The Rafe System

16-02-2007, 21:40

OOC
I am more theory then practice currently, but I will pick up the neo/Pagan side openly. *who else here?*

mind you, i know not the art of debate, and am not here to convince you of superority of me vs. you, merely keep the pedestals equal height.

that goes for being gay, and left-handed too *again, who else?* :rolleyes:

Rafe

Rarely do we see any questions posed about the bashing of other religions. It's always the Christians who come out demanding answers, and yet, wonder why people like Bottle refuse to answer the query as soon as they see the key phrase "Christian-bashing". I have yet to see on this forum someone whine about the bashing of Judaism (and this includes Israel), and yet one of our most vocal supporters is IDF. Or how about with Islam? Even Soviestan hasn't whined about it, though he has openly spoken about it.

Or, even the Atheists. We explain ourselves; we say we feel a certain way but we've never complained about being 'bashed', but rather asked for answers as to why people think they can say inaccurate things about our beliefs.

Further, is it just me or are those who whine about the bashing of Christianity tend to be Protestant Christian and not Catholic or any of the other sects, such as Eastern Orthodox or Pentecostal.

Of course, this isn't to say it can't happen, but on this forum, this has been my experience with such here.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:40

And another is that we are all fallible. We are given a template. We have the guidance of God, but we will sometimes misinterpret it. One Christian will disagree with another because we view the guidance through different eyes, with our own experiences and foibles coloring the guidance we receive.

That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to seek after the truth. There's only one source for it.

Indeed. But, in my experience at least (in this country), they tend to be less likely to vote to encode their personal religious views. They tend to be able to step back and say, "This is what I believe, and I will follow it, but I will not force it on other people." It could, of course, just be that I have interacted with a broader spectrum of Christians than I have Jews or Muslims.
Probably.

....depending on the office that is being voted for.

And then laws are enacted, not by a majority vote of the citizens, but by a majority vote of representatives who may or may not be representing the majority of their constituents on that particular issue.

And if they don't vote according to the wishes of their constituency, then they get voted out. That's the beauty of the system.

They didn't create any new laws and the agreement of those who wrote the Constitution demonstrates that they weren't interpreting it in a way inconsistent with the intention of the writers. As such, it is not "legislating" anything.

Sure it is. They essentially created a new role in their branch of the Government that was not stated to be there in the first place. The role of the Supreme Court was much less prominent prior to that ruling. Up until then, the Supreme Court arbitrated between opposing sides just like any circuit court but with supreme authority. That role was changed.

Until marriage is performed, it means nothing. It's simply a piece of paper that you paid to get.

Kind of like any contract. The written contract means nothing until it is signed by the governed parties (and, generally, some sort of government representative).
Except that the simple act of signing the document doesn't switch the marriage on. it comes with the vows and covenants, and THAT is the marriage.

No, marriage generally relates to sex. The sexuality of the persons involved is irrelevant.
Ok it relates to both. The sex of the male and the sex of the female.

No, that isn't how you took it at the time. You seem to be equating "politically active Christians" with those who actively seek to legally ban abortion. The two are not equivalent by any stretch of the word.
So what' s the difference, as you see it?

United Beleriand

16-02-2007, 21:41

For Christians, the template is the Scriptures/Jesus' example.The dude who is allegedly god and drowned humanity in a flood? Great example...

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:42

Gui de Lusignan

16-02-2007, 21:43

a) that's nonsense

b) that's not what I asked

To suggest a law is only a law if people follow the law is nonsense. It is a law that isn't obeyed, but it is a law.

What is a law that isn't obeyed and has no consequences? What gives a law validity...?

Clearly someone has to go back to government class to understand the concept of legitimacy.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 21:45

*SNIP*

I thought of answering this point for point but I just can't bring myself to re-type all that AGAIN.

I did like the part where you accused me of avoiding a question by pointing out it was a sidetrack... fact is, I had answered it already.

I know there's a lot more on here than there was this time yesterday but before you go accusing people of dodging or trying to make them repeat their arguments, I cordially invite you to take the time to RTFF.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 21:50

I thought of answering this point for point but I just can't bring myself to re-type all that AGAIN.

I did like the part where you accused me of avoiding a question by pointing out it was a sidetrack... fact is, I had answered it already.

I know there's a lot more on here than there was this time yesterday but before you go accusing people of dodging or trying to make them repeat their arguments, I cordially invite you to take the time to RTFF.

