“The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You”
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Senate Democrats are attacking Christians again.
During Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein pointedly told the then-nominee, “the dogma lives loudly with in you, and that’s a concern.” The “dogma” to which she referred was Barrett’s Catholic faith, and Feinstein’s not-so-subtle suggestion was that an observant Catholic could not also be a fair and impartial judge.
While this is certainly the most notorious instance of a nominee being grilled about his or her Christian faith, it is far from the only one, as Senate Democrats have continually engaged in questioning that test the limits of the Constitution’s Article VI prohibition on “religious tests” for holding government office.
Their latest target is Brian Buescher, a federal district court nominee from Nebraska. Following Mr. Buescher’s November 2018 nomination hearing, Senators Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris submitted questions for the recordinterrogating Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus—a fraternal service organization of the Catholic Church that claims two million members worldwide.
The Knights are an arm of the Church and one of the world’s great charities, having made billions of dollars in charitable contributions and given millions of hours of volunteer service. Their mission includes aid to the poor, support for people with physical and developmental disabilities, and assistance to victims of natural disasters.
Mr. Buescher joins a growing list of Trump nominees who have been quizzed about their Christian faith:
- In November 2018, Senator Feinstein submitted written questions for the record to Paul Matey (Third Circuit) asking about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus.
- In October 2018, Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Blumenthal, Whitehouse and Harris submitted written questions for the record to Allison Jones Rushing (Fourth Circuit) asking about her involvement with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit organization “that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.”
- In May 2018, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse submitted written questions for the record to Peter Phipps (W.D.P.A.) asking about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus.
- In March 2018, Senator Feinstein submitted written questions for the record to Michael Scudder (Seventh Circuit) noting his membership in the St. John the Cross Parish and asking about his involvement with the parish’s efforts to establish a residential crisis pregnancy center as cited in a parish bulletin.
- In June 2017, Senator Whitehouse(D-RI) submitted written questions for the record to Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.) about his personal views on issues of same-sex marriage and abortion in light of his church membership.(My NRO colleague, Ramesh Ponnuru, detailed that line of inquiry here.)
And the church bashing has not been exclusive to the Senate Judiciary Committee: during a nomination hearing before the Senate Budget Committee in 2017, Senator Bernie Sanders accused Russell Vought—a Christian and President Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of The White House Office of Management and Budget—of being an “Islamaphobic” on account of his religious views.
These inquiries directed to Christians violate the spirit if not the letter of Article VI, which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office under the United States.”
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination hearing, Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University, urged the Committee to “refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.” A constitutional law scholar who clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens, Eisgruber argued that Article VI’s prohibition on religious tests was a “bold endorsement of religious freedom.” Eisengruber explained that “[b]ecause religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs.”
Nearly 16 months later, Senate Democrats persist in questioning nominees about their Christian faith. At its core, the questioning reveals the anti-religious bigotry motivating the modern day Democrats. The inescapable irony is that some of the great lions of the Democratic Party, such as John F. Kennedy and Al Smith, were once victims of the very same bigotry that their party now perpetuates.
So why are today’s Democrats so suspicious of Christians? The unfortunate truth is that progressives no longer believe there is a place for people of genuine faith in public service. This stands in sharp contrast to the Founders, who universally recognized the role that religion plays in undergirding our civil society and freedom (although not all of the founders were men of faith themselves).
Borrowing from Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations in Democracy in America,author and intellectual Os Guinness “the golden triangle of freedom” as consisting of these three mutually reinforcing values, each fully dependent on the others: freedom, virtue, and faith. Guinness argues that freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires freedom.
James Madison illuminated the concept in his speech to the Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788, asking: “Is there no virtue among us?” Assuming the answer, Madison continued, “If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government can secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”
Their message? If we don’t like what you believe, we think you are unfit for judicial service.
Sure sounds like a religious test to me.
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
“So why are today’s Democrats so suspicious of Christians? The unfortunate truth is that progressives no longer believe there is a place for people of genuine faith in public service. This stands in sharp contrast to the Founders, who universally recognized the role that religion plays in undergirding our civil society and freedom (although not all of the founders were men of faith themselves).
Borrowing from Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations in Democracy in America, author and intellectual Os Guinness “the golden triangle of freedom” as consisting of these three mutually reinforcing values, each fully dependent on the others: freedom, virtue, and faith. Guinness argues that freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and faith requires freedom.
James Madison illuminated the concept in his speech to the Ratifying Convention on June 20, 1788, asking: “Is there no virtue among us?” Assuming the answer, Madison continued, “If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government can secure liberty or happiness without virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”
Their message? If we don’t like what you believe, we think you are unfit for judicial service.”
