Imposition Of Laws Based On Religios Belief..... Lets Evaluate (Abraham, philosophy, Universe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly? Yes. I'm going to say the exact same thing, so I see no need to reiterate.
I can't help but sense a certain reluctance on your part to follow-up here. I'm just trying to get some clarification so that I might better understand your view. I mean, first you gave one answer, then changed your mind (which you're certainly entitled to do) and gave a different answer. If we start over with my original point, my hope is that it would make things a lot less confusing for me.
That said, if you would be so kind, here is my original hypothetical question:
Let's assume that we have a combined group of individuals of the theistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws restricting abortion. Let's also assume that there is another group of individuals of the atheistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws that favor/promote the expansion of abortion.
Would not both groups be guilty of attempting to impose their individual world views upon the populace?
I understand your most recent answer to be 'no.' In other words, the theistic group would be wrong for "imposing" their theistic view simply because they are theistic. Am I getting this right or have I misrepresented you in some fashion?
Remember, you've already agreed that ALL LAW is imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Obviously.
Yes, and.....?
Other than the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." portion of the 1st Amendment? Not that I'm aware of.
All three of my assertions/questions here, which you chose to address individually (which your certainly entitled to do) all relate to my same point. That's why I'm addressing them together here, which, it seems to me, that I'm entitled to do as well.
Okay, here is what you stated in your previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
There is no call for the PEOPLE to be secular, only the laws.
You agree (above "obviously" and "yes") that the government is made up of people. In other words, that people make the laws and "there is no call for the PEOPLE to be secular." Are you saying that theists, serving in office, must only support legislation that comports to the "secular" (atheist or non-God) world view? Is that your assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No need for a redo. Thanks for the kind offer, though. How does political affiliation and trying to get as many of "your team" put in place impact the secularity of our government?
secular - of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests. (dictionary.com)
I see nothing in that definition that is made impossible by the scenario we're talking about.
"...pertaining to "worldly things or things that are not regarded as religious..."
Right. Like belief in God for example? You've also already seconded my assertion concerning the loaded (highly subjective) term "religion."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
How does political affiliation and trying to get as many of "your team" put in place impact the secularity of our government?
If people (Presidents and legislators) IN GOVERNMENT are non-secular in their world view, and they are trying to get their "team" in the SCOTUS, what effect might this have on the supposed "secularity" of SCOTUS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
I would consider myself much closer to agnostic than atheist. Other than the "unknowable" bit of the agnostic definition it fits me nearly perfectly.
Seriously? We've been having all this back and forth discussion, and you HONESTLY think that I don't know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic?" ...and you don't see this as insulting my intelligence?
You've already affirmed that God does not enter into your MORAL decision making process. God, is excluded from any consideration with respect to moral/political/world view decisions. God is EXCLUDED. In other words, God is not included. In other words, your decisions are non-God decisions, or, atheistic decisions. At least do this, could you please explain how your moral decision making process might be different if you did in fact consider yourself to be an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
IMO, there are 3 distinct positions - theist, atheist and agnostic.
I fully understand that. Got it. No need to EVER reiterate it with me.
I'm questioning the logical FEASIBILITY of having an agnostic WORLD VIEW. With respect to MAKING a MORAL DECISION, God must either be included or excluded.
You may disagree. Fine, feel free to elaborate, but please don't act as though I don't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism - please, at least give me that much credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Because I see nothing impractical about living life as an agnostic. Can you tell me why you think it IS impractical?
Yes. Because life REQUIRES moral decision making in the here and now. You affirmed yourself that God does not enter into this process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Did we "hire" the SCOTUS Justices? Can we "fire" them? Not in any direct sense of the words.
...boy, no need to get technical here...right? (Not!)
No, we can't fire them "directly." Very astute observation.
Can we "fire" them in the indirect sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Certainly. However, popular vote (the only mechanism available to a normal citizen) has no impact on whether or not a law is concluded to be unconstitutional.
Come again? How did the Constitution come about in the first place? How is it that we have amendments to the constitution? How are Presidents and Legislators placed in office? Why the term: "Government of, by and for the people...?"
If government enacts law, and the people (popular vote) determine the government, logically, the people will eventually determine constitutionality.
Am I missing something here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, not at all. Where did they try to supersede the Constitution? Because they ruled in a way that prompted a future amendment?