I've read the fucking thread. I suggest that you stop using that as an answer everytime someone calls you to the carpet on an earlier point you made. Yes, the thread can move on, but you are still on the same topic and saying "RTFF" is just a way of saying you either don't have an answer or couldn't be bothered to offer it.

You think you "answered" certain questions, but my points are follow-ups. They aren't closed subjects just because you gave some half-assed bullshit before. To the contrary, you are being called to defend your bullshit.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 21:56

That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to seek after the truth. There's only one source for it.

I didn't say it does. In fact, let me quote myself here:

Actually, you just pretty much stated my belief. Our understanding is subjective. None of us is infallible, so none of us can be certain that we are not wrong when we disagree with others one what is and is not moral. We all have the responsibility to try and learn and follow objective moral truth, but none of us will fully achieve that goal and none of us would know for certain even if we had.

And if they don't vote according to the wishes of their constituency, then they get voted out. That's the beauty of the system.

If only it actually worked that way in practice....

Sure it is. They essentially created a new role in their branch of the Government that was not stated to be there in the first place.

It was not explictly stated there. It was implicitly stated in the powers laid out for the three branches and the interpretation the court used (which the writers agreed with) included it.

It's like looking at a poem (or the Bible). There is a lot there which isn't explicitly stated (unless it's crappy poetry). It is up to the reader to interpret it and discover its meaning. In this case, the court is the interpreter - the one with the power to interpret in a binding manner.

Except that the simple act of signing the document doesn't switch the marriage on. it comes with the vows and covenants, and THAT is the marriage.

You signing the document and it being signed off on by a qualified person is what makes the marriage legal. You could stand before your preacher, listen to her talk for a while, and then sign it without ever making specified vows, and it would still be legally binding as long as she signed it as well.

Ok it relates to both. The sex of the male and the sex of the female.

Not biological sex, my dear. Sex as an action is generally a part of marriage. The biological sex of the participants, however, is irrelevant to the protections involved in a civil marriage. The legal situation a man and a man who live as a single legal entity will find themselves in is the same as that a man and a woman would find themselves in - and the same legal protections should apply.

Meanwhile, biological sex is a much fuzzier concept than most think. In fact, it is defined differently in different states, such that a marriage between a man and a woman in one state may be seen as same-sex marriage in another.

So what' s the difference, as you see it?

Any person who is a Christian and is politically active is a politically active Christian. They may or may not be politically active in regards to a given issue. In fact, two individual Christians may be politically active on opposite sides of a given issue or in campaigning for candidates opposite each other in a given election.

You are trying to equate "politically active Christians," with "Christians who agree with my viewpoint on this one particular issue and are active in trying to enact that viewpoint into law." That is a pretty small proportion of politically active Christians.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 21:56

What is a law that isn't obeyed and has no consequences? What gives a law validity...?

Clearly someone has to go back to government class to understand the concept of legitimacy.

I must have missed all this when I was at lawschool.

Or perhaps you need to learn the difference between "a law" and "a law that is obeyed"

"don't walk on the grass" is a law, even if everyone walks on the grass and nobody is punished for it.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 22:03

Sure it is. They essentially created a new role in their branch of the Government that was not stated to be there in the first place. The role of the Supreme Court was much less prominent prior to that ruling. Up until then, the Supreme Court arbitrated between opposing sides just like any circuit court but with supreme authority. That role was changed.

No. You are just flat wrong. Article III of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the Supreme Court. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) didn't fundamentally alter anything about the role of the Supreme Court.

You may be confusing McCulloch with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), but Marbury simply confirmed the role for the Court set forth in Article III.

Except that the simple act of signing the document doesn't switch the marriage on. it comes with the vows and covenants, and THAT is the marriage.

Actually the vows are irrelevant. That does not constitute a legal marriage. The marriage is codified in the marriage license.

You can take vows and not be legally married. You can be legally married without vows.

I hate to think what you mean by "covenants."

Ok it relates to both. The sex of the male and the sex of the female.

Maybe it would be easier for you to focus on the term gender. Persons have the right to marry regardless of gender -- just like they have the right to marry regardless of race.

So what' s the difference, as you see it?