You are incorrect on the reason people have a problem with some christians like this judge. It's because they continue to try to force their 'morals' and beliefs on everyone. I'm so offended by people who have no problem with the amoral, immoral, lying, narcissist and his actions in business defrauding and cheating others out of money due them, but feel righteous in trying to interfere in personal decisions of others. The founders totally saw the problems with religion and politics and clearly put the separation between the two in for a reason. These people should NOT be on the court negatively impacting certain groups in the name of their 'faith', so you have it backward. The rest of us just want to live to our beliefs without the interference of christians or any other religion. Its private, keep it that way.
You're so correct. They have a Bible in one hand and a dagger in the other so they can stab you in the back as they give you a hug and say that god loves you. Most of them are also wearing a crucifix. My family if full of these religious hypocrites. They scream religious persecution when you call them out on their behavior, despite the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell his followers to act in this manner.
Anti-Religious bigotry is not an answer.
Only members of the Church of Rome wear a crucifix. Protestants do not believe the crucifix to be appropriate because it promotes only His death and not the resurrection.
Protestants also lead the way in helping the needy rather than you false and slanderous accusation of being back stabbers.
[deleted]
Wearing a crucifix necklace or earrings is not in any way limited to Catholics. It sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that this jewelry is only sold to Catholics.
https://www.christianbook.com/page/gifts/christian-jewelry?navcat=Gifts|Clothing-and-Accessories|Jewelry
You should explain that to my cousins and my former inlaws. The fact that I was Catholic when we married and I would not convert made me a target among them.
Only you would claim that telling the truth is being a bigot.
Is the strict separation of church and state an example of anti-religious bigotry?
I don't see too many people wearing the dead Jesus, and I was brought up Catholic. What they do wear - Catholics and Protestants alike - are crosses.
Are you sure? Isn't Trump forcing all government employees to say "Merry Christmas" whether they celebrate it or not?
I have no idea if that's true, but I'm happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that it is. So,
They're probably also forced to say "welcome" and "have a nice day" whether they mean it or not. That's ok. Why? Because it's about the person being served, not the employee.
Who was forcing them not to, before Trump won the war on Christmas?
Then you'd okay if someone told you to say, "Allāhu akbar" to everyone?
What would be the reason for that? There are reasons for the other things.
That's not the question, stop evading.
What's not the question?
I haven't evaded anything. I asked you to clarify your question because there was no sense to it. Apparently you are incapable of doing that, which suggests maybe you weren't asking an honest question in the first place.
No, you asked me a question to try and deflect the conversation. Just answer the question.
Don't tell me what I'm thinking. I asked you a question and I explained why. Why won't/can't you answer it? I, at least, can (and have) explain myself. You just want to bully people and make demands.
Your refusal to answer just supports my argument. Problem is that you put yourself in a corner, you cannot answer either positive or negative without looking foolish.
Funny you should ask, epistte.
Actually, they do believe that a separation of Church and State is anti-religious. Anything that stops them from doing anything they want to anybody IN THE NAME OF GOD is anti-religious bigotry.
I don't consider the Bible or a Religion a real good basis for morals, god has done and authorized some pretty nasty deeds.
I'm not refusing to answer. As I have stated, I can't answer a question I don't understand. For the third time, why would those words be said? I can't answer your question unless you explain that. You're the one who is refusing to answer.
What argument? You haven't made an argument.
Good point!
You're right, I didn't make an argument, I ASKED A QUESTION!!
As I have explained three times already, it's a question I can't answer because I don't have enough information.
And as I have told you, all the information you need is in the question, you are just afraid to answer it.
If you really wanted an answer you would provide the additional background and info being sought after here.
This is a lie, but let's play along shall we?
Please list what specific additional info you need.
You really are trying hard not to participate. All you have to do is scroll up to find it. I asked what the reason would be for saying those words. I said this here:
1.1.13
I repeated the need for that information here:
1.1.15
and here:
1.1.17
and here:
1.1.21
and here:
1.1.24
You have had two days and five opportunities to respond with a reason why government employees would say "Allahu Akbar" to the people they are serving. Unless I know the reason I cannot pass judgment on whether or not it is a good idea.
As I indicated, there are reasons for saying "welcome" "have a nice day" and "Merry Christmas." As a general matter, the assumption is that the vast majority of people being served will appreciate hearing these words to some degree so that they are worth saying.
Dealing with government bureaucracy is probably not something most people look forward to and having smiling faces on both sides of the exchange facilitates a smooth transaction. It's also an acknowledgement that it is the government that serves the people. Therefore, "welcome" and "have a nice day" may be spoken even if the federal employees doesn't believe in those things wholeheartedly and even though we have no way of knowing if the citizen hearing those words enjoys such platitudes.
As for "Merry Christmas," statistics reveal that 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas and it is a national holiday. The latter fact is a matter of federal statute with its constitutionality supported by the courts .
Those are two very sensible reasons for wishing people Merry Christmas even though there is a 10% chance that the giver or receiver of that wish does not celebrate the day. A 90% chance to brighten someone's day a little is worth the effort.
So - and for the sixth time in two days - give us a reason why federal employees would say the words "Allahu Akbar" to the people they serve.