Isn't that why slavery is now unconstitutional? SCOTUS, through the Dred Scott decision, affirmed that blacks could not be citizens. Now, it is unconstitutional to consider blacks as non-citizens. If it is TRULY unconstitutional to consider blacks as non-citizens, then the DS decision was merely an effort to supersede that which is in fact constitutional. In other words, in the early to mid 1800's, the electorate established the world view (through popular vote) of elected officials (Presidents and Legislators) in order to pave the way for the Dred Scott decision. THE PEOPLE did this by electing PEOPLE in the government who comported to the world view that blacks should not be considered as citizens.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Has that decision been used successfully as precedent in any cases since the decision was handed down in 1892?
Seems to me that it has pretty much been ignored, which only further illustrates my point. Stare decisis only seems to matter to the popular culture of the day when it is viewed as useful in advancing a popular agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you bring it up?
I only brought it up in order to make my point concerning the limitations inherent to SCOTUS precedent. In the final analysis, stare decisis is usually a non-factor.
I can't help but sense a certain reluctance on your part to follow-up here.
LOL Reluctance?!?!?! I've typed out my opinion on this, as clearly as I know how, at least twice in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm just trying to get some clarification so that I might better understand your view. I mean, first you gave one answer, then changed your mind (which you're certainly entitled to do) and gave a different answer. If we start over with my original point, my hope is that it would make things a lot less confusing for me.
That said, if you would be so kind, here is my original hypothetical question:
Let's assume that we have a combined group of individuals of the theistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws restricting abortion. Let's also assume that there is another group of individuals of the atheistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws that favor/promote the expansion of abortion.
Would not both groups be guilty of attempting to impose their individual world views upon the populace?
I understand your most recent answer to be 'no.' In other words, the theistic group would be wrong for "imposing" their theistic view simply because they are theistic. Am I getting this right or have I misrepresented you in some fashion?
Remember, you've already agreed that ALL LAW is imposition.
Yes, all law is imposition of a moral code. Now, for the third time, secular laws don't impose a non-god world view unless they impede the practice of your chosen religion or the observance of that religion's moral code. The same CANNOT be said for non-secular laws. By definition, a non-secular law would impose a requirement to adhere to some specifically religious morals or dogma. Again, we're not talking about murder here, or other illegal acts that have obvious secular benefits.
I truly hope that is clear this time around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
All three of my assertions/questions here, which you chose to address individually (which your certainly entitled to do) all relate to my same point. That's why I'm addressing them together here, which, it seems to me, that I'm entitled to do as well.
Okay, here is what you stated in your previous post:
You agree (above "obviously" and "yes") that the government is made up of people. In other words, that people make the laws and "there is no call for the PEOPLE to be secular." Are you saying that theists, serving in office, must only support legislation that comports to the "secular" (atheist or non-God) world view? Is that your assertion?
I believe it would be wrong for any legislator to support non-secular laws, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"...pertaining to "worldly things or things that are not regarded as religious..."
Right. Like belief in God for example? You've also already seconded my assertion concerning the loaded (highly subjective) term "religion."
As I've stated previously in this thread - you can believe in god(s) without being religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If people (Presidents and legislators) IN GOVERNMENT are non-secular in their world view, and they are trying to get their "team" in the SCOTUS, what effect might this have on the supposed "secularity" of SCOTUS?
This scenario assumes that one party is more secular than the other, doesn't it? I don't know that to be true. I'll still answer the question, as posed, however. I would hope it would have no more effect on the secularity of the SCOTUS than any other panel of Justices throughout our history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Seriously? We've been having all this back and forth discussion, and you HONESTLY think that I don't know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic?" ...and you don't see this as insulting my intelligence?
Woah, woah, woah! It was an attempt to be clear about what *I'm* communicating, since there has been some miscommunication in this thread already (see the opening of this post). Nothing more. I apologize for any perceived insult, it was not intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You've already affirmed that God does not enter into your MORAL decision making process. God, is excluded from any consideration with respect to moral/political/world view decisions. God is EXCLUDED. In other words, God is not included. In other words, your decisions are non-God decisions, or, atheistic decisions. At least do this, could you please explain how your moral decision making process might be different if you did in fact consider yourself to be an atheist.
I thought we agreed that world view also included opinions about the existence of god(s), the creation of the universe, etc? As such, the agnostic world view would differ significantly from the atheist world view on those topics, would it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I fully understand that. Got it. No need to EVER reiterate it with me.