Stupid question. Politically active Christians include many who are not opposed to abortion -- Jesse Jackson and Catholics for Free Choice, for example. Those that are anti-abortion are not all Christians.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 22:11

*snip*

Good to see ya TCT, haven't seen you around much in a while.

Do you still have that list of unenumerated rights around anywhere?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:12

I've read the fucking thread. I suggest that you stop using that as an answer everytime someone calls you to the carpet on an earlier point you made. Yes, the thread can move on, but you are still on the same topic and saying "RTFF" is just a way of saying you either don't have an answer or couldn't be bothered to offer it.

You think you "answered" certain questions, but my points are follow-ups. They aren't closed subjects just because you gave some half-assed bullshit before. To the contrary, you are being called to defend your bullshit.

Well since you asked so nicely...

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 22:18

Good to see ya TCT, haven't seen you around much in a while.

Very good to see you too. I'm allowing myself small does of NSG after having gone cold turkey for a while.

Do you still have that list of unenumerated rights around anywhere?

Yep. Here it is.

Here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are protected by the Constitution and taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

Also, here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:20

If only it actually worked that way in practice....
Well I'd agree that the system doesn't always work in the ideal way, but that is the intent of the system. Ackowledging its inefficiency is not a refutation of its purpose.

It was not explictly stated there. It was implicitly stated in the powers laid out for the three branches and the interpretation the court used (which the writers agreed with) included it.

It's like looking at a poem (or the Bible). There is a lot there which isn't explicitly stated (unless it's crappy poetry). It is up to the reader to interpret it and discover its meaning. In this case, the court is the interpreter - the one with the power to interpret in a binding manner.

You have to be really careful with that when talking about a legal document like the Constitution. That sort of approach can be used to justify practically any new policy on the basis that it's mere interpretation.

At this point we're going in circles on this item, so I suggest, in the interest of getting back to the original point, that we agree to disagree on this piece.

You signing the document and it being signed off on by a qualified person is what makes the marriage legal. You could stand before your preacher, listen to her talk for a while, and then sign it without ever making specified vows, and it would still be legally binding as long as she signed it as well.

Going through those motions are still important because they represent the marriage vows. They're not invalidated just because one might not be paying attention.

Not biological sex, my dear. Sex as an action is generally a part of marriage. The biological sex of the participants, however, is irrelevant to the protections involved in a civil marriage. The legal situation a man and a man who live as a single legal entity will find themselves in is the same as that a man and a woman would find themselves in - and the same legal protections should apply.

Meanwhile, biological sex is a much fuzzier concept than most think. In fact, it is defined differently in different states, such that a marriage between a man and a woman in one state may be seen as same-sex marriage in another.

So, to apply that to the topic, do you maintain its wrong for a person who disagrees with that to vote in such a way as to reflect their belief?

Any person who is a Christian and is politically active is a politically active Christian. They may or may not be politically active in regards to a given issue. In fact, two individual Christians may be politically active on opposite sides of a given issue or in campaigning for candidates opposite each other in a given election.

You are trying to equate "politically active Christians," with "Christians who agree with my viewpoint on this one particular issue and are active in trying to enact that viewpoint into law." That is a pretty small proportion of politically active Christians.

So... what are you getting at?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:28

No. You are just flat wrong. Article III of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the Supreme Court. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) didn't fundamentally alter anything about the role of the Supreme Court.

You may be confusing McCulloch with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), but Marbury simply confirmed the role for the Court set forth in Article III.

Article III doesn't actually SAY that, but that's been discussed.

Actually the vows are irrelevant. That does not constitute a legal marriage. The marriage is codified in the marriage license.

You can take vows and not be legally married. You can be legally married without vows.
Vows are irrelevant... so what, in your estimation, is the marriage contract based on in the first place? What agreements are being made by the act of getting married? Just curious.

I hate to think what you mean by "covenants."

Yes it must be something horrifyingly sinister. :rolleyes:

Maybe it would be easier for you to focus on the term gender. Persons have the right to marry regardless of gender -- just like they have the right to marry regardless of race.

Gender is a grammatical term referencing the feminine or masculine gender of nouns in several languages (not including English). Sex references the maleness or femaleness of a living organism.

As for how the sex of the couple relates to their right to marry, that's your opinion.

Race is irrelevant.

Stupid question. Politically active Christians include many who are not opposed to abortion -- Jesse Jackson and Catholics for Free Choice, for example. Those that are anti-abortion are not all Christians.
Well your opinion on the intelligence of my question MIGHT matter if I were asking you.