( For future reference, if you type a reference to a comment by its hierarchic number such as @1.1.13 the system will translate that into the proper hyperlink for you. Note what happened in the example. No need for us to copy URL/bookmark info anymore. )
Because your boss wants you to. And meaningless based on my question.
Did you even read my question? At no time did I ask what your opinion would be, or are you trying to defect again with that lie?
Nothing to do with my question.
Nothing to do with my question.
Nothing to do with my question.
Nothing to do with my question.
Again, because your boss wants you to. Still meaningless for my hypothetical question.
As a reminder for you, since you obviously never read the question you are refusing to answer.
Then you'd okay if someone told you to say, "Allāhu akbar" to everyone?
From briefly scanning the above posts it was pretty easy to see what he meant. If you're okay with government workers being asked to say "Merry Christmas", a specific religious greeting that the employee may not celebrate or might not even believe the "Christ" in question exists, then you must be okay with asking the employee to say "God is great" as a traditional greeting as well. I think you'd have to be pretty obtuse to not see the connection and the very valid point Ozzwald was making.
I knew that, but I think it came out the same. At least when I look at the comment, all I see is the numbers and I can tell there is a link. All I did was click on it and copy the link. It was easier than typing the numbers and that way I knew I had it right.
You literally asked exactly that.
And if you aren't asking me what I think about it, then what are we talking about?
You sure love to call people liars, don't you? Meanwhile, you claim you never asked my opinion after asking me if I would be ok with something. And you repeated the question in your last comment.
You apparently aren't paying any attention to the question you asked. Or is it time to call you a liar?
It does because it has everything to do with my answer.
I don't know anyone who puts no limits on doing something the boss wants them to do. If that were the case, it wouldn't matter if I was "ok with it" which is what you asked. You asked if I was ok with it. We weren't talking about obeying the boss in all things.
Ok. Just wanted to ensure people knew this capability existed.
It's not specifically religious. You are misinformed or projecting your own bias onto the facts. The government considers it both a religious and secular holiday. If you scroll up, you can find links I have supplied to the statute making it a holiday and the court case upholding its constitutionality on these very grounds.
First, you likely wouldn't hear "God is great" in any language from a government official because it is entirely a religious phrase. There is no secular component like there is with Merry Christmas, Welcome, or Have a Nice Day.
Second, it's not even in English, which is the language most likely to be spoken both by government workers and the people they serve.
And anyway it's not a "traditional greeting" for two reasons.
First, Americans are not traditionally Muslim. The current estimate is that a little over 1% of Americans are Muslims, so there is a 99% chance that anyone you said Allahu Akbar to either wouldn't know what the hell you were saying or wouldn't be particularly moved by it. Therefore, there is no reason to say it.
Second, it's not even a traditional Muslim greeting.
It's an Arabic phrase that means "God is the greatest" and might be uttered by Arab Christians as well as Muslims. Although, if you are Muslim, you would probably prefer the translation, "Allah (specifically) is the greatest (or greater) to be clear that you are differentiating from other people's beliefs. But I digress.
Does "God is Great" or any similar variation even sound like a greeting? No, it's a declaration, often made in prayer, but also commonly used in regular conversation. It's not a greeting, though.
The most traditional Muslim greeting is "As-salamu alaykum," which means "Peace be upon you" or simply "Salam" which means "Peace." And for many Muslims, it would be inappropriate for them to share that greeting with non-Muslims.
At this point, I suggest you read my comment to DP in @1.1.35
That might answer your question (if you finally decide what it is)
Wow, you must be horrified of something to be sooo afraid to answer a simple yes/no question.
So I take the question back, I don't want you to loose anymore sleep over the fear that I will push you to answer a question you are apparently so terrified of answering.
It must be difficult to be stuck in a corner where no matter which direction you turn it shows how unsupportable your belief system is. So just relax, I won't ask you about it anymore, you don't need to keep the night light on any longer, you can put down the binky.
If as you claim, Christmas is a secular holiday then how many non-Christians celebrate the religious aspects of Christmas instead of just the social aspects? The government should no more be making Christmas a federal holiday than they would be making Hanukkah and Ramadan equal federal holidays due to the requirement that all religions are to be treated equally by the government.
Saying "Merry Christmas" is a religious greeting because it refers to the holiday of a single religion. If it wasn't religious then conservative Christians would not be outraged by the use of the secular and inclusive "Happy Holidays". How many times have you wished "Merry Christmas" to someone who you knew to be an observant Buddhist or Jew?
Whine all you want, but it won't change reality or the law.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the progressives got the political power to do so that they would remove Christmas from federal holidays and make it illegal to celebrate it anywhere outside of church and our own homes.
I wouldn't be surprised if most knuckle dragging thumpers believe that would happen.
Do you always need to feel persecuted for your beliefs? There are many religious holidays that are not also federal holidays and I dare you to name even one of them that is illegal to celebrate publically.