OK, then. I won't EVER reiterate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm questioning the logical FEASIBILITY of having an agnostic WORLD VIEW. With respect to MAKING a MORAL DECISION, God must either be included or excluded.
You may disagree. Fine, feel free to elaborate, but please don't act as though I don't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism - please, at least give me that much credit.
Again, I apologize for any perceived insult. It was merely an attempt to be clear.
I believe I elaborated on the world view difference between atheist and agnostic above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Yes. Because life REQUIRES moral decision making in the here and now. You affirmed yourself that God does not enter into this process.
Agreed, but I thought we came to a consensus earlier in this thread that morality was only a component of "world view"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...boy, no need to get technical here...right? (Not!)
No, we can't fire them "directly." Very astute observation.
Can we "fire" them in the indirect sense?
I don't understand all this apparent anger, honestly.
No, we cannot fire them in the indirect sense, either. The most we can do is vote in new representation and hope that they appoint different Justices - which is FAR from a sure thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Come again? How did the Constitution come about in the first place? How is it that we have amendments to the constitution? How are Presidents and Legislators placed in office? Why the term: "Government of, by and for the people...?"
Obviously popular vote can modify/amend the Constitution. However, I was speaking in reference to the evaluation of a law in reference to the current constitution and whatever amendments that may include at a given time. Popular vote has no impact on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If government enacts law, and the people (popular vote) determine the government, logically, the people will eventually determine constitutionality.
No, we can change what the measuring stick looks like, but we never do the actual measuring. In the end it may very well still come down to interpretation and we have no real influence over how things are interpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Isn't that why slavery is now unconstitutional? SCOTUS, through the Dred Scott decision, affirmed that blacks could not be citizens. Now, it is unconstitutional to consider blacks as non-citizens. If it is TRULY unconstitutional to consider blacks as non-citizens, then the DS decision was merely an effort to supersede that which is in fact constitutional. In other words, in the early to mid 1800's, the electorate established the world view (through popular vote) of elected officials (Presidents and Legislators) in order to pave the way for the Dred Scott decision. THE PEOPLE did this by electing PEOPLE in the government who comported to the world view that blacks should not be considered as citizens.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Again, it's interpretation, IMO. If it was an attempt to supersede what the Constitution already was, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Obviously the Constitution, as it stood at the time, left room for interpretation that could lead to the Scott decision. The 14th fixed that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Seems to me that it has pretty much been ignored, which only further illustrates my point. Stare decisis only seems to matter to the popular culture of the day when it is viewed as useful in advancing a popular agenda.
I only brought it up in order to make my point concerning the limitations inherent to SCOTUS precedent. In the final analysis, stare decisis is usually a non-factor.
In some remote sense it is ; but it would far greater if it returned to the Judeo-Christian ethic and principles that it was birthed according to....and if it would take seriously the inevitable personal consequences that comes from a populus rejecting Gods only appointed way to be reconciled back to him ---- Christ the Messiah crucified . Peace. End.
In some remote sense it is ; but it would far greater if it returned to the Judeo-Christian ethic and principles that it was birthed according to....and if it would take seriously the inevitable personal consequences that comes from a populus rejecting Gods only appointed way to be reconciled back to him ---- Christ the Messiah crucified . Peace. End.
Do you really want to go back to the dark ages?
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages. Richard Lederer (Anguished English)
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages. Richard Lederer (Anguished English)
Im not advocating people-control by human institutions . Never have. Modern America today wants total independence to live as they like with such terms as morality/good ethics/etc... being relegated to 'The Dark Ages' , in addition to other poinent excuses (for the expressed purpose of maximized personal entitle-itis) . Now we have a great many people who suffer from the brainwashing that apathy brings. Do you want to live in a Society where moral relativism is practiced ON you , and, do you want rampant anarchy which comes from the new Dark Age of today ? We all surrender to something -- whats it going to be for you ?
The imposition of laws should NEVER be based on religious belief UNLESS they have a clear secular purpose . . . like murder. There are NOT just two possibilities there are three.
1. Those who want to impose pro-God laws on others.
2. Those who want to impose anti-God laws on others.
3. Those who don't want to impose ANY God laws on others.
God's laws are personal and each individual in a FREE SOCIETY gets to decide whether or not to follow them . . . NOT society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