Deus Malum

16-02-2007, 22:29

Well I'd agree that the system doesn't always work in the ideal way, but that is the intent of the system. Ackowledging its inefficiency is not a refutation of its purpose.

You have to be really careful with that when talking about a legal document like the Constitution. That sort of approach can be used to justify practically any new policy on the basis that it's mere interpretation.

At this point we're going in circles on this item, so I suggest, in the interest of getting back to the original point, that we agree to disagree on this piece.

Going through those motions are still important because they represent the marriage vows. They're not invalidated just because one might not be paying attention.

So, to apply that to the topic, do you maintain its wrong for a person who disagrees with that to vote in such a way as to reflect their belief?

So... what are you getting at?

You do understand that you can choose not to actually make marriage vows, and merely sign a document if you're a heterosexual couple, and be legally married in this country, right?
And the signing of the legal document has nothing to do with the vows themselves. A legal marriage in this country is nothing more than a legal contract between two individual and with the state that affords the married couple certain privileges, like filing taxes jointly, that non-married couples don't have.
That has nothing to do with their religious convictions and their vows. It's in effect like forming a business partnership.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:30

You do understand that you can choose not to actually make marriage vows, and merely sign a document if you're a heterosexual couple, and be legally married in this country, right?
And the signing of the legal document has nothing to do with the vows themselves. A legal marriage in this country is nothing more than a legal contract between two individual and with the state that affords the married couple certain privileges, like filing taxes jointly, that non-married couples don't have.
That has nothing to do with their religious convictions and their vows. It's in effect like forming a business partnership.

And so you're referencing the act of signing a document without any formal reading of the terms and commitments that can and will be enforced by the Government, and characterizing it as a good thing.

Anything else I might say in addition to this would be repetitive, so I'll leave it at that.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 22:34

Well I'd agree that the system doesn't always work in the ideal way, but that is the intent of the system. Ackowledging its inefficiency is not a refutation of its purpose.

The intent of the system was also to keep the "common man" from making all the decisions by separating the process from a direct democracy.

You have to be really careful with that when talking about a legal document like the Constitution. That sort of approach can be used to justify practically any new policy on the basis that it's mere interpretation.

This is why we have checks and balances. The judicial branch interprets the law. They might interpret in a way that is disagreeable to the people. Thus, the legislative branch can override them by changing the law (including the Constitution, if that is necessary to override them). The executive branch, except in the case of an overwhelming majority can override the legislative branch by vetoing a given law or by failing to enforce it. And so on...

If the judicial branch were to be the sole branch of government or even the most powerful branch, you are absolutely right that we would have this problem. But, in reality, the judicial branch is the least powerful branch of government, so it isn't an issue.

At this point we're going in circles on this item, so I suggest, in the interest of getting back to the original point, that we agree to disagree on this piece.

If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but I don't see where much has been repeated.

Going through those motions are still important because they represent the marriage vows. They're not invalidated just because one might not be paying attention.

One doesn't even have to have them. From a religious point of view and an emotional point of view, they may be very important. But no specific vows are required for legal marriage. One JOP will use different vows than the next, or will ask the couple for their own. One clergyman will use a given set of vows, or may ask the couple for their own. Each individual marriage ceremony may include its own vows, or none at all. The thing that makes the end result binding is the signatures on the paper.

So, to apply that to the topic, do you maintain its wrong for a person who disagrees with that to vote in such a way as to reflect their belief?

I believe it is wrong for any person to attempt to enforce their religious views upon another. If they believe that there is a compelling government interest in passing a given law, then they absolutely should vote for that law. If they do not, they absolutely should vote against it. This vote will, simply by the nature of religion, be informed by their religious views, but it should not be a product only of said religious views.

But I'm not sure what you're asking about disagreement. Disagreement with what? The fact that biological sex is a fuzzy concept? The fact that a person legally recognized as a man may be legally recognized as a woman in another state and thus have his marriage dissolved?

So... what are you getting at?

The fact that you completely mischaracterized me earlier in the thread.

Deus Malum

16-02-2007, 22:35

And so you're referencing the act of signing a document without any formal reading of the terms and commitments that can and will be enforced by the Government, and characterizing it as a good thing.

Anything else I might say in addition to this would be repetitive, so I'll leave it at that.