Instead of putting fluoride in the water we should be putting Haldol or Thorazine in the water in the Bible belt.
Why would they do that? Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity other than its name. Would you feel better if we changed the name of the holiday back to its original, Saturnalia?
The persecution lives strongly in that one.
Stores and all that are private property, so even if Christmas weren't a Federal holiday, nobody would prevent anyone from celebrating it anywhere that wasn't government property.
Modern Liberalism cannot continue in it's present form. As long as there are reasonable Americans it will fall, I don't care how many refugees and illegals are voting
What do you believe is the agenda of modern liberalism?
Do you think that judges should be able to use their position to advance a religious agenda, despite the First Amendment's separation of church and state?
How many refuges and non-citizens vote?
It's got to be true because Fox, the internet, and Limbaugh said it it is true.................. right?
More Truth than the statements you make and refuse to back up....
To eliminate any sense of objective moralism and replace it with relative moralism.
That about sums them up.
They like a four letter acronym we know think all conservative and Christian sources are not legitimate.
Red State is legitimate?
How wrong you are. the comment proves that some rely on pure fake information and presenting themselves are "real Americans" when I would say that is questionable
Another thing you can attempt to prove. Will you or won't you
Trying to use those sources like that show little faith in reality
And you think conservatives ever show any moralism So funny
Well step up to the plate and prove it wrong.
Never mind we know you can't but hey maybe someone will like your comment huh?
Maybe you can change the wording to republican and show us all how original you are?
Well don't just run your mouth, disprove it then.
Seems a lot of anti trumpers have a hard time with the truth and backing up their false information.
What do you think laws are? But I get what you are trying to say, anyway. You are trying to say you can't make someone believe a thing is moral or immoral through legislation.
In any case, whether or not one can legislate morality is not the issue. The issue is whether morality exists in the first place. Dems generally lean away from the idea that there is any objective morality that applies to us all, preferring, in general that what is moral for one person may not necessarily be moral for another. They, again generally, think morality is subjective even though they behave as if it is objective. The idea is logically unsupportable but they don't seem to mind that.
Of course conservatives can be immoral. That they weren't wasn't the point. The point is, however, that conservatives tend to believe there is an actual objective morality more than democrats do. As badly as some conservatives may follow that objective morality, subjective morality becomes something impossible. There is no actual morality if it is subjective.
No, but if we can just make them all Democrats, er, citizens with some juicy blanket amnesty, then we'll have the votes we need to take over the world.
All morality is relative to the society or the individual. The government cannot enforce religious-based morality without violating the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment because there are as many ideas of what is moral as there are of who is or isn't God. Not even all Protestant Christian religions agree on morality.
Why should the government enforce your view of morality and not Sharia law, Buddhist or Bahai morality when they are all equal in the eyes of the various belivers? Do you see the downside of this when all religions are mandated to be treated equally by the government?
Most of these central American immigrants are Christans/Catholics and Democrats are supposed to be godless atheists.
Are Donald Trump, Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell Jr examples of conservative morality?
Yeah, it's pretty sad, but then again, the Democratic Party has been running the same scam successfully for 50 years. They convince a population that only Democrats care about them and will save them. Then they find a way to make those people dependent on the party and convince them they'd survive without the party. Meanwhile, they never actually create conditions that allow those people to improve their lives on their own. It worked before and it will work again.
The other side offers freedom, but Democrats say "ignore that freedom nonsense and enjoy this freebie."
I think we can all agree that murder, theft, rape, and pedophilia is immoral. Those morals are legislated.
[deleted]
Your sweeping generalization aside, prove there is a "real" one!
Are you saying morality itself is relative or simply commenting on how societies generally treat morality? It's pretty easy to show that morality itself is not relative and no one actually treats it as if it is but societies and individuals do pretend as if it is relative anyway.
I present yourself as evidence that you do not think morality is relative. If you thought it was, you wouldn't be in here telling everyone else they are wrong. How could you do that if you believed morality is relative? How can you tell someone that there's nothing wrong with some girl deciding she's a boy if that is what she thinks is right but at the same time tell someone else they are immoral for believing it would be wrong to support her delusion if that is what he thinks is moral? You can only do that if you think morality is objective.
I can tell you why you insist morality is subjective anyway, even though you don't actually believe it. Because, by insisting that it's true you feel you remove your opposition's foundation for insisting morality is objective. You think that because people and society like to treat morality as subjective it is evidence that morality is in fact subjective when all it really means is that people and society like to treat morality as subjective, not that it actually is.
Here is the definition of subjective morality. The attempt to make one's own personal desires moral, whether they are or not.
Yes, most of us would agree that those things are immoral. And yes, those things are legislated. But what are you trying to point out? That these things are only immoral because they were legislated? I'm pretty sure that isn't what you mean.
If morality is relative, as epistte and others claim, could those things then become moral if a society decides they are? If not, why?
Those things are immoral because they cause harm to others.