There is a difference between understanding the legal committments involved in a marriage and saying pithy vows about death doing us part.

Edit: I think you might be mistaking "marriage vows" with "legal obligations involved in marriage."

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:41

The intent of the system was also to keep the "common man" from making all the decisions by separating the process from a direct democracy.

This is why we have checks and balances. The judicial branch interprets the law. They might interpret in a way that is disagreeable to the people. Thus, the legislative branch can override them by changing the law (including the Constitution, if that is necessary to override them). The executive branch, except in the case of an overwhelming majority can override the legislative branch by vetoing a given law or by failing to enforce it. And so on...

If the judicial branch were to be the sole branch of government or even the most powerful branch, you are absolutely right that we would have this problem. But, in reality, the judicial branch is the least powerful branch of government, so it isn't an issue.
I've taken Civics, thanks.

All of this meandering around on the long and winding path through the intricacies of the Federal Government has still not settled the issue that started it-namely that of majority rule. It utterly blows my mind that anyone can look at a democracy, even a representative democracy like this one (aka republic) and say it isn't a system of majority rule.

If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but I don't see where much has been repeated.
My initial reaction to this was snarky so I won't post it.
Why are you so admantly opposed to merely agreeing to disagree? Arguing in circles produces nothing.

One doesn't even have to have them. From a religious point of view and an emotional point of view, they may be very important. But no specific vows are required for legal marriage. One JOP will use different vows than the next, or will ask the couple for their own. One clergyman will use a given set of vows, or may ask the couple for their own. Each individual marriage ceremony may include its own vows, or none at all. The thing that makes the end result binding is the signatures on the paper.

None of which has anything to do with what happens to a marriage certificate when the couple doesn't marry... it expires.

I believe it is wrong for any person to attempt to enforce their religious views upon another. If they believe that there is a compelling government interest in passing a given law, then they absolutely should vote for that law. If they do not, they absolutely should vote against it. This vote will, simply by the nature of religion, be informed by their religious views, but it should not be a product only of said religious views.

That last part strikes me as interesting... How do you see the difference? Just curious.

The fact that you completely mischaracterized me earlier in the thread.

I don't think I did, but once again, it's pointless to bicker about it so I've spokem my peace on it.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 22:47

A general statement about arguments that run in circles or repetitive statements:

When I say that it's t ime to agree to disagree, it is n ot a retreat from the argument, it's not a surrender, it's not a concession. It's acknowledging the fact that we have two viewpoints that differ so widely as to make it impossible to come to an understanding on something. I think it's evident when arguments start getting repeated.

My mistake is to go in circles for as long as I do. I think some people on here do this on purpose in an effort to get their opponent to slip and contradict themselves while trying to find a new way to rephrase an idea they've already stated repeatedly. In my opinion such a tactic is intellectually dishonest.

Whether its being done deliberately or not, I'm not going to argue in circles. Once I feel I've said everythign I've got to say on a particular subject, I'll stop repeating myself. If some of you choose to interpret that as an act of cowardice or confusion, then you're misinterpeting my intent, and I would hope you're not doing so on purpose.

Earlier, Bottle withdrew from the debate on the grounds that the thread had been hijacked. I have no reason to question her motives in such a move. There are those, however, who would interpret that as a retreat. I think that's sad because to assume that a person who stops arguing is just afraid to continue is just juvenile at best. I admit when people accuse me of that it's irritating and it's the one thing that I find difficult to keep my cool about. I'm getting better though.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 22:54

Vows are irrelevant... so what, in your estimation, is the marriage contract based on in the first place? What agreements are being made by the act of getting married? Just curious.

Have you ever been married? Can you be sued for breaking a vow?

Marriage as a legal institution is defined by statutes and common law. It has a vast set of legal consequences, obligations, and privileges.

Marriage as a personal agreement can be anything two people agree on. Vows have no legal significance.

Gender is a grammatical term referencing the feminine or masculine gender of nouns in several languages (not including English). Sex references the maleness or femaleness of a living organism.

Sorry, but the Oxford English Dictionary and modern usage in the law (particularly Supreme Court cases dating back to at least 1970) disagrees with your snide dichotomy.

But if your brain is stuck, we can use the term sex. Just don't let it get you confused that sex discrimination is inherently suspect.

As for how the sex of the couple relates to their right to marry, that's your opinion.

And the opinion that it has nothing to do with the sex of the couple is part of what we are arguing. You are somehow convinced that equal protection of the law doesn't extend to same-sex couples. That is simple bigotry.

Race is irrelevant.

Exactly. So is sex.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 22:59

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 23:00

I've taken Civics, thanks.

Then use it.

All of this meandering around on the long and winding path through the intricacies of the Federal Government has still not settled the issue that started it-namely that of majority rule. It utterly blows my mind that anyone can look at a democracy, even a representative democracy like this one (aka republic) and say it isn't a system of majority rule.

Because it clearly isn't. There are all sorts of obstacles in place to prevent a strict majority rule. Our government was based in the idea that human beings should be able to play a role in their government, but that they cannot be given truly free reign in this.

My initial reaction to this was snarky so I won't post it.
Why are you so admantly opposed to merely agreeing to disagree? Arguing in circles produces nothing.

I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree. It was your "going around in circles" comment that I was replying to. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine, but don't give an inaccurate reason for it.

None of which has anything to do with what happens to a marriage certificate when the couple doesn't marry... it expires.

....which has nothing to do with anything. I have a vacation certificate that I haven't yet used. If I don't use it, it will expire, and I will never have gone on vacation. Likewise, if I get a piece of paper that I could use to make a marriage binding, but never use it, I am never married.

That last part strikes me as interesting... How do you see the difference? Just curious.

The difference is pretty clear. I am opposed to, for instance, promiscuity. I am opposed to it because of my own religious values, but that opposition is drawn completely from my own personal religious views. I am well aware that those with other religious views do not see it the same way and it is not the purpose of my government to enforce religious views. For that reason, I would never vote for any law making promiscuity illegal.

My views on murder, on the other hand, are informed by my religion, but not based in it. The purpose of government is to protect the people. Murder involves the death of a human being. Thus, it is clearly within the government interest to prevent murder and to set up penalties for it when it occurs. I believe that God is opposed to murder, but that is not the reason that I back laws outlawing murder.

I don't think I did, but once again, it's pointless to bicker about it so I've spokem my peace on it.

So, even though I've explained the difference clearly to you, and you've changed what you were saying at least once, you're going to try and claim that the original statement was accurate?

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 23:02

In other words, we all show bow to the wisdom of NB and only question upon your sufferance. Once you have spoken we should know to shut up.

Jesus wept.

Yep, that's just what I said. Kudos to you for your amazing ability to sniff that out.

The Cat-Tribe

16-02-2007, 23:04

I've taken Civics, thanks.

All of this meandering around on the long and winding path through the intricacies of the Federal Government has still not settled the issue that started it-namely that of majority rule. It utterly blows my mind that anyone can look at a democracy, even a representative democracy like this one (aka republic) and say it isn't a system of majority rule.

Apparently it didn't take.

Of course majority rule plays a role in our system, no one said otherwise. But it is not the ultimate value. Fundamental rights and equal protection trump majority rule.

What isn't clear about that? Only an oversimplification on a grade school level says our system is just majority rule.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 23:07

Have you ever been married? Can you be sued for breaking a vow?

Yes and yes. Among the items you can legally sure for divorce over is infidelity, a violation of one of those vows.

Marriage as a legal institution is defined by statutes and common law. It has a vast set of legal consequences, obligations, and privileges.

Marriage as a personal agreement can be anything two people agree on. Vows have no legal significance.

To the first part, yes, quite right. Something we've all agreed on since the beginning.

The second half of that makes no sense.

Sorry, but the Oxford English Dictionary and modern usage in the law (particularly Supreme Court cases dating back to at least 1970) disagrees with your snide dichotomy.

But if your brain is stuck, we can use the term sex. Just don't let it get you confused that sex discrimination is inherently suspect.
Personal shots now. You sunk to that level awful fast. And you want me t o take your arguments seriously why?

And the opinion that it has nothing to do with the sex of the couple is part of what we are arguing. You are somehow convinced that equal protection of the law doesn't extend to same-sex couples. That is simple bigotry.

Exactly. So is sex.
Like you said, that's what's being argued.

So everybody is allowed to believe however they like, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of you and those who agree with you. Got it.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 23:10

Apparently it didn't take.
Sticks and stones, my friend.

I dunno maybe it's just me but I tend to find arguments based on the exchange of ideas mush more stimulating than one based on personal shots... but heh what do I know.