I really don't understand your question
The morality isn't legislated, the fact that they are crimes is given by the nature of the act. (they cause harm to others) What is legislated is the punishment for said acts given the understood nature of the immorality making them crimes.
Where does morality come from?
Geeze, what a long winded complicated way of saying "if you don't have Religion, you don't have any morals" (I hate to think what morals if any they do have) and that other old, old classic " us poor abused religious types" and a oldie but rather chilling goodie, "they're stopping us from doing the will of god."
People with Religion, good for them, keep it in their homes and Churches and out of everybody's face and most certainly out of politics.
For I worship Gif, ancient Egyptian god of luck, and I don't want MY faith buried under a ton of pagan, infidel heathen junk.
Certainly, that is a religious position. But you should see why people would hold that, for all practical purposes, objective morality does not exist. The critical factor is that nobody can identify definitive objective morality. Where is it? Who/what is the source?
If we cannot locate the actual content —the directives— of objective morality it does not even matter if it exists or not. It is out of our reach.
well sure there is objective morality ! ( /s )
it's in that there bible that condones slavery as well as the God who's word it's supposed to be ! how could you miss that , Tig ?! 
VERY TRUE....
But then Morality is demonstrative, not quantative....
In many ways it is like hardcore pornography, you'll know it when you see it.
What happens though when people disagree?
Some people think it is a moral imperative to kill a family member who dishonored the family name. Others, thankfully, totally disagree. Who is correct?
And that of course is of great concern. The holy books are in conflict on morality. There is no way to resolve the contradiction. Some hold true to the Bible, others to the Qur'an, etc. Every way one turns one is hit with morality being subjective.
When we inspect the Bible (for example) we find quite a bit of content that illustrates a morality that I think (hope) most Christians do not embrace. But should they? Should they hold that owning another person as property is moral?
If there is an objective morality, it does not seem to be within our reach thus it might as well not exist.
why sure they should embrace it ! it's the totally infallible word of their god or as one poster put it - " a love letter to humans from god " ( or something similar ) - so they should embrace it as completely moral ! that's the only way to have objective morality since we know those " godless " democrats have only subjective morality and believe only in subjective morality unlike those " religious angelic " conservatives who believe in the objective morality of their slavery condoning god
And people wonder why so many consider atheists as amoral.
Why would pointing out that human beings do not have access to the (by definition) distinguished objective morality be considered amoral?
Do you consider me amoral for questioning the practical existence of objective morality? Do you actually think I lack moral integrity - that I am entirely unconcerned with right vs. wrong?
Thinks this through a bit more. I think you just knee-jerked a response. I find it hard to believe you actually mean what your words imply.
It is not the pointing it out. It is the view itself which is amoral. And I assure you, I meant exactly what you think I meant. Let's look at what you said:
While it is true that people of religion do believe morality, true morality, is objective, we don't believe it because we are religious. It is demonstrably true without reference to religion at all. Let's examine the example you gave.
When considering if morality is objective or not, who is right is not relevant. That two mutually exclusive ideas about the morality of a thing cannot both be correct, is what is relevant. Your example is not one that shows that morality is subjective but, rather, one that illustrates how poorly humans are equipped to determine what is moral. To continue:
Perhaps you meant to use a word other than "practical", because in reality, we treat objective morality as practical reality. It is the basis of our laws. But even more so, each of us operates upon practical objective morality. We object when someone cuts in line. Doesn't do their job. Drives recklessly in traffic and a million other things. Each and every one of us operates on the idea that rules apply to all of us. There isn't anyone out there who actually believes that morality is subjective.
That humans are so often poor at identifying what is moral, or are simply trying to justify a desire doesn't translate into morality being subjective. It just means people try to make it that way when it suits them.
But, here's the worst thing about your point of view. If morality really is subjective, then there's really no such thing as morality. Morality simply becomes some accepted thing an individual has and is not connected to either good or evil. If a society says slavery is perfectly okay, then it must be. In fact, whether or not it's okay isn't even relevant. It's just what they do. And since morality is relative, no other group has any basis for objecting. They don't have any objective morality upon which to object. And even if they overpower the slavery group, you can't claim they have done the right thing in doing so because all they've done is impose their subjective "morality" on another group. The instant you try to claim they did the right thing, you aren't referring to a subjective morality anymore, but rather, an objective one. It cannot be any other way. They can't say they did what was right. They can only say, this is the way we want things to be. That is all subjective morality can be.
But nobody thinks that way. We instinctively know there is a right and a wrong. We are obsessed with the idea.
That is why what you said is amoral. It has nothing to do with what is right and what is wrong. Those things are the domain of objective morality. Subjective morality is the domain of, this is how I want things to be.
Which is very close to my actual point - that human beings cannot determine objective morality that it would have to declared. So where is the definitive declaration of objective morality?
Whose laws? Laws differ by geography, culture and authority. How can THE objective morality be the basis for contradictory laws? How can honor killing realize objective morality in one culture and not in another?