Of course majority rule plays a role in our system, no one said otherwise. But it is not the ultimate value. Fundamental rights and equal protection trump majority rule.
Hey Cat-Tribe...

RTFF :D

What isn't clear about that? Only an oversimplification on a grade school level says our system is just majority rule.
True, but then I never said it was exclusively majority rule. Since you are obviously very busy and haven't got time to read over every other post, I'll refresh this one. I always said, form the beginning the obvious, that this is a Government by representative democracy.

Arthais101

16-02-2007, 23:11

Yes and yes. Among the items you can legally sure for divorce over is infidelity, a violation of one of those vows.

Congratulations, you just proved his point.

You do not sue for divorce.

Dempublicents1

16-02-2007, 23:18

The second half of that makes no sense.

My fiance and I view marriage (and even simply dating) as restricting our sexual activities to each other. Other married couples agree to bring other people into the bedroom or have separate other sexual partners. Is one of these not marriage?

My fiance and I will make decisions together, with neither of us taking any special precedence. Smunkeeville has chosen to be more submissive towards her husband. Which version isn't marriage?

Two people can agree to whatever terms of marriage they like personally - and it won't change the legal definitions. Smunkeeville and her husband have decided that he is the final word in the house, but it won't be considered a breach of any legal contract if she does something he does not agree with.

So everybody is allowed to believe however they like, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of you and those who agree with you. Got it.

No, everyone is allowed to believe whatever they like. They can live their lives in any way they please, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It is when they try to enforce those beliefs on others - denying equal legal protection to others - that they must back them up with a compelling government interest.

Neo Bretonnia

16-02-2007, 23:18

Then use it.
:rolleyes:

Because it clearly isn't. There are all sorts of obstacles in place to prevent a strict majority rule. Our government was based in the idea that human beings should be able to play a role in their government, but that they cannot be given truly free reign in this.

"...Government by the people, for the people and of the people..."

I never said free reign, I never said pure democracy. Majority rule is how it works, friends. There is a structure to deal with the issues you just mentioned, yes... but at the end of the day, the point of this Government is to be a Government by the people. AKA majority rule.

I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree. It was your "going around in circles" comment that I was replying to. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine, but don't give an inaccurate reason for it.

Where I sit, it's a perfectly accurate reason. My point is, and has been very simple. You guys have some very elaborate forms of sophistry to turn an apple into an orange all for the sake of justifying points of view that tend to be purely emotional. I see people who take a few contradictory views and somehoe shoe-horn them together by complex philosophical arguments and skewered perceptions all because sometimes the reality of what's in front of them is unpalatable. I run out of arguments faster than you do because mine are simople and straightforward. My only mistake is to try and rephrase them in too many different ways. That tends to muddle the issue and it's something I'm working on.

....which has nothing to do with anything. I have a vacation certificate that I haven't yet used. If I don't use it, it will expire, and I will never have gone on vacation. Likewise, if I get a piece of paper that I could use to make a marriage binding, but never use it, I am never married.
Which is what I've been saying all day, but for some reason people can't seem to let it go at that.

The difference is pretty clear. I am opposed to, for instance, promiscuity. I am opposed to it because of my own religious values, but that opposition is drawn completely from my own personal religious views. I am well aware that those with other religious views do not see it the same way and it is not the purpose of my government to enforce religious views. For that reason, I would never vote for any law making promiscuity illegal.

My views on murder, on the other hand, are informed by my religion, but not based in it. The purpose of government is to protect the people. Murder involves the death of a human being. Thus, it is clearly within the government interest to prevent murder and to set up penalties for it when it occurs. I believe that God is opposed to murder, but that is not the reason that I back laws outlawing murder.
Ok makes sense. Now let me ask you this, (not to challenge, but to discuss.) Suppose there was a wave of research by psychologists, scientists, anthropologists, etc that convinced you that it would be a Government interest to outlaw promiscuity on the basis that it spreads disease, for example. Would it then be deferred to the second category you mentioned?

I'm not setting you up or anything, just trying to make sure I understsand your point clearly

So, even though I've explained the difference clearly to you, and you've changed what you were saying at least once, you're going to try and claim that the original statement was accurate?
I disagree. Spoken my peace. Can't make that any clearer.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Christianity - The Scrutiny Of