If morality is at best subjective that simply means it is not objective. Tough luck for us. The lack of objective morality is not the same as no morality at all.
And, indeed, that is what happened: 'subjective morality differs by geography, culture and authority'. Subjective morality is clearly inferior to objective reality. But until you can deliver the definitive objective morality the best we will ever have is subjective morality. Warts and all.
Recognizing that morality, in the absence of objective morality, is all we have is not the same as stating that my personal morality is right. I never made any comment along those lines.
Agreed. Again, subjective morality is clearly inferior to objective morality. That never was the question. The question is where we go to find the superior objective morality. So far, the only morality anyone has found is subjective morality. Still waiting for you to address the challenge I raised with my first comment:
You spent your entire post arguing the obvious inferiority of subjective morality instead of addressing the challenge.
Show me objective morality. If it exists you should be able to deliver it. So let's see it. Someone asks you where they can find moral guidance - to know the objective right vs. wrong. What answer do you give them?
It doesn't seem so to me. Saying that morality is relative is not the same thing as saying humans cannot determine (your word, not mine, as I believe we can recognize objective morality) objective morality are very different concepts.
Again, you are conflating objective morality with human ability to recognize it. The point is that laws, that is, the idea behind the idea of laws is that morality is objective. It is something that applies to everyone in the same way. Hence the saying "The law is no respecter of persons." We are not discussing whether any particular law is right or wrong. We are discussing whether morality is objective or not. What I am attempting to point out to you is regardless of how well we can recognize what is objectively moral, we certainly behave as if it is.
It means exactly that. If morality is subjective, then there really is no morality at all. All you have is what you want things to be. If we really believed that morality is subjective, then why do we fight so much against the idea of honor killing in the West? It seems we believe that there is an objective morality that applies to all and it is the reason we object so strongly to those who violate it. Of course, that doesn't prove what is moral, but it certainly proves that we believe that there are things as absolute morals. That is, objective morals.
Well, this much I can agree with.
Didn't say you did. Don't know why you said this in response to the quote.
You've been waiting because the answer hasn't been relevant to the discussion so far. I was responding to your claim that morality is relative and my purpose was to show that this is incorrect, not whence morality comes from. That is, for morality to be morality, it must be objective and that simply because we humans are so poor in recognizing what is actually moral doesn't negate that. Now that you seem to understand what I am saying, and appear to agree to some degree I will answer your challenge.
Morality comes from God.
To explain I will paraphrase something you said in another place. You said that this reality, this universe, is exactly what you'd expect it would be if there were no God. I found this remarkable because I have often thought something similar. This reality, this universe, is exactly what I would expect if there is a God (specifically, the God described in the Bible). Morality is the strongest example of what I am talking about.
For morality to be objective it must come from outside humanity. Just as we do not establish gravity is, so we cannot establish morality. We're already trying to do that and you can see the resultant catastrophe that is the world. Every reasonably sane person knows to their core that there is a right and a wrong. Every reasonable sane person wants to do what is right all of the time. They like the idea of doing what's right. They even like the nobility of doing right even when it hurts. But we so often fail, miserably.
This situation is described perfectly in the Bible and the reason for it. Sin. Rather than look at the author of our lives, we prefer to look to our corrupted desires and it prevents us from behaving morally. How many times have you known what was the right thing to do but said, screw it, I just don't feel like it right now, or I'm too tired or some other excuse? I know I shouldn't but I really want to. Things like that?
Here's the nuts and bolts of it. The short story. God created man. Perfectly and without sin but also with moral free will. We chose wrongly and we are now spiritually blind. It explains why we have such a hard time, morally. We aren't meant to operate on our own. We are meant to operate under God.
If we cannot determine (realize, ...) objective morality then all we have is subjective morality. The focus is on finding objective morality.
I am not. But I do not want to argue over pointless semantic subtleties anymore. It gets old quickly.
Uh huh.
Yes, if there is a God, that would clearly be the only source for objective morality.
No need. We agree on that. So where did God communicate objective morality? We have a bunch of people on the planet thinking they have true morality so it is best to set them straight.
Yes. Absolutely. Totally agree. My position exactly. Communicated directly to you years ago.
I disagree. I agree that most every such person believes there is a right and a wrong. But, crucially, what one understands as right is not shared by another. That is the crux of the problem.
Show me where a human being is to go to secure objective moral guidance. If it is not known it might as well not exist. (My point.)
What if you don't believe in God?
Bull. A god that condoned rape and slavery is hardly moral. Nobody who's read the bible could consider that god to be moral.
The real morality comes from doing the right thing even knowing that it's not going to gain you any reward, and that you won't be punished for doing the wrong thing.
Evil is a religious construct which doesn't actually exist. Some people have "bad brain wiring" - it has nothing to do with some evil boogeyman punishing them for something 2 people did thousands of years ago. Morality is subjective. For example, I don't think anything sexual between consenting adults is immoral, but many people disagree. I think theft is immoral - but what if someone whose children are starving steals a loaf of bread? Not everything is black and white.
Although if the Christian god did exist as described in the bible - that would truly be the epitome of evil and crimes against humanity.
So morality comes from god? First, that's nice. Prove it! Second, prove there's a god, as that seems necessary to validate your assertion. Third, I guess slavery is moral then, as God doesn't condemn it, right?
That's probably due to ignorance more than anything.
Morality is a social construct.
I of course suspect the Bible would be deemed the source of objective morality. But Drakk has not stated this in spite of my questions so I am leaving the door open.
If the answer is 'the Bible' then clearly there is no objective morality since the Bible has no single interpretation - not by a long shot. But even if there was agreement on what the Bible says, your point is spot on. The biblical handling of slavery shows that either the Bible is not the source of objective morality or that God considers slavery moral.
Agreed. If there is no god that is the only possible answer. Without an arbiter of objective morality all we have is subjective morality.
The fact that different societies and cultures all have different views or standards about "morality" or about what is or is not considered only reinforces the idea that morality is subjective. If morality were objective, then everyone everywhere would agree and adhere to similar or the same moral concepts.
That is one of my points too.
However, it is possible that objective morality exists but that we do not know what it is - we disagree on what it is. And if that is true, objective morality might as well not exist.
For all practical purposes, objective morality does not exist.
That's logical. It also stands to reason that if God is the objective arbiter of morality, then by default, anyone who doesn't believe or follow that God (the non-Abrahamistic religions and atheists) is therefore not moral. But that too is also not the case, which only reinforces subjective morality.
That does bring you back to the debate of whether there is a sentient creator, since the only way I can think of that would indicate an objective morality (defining good and bad for humanity) would be an outside unbiased source with the authority to make those decisions for us. The entire premise of the bible hinges on this debate, the choice as to whether man, who supposedly ate a fruit that allowed him to decide for himself between good and bad, get's to subjectively define morality or if some God has some objective morality for mankind. Though, even then it becomes "subjective morality" since the supposed God can arbitrarily decide anything moral or not. If the creator of the universe decided that it was moral to kill all humans including women and children, well then it would be subjective morality (see flood), the subject being the God making those choices. If there is true "objective morality" then even that God must obey the objective laws and wouldn't be allowed to claim murdering kindergartners in their sleep was moral. And if God has to obey, then it's not really God is it...
I fully agree. Objective morality necessarily means that the single arbiter of objective morality exists.
To your point, the subjective morality of the grandest possible entity is designated as objective morality (it is objective morality relative to us).
I agree with you
Since you mention the Bible, I'm going to assume you are referring to the God it describes. Therefore, what you have said here is incorrect. If morality is objective, not even God can change it. Further, if you are going to reference the Bible, then it describes a God that cannot change. This is because any change would take God away from perfection rather than toward it.
Again, incorrect, on a number of levels. God doesn't have to "decide" if something is moral. Objective morality has already determined what is moral. Since God is the ultimate moral being, it isn't as if He has to figure it out. It is part of His nature. And, as I mentioned earlier, since God is perfect, God would not "subjectively" decide what moral action to take. Whether or not to kill all humans (see flood) isn't the moral question. Why would God take such action is.
The relevant word in what you've said here is "murder". If God kills a kindergartener in it's sleep, you would first have to establish that such an action constituted murder. Can you do that? I don't think you can. In order to do so, you'd have to know a) what is objectively moral and b) all that God knows. Further, since God is recognized, even notionally, as the giver of life, why would He not therefore be the taker? If one only has life because God gave it to them, to what can you point that says He has no right to take it away?
That god is a man-made concept unless you have objective proof that god actually exists. The fact that god is a creation of man means that god would support the ideas and beliefs of the culture that created it.
Well actually, first you'd have to establish that God exists. Can you do that?
I can only assume that you don't understand the topic and this is the best you can come up with.
Why don't you explain what I am missing, if that is what you claim.
I started a thread this evening about a group of Christian conservatives who oppose the legislative language that makes lynching LGBT people federal hate crime because they believe that doing so is in opposition to their religious beliefs. Is that an example of your god's morality?
Think about what you've just said. Seriously. Employing critical thinking, do you think that little ol'e Drakkonis is the linchpin concerning whether God exists or not? The fate of mankind depends on whether I can 'prove' God? Is that what you are suggesting? I mean, really, when you guys run out of ideas you drag this stupid thing out. Do you really consider that a legitimate demand? I'm being serious. When you think of whether or not God exists, do you really rely on whether or not I, or anyone else, can "prove" God exists? Really?
What? Do you imagine that, should God exist and you stand before Him, you will be able to say, well, Drakkonis failed to prove You exist so therefore I'm off the hook? Can't you see how stupid your demand is? I have no obligation whatsoever to prove to you that God exists. Whether or not you believe in Him is your responsibility, not mine.
But as far as establishing that God exists, that depends. Do you believe that there is an objective morality? Then God exists. Period. Because if He doesn't exist, "morality" is truly subjective and therefore nonexistent. Morality is simply whatever the strongest group says it is and nothing more.
Morality is not objective but instead is a group survival mechanism.
And with eptistte's contribution we have the answer. Morality is subjective because she says it is. So, there you go, Dismayed Patriot. You can rely on epistte. Please feel free to rest your eternity on epistte's declaration.
How can there possibly be an objective religious morality when there is no evidence that god exists? Before god can create a system of morality he must first exist. Your belief in god or the Bible are not proof of god. The Bible was written by man your your belief in god is not founded in empirical evidence.
Epistte, for the sake of your eternity, consider what you've said. According to you, for there to be an objective morality it must first be proven that God exists. Can you not see what is wrong with that view? Really?
Why do you post here? If morality is truly relative as you claim, upon what basis do you oppose those who don't see things as you do? It can't be based on morality, because if it were, you'd be arguing that morality is objective. If morality is relative, as you claim, upon what authority do you espouse what you do? How can you say that morality is relative and in the next sentence tell me that I am wrong?
Your very presence here proves that you do not believe morality is subjective. If you really believed that, you wouldn't post anything that opposed anyone else's viewpoint. That is what relative morality means. Each person determines what is moral. But you obviously don't believe that.
But it describes a God who DOES change. The God of the New Testament is very different from the God of the Old Testament.
"If one only has life because God gave it to them, to what can you point that says He has no right to take it away? "
Ah, so if I have kids, it's not murder if I kill them, since the only reason they have life is because I gave it to them. Got it. The problem is that things that we'd put people in jail for, you excuse when your god supposedly does those same things.
That's not actually true. What you describe is anarchy. Relative morality isn't necessarily relative to each individual but can be relative to a group as a whole, such as humanity. If you believe morality is relative to humans, and decide collectively, as humans, to consider "bad" things to be those that hurt/harm humans and "good" things as those that help humans, you'd basically have the general morality across nations and religions that we see today. That indicates that epistte is correct and human morality has evolved, it wasn't just proclaimed by some invisible spirit in the sky.
"for the sake of your eternity"
What eternity? There is zero evidence of any supposed "immortal soul". Nothing we know of in the universe lasts forever, not planets or stars, nothing is truly static. Why would it make any sense that anyone has an undying spirit being somehow connected to their mass of brain cells? And why would a supposed loving creator make an undying soul that he tests for a relatively short time on a physical planet just so it can decide to either torment it (aka hell) for eternity or rub it against its butt (aka heaven) for eternity? It simply makes no sense, unless of course you view it from its very human origins. Humans, who fear death, one of our evolved traits to survive and spread our species, chooses not to believe they'll ever die. This is a comforting thought to a species just evolving self awareness, and was likely a core principal of all early religions, as most religions today employ some version of the belief. But the fact remains, there is zero evidence anything lives on after death, so altering any behavior or belief "for the sake" of something that's never been proved seems pretty ridiculous. And if you're thinking "But what of Pascals wager?", well that bit of illogic has so many holes you couldn't even call it Swiss cheese, it would be more akin to Swiss air.
"If you really believed that, you wouldn't post anything that opposed anyone else's viewpoint."
That statement makes virtually no sense. Believing morality is relative does not mean in any way that you don't believe individuals can have their own opinions and express them. That is why morality is relative, everyone has their own opinions as to what things hurt/harm humans and what helps humans. This is the debate humans have been having among themselves since before recorded history, which has most often been framed as pitting one religion against another, the many supposed holy wars we have experienced for thousands of years. One faith claiming to be the messenger of God and thus the voice of morality disagreeing with and fighting against another group of humans who claim they are the messengers of God and are the true voices of morality. Strangely enough they all use their religions to justify the most heinous acts against their fellow man in their attempt to gain dominance and prove their sides imagined God is the true God and thus the true arbiter of morality, as interpreted by it's adherents of course.
Drakk, the threats of hell don't work on atheists. We don't believe heaven or hell exist, and if heaven did exist - the last being I'd want to spend it with is your god, whom the bible depicts as being extremely evil.
I think you missed her point.
If there is no god there can be no objective morality. Do you agree or disagree?
Presuming you agree, if the existence of a god has not been established why even discuss objective morality?
And then I will add my still-on-the-table question:
If objective morality exists then that would mean all of humanity has a moral code to follow. Where do we all go to acquire this moral code? If objective morality exists then there must be some way for all human beings to secure this objective moral guidance. If not, it really does not matter if objective morality exists or not.
Where does one go to acquire the specifics of objective morality - the definitive host for codes such as: 'owning another human being as property is immoral' ?
1.) Yes, I do believe what I have said with every cell in my very tired body.
2.) There is no eternity. When we die it is lights out and game over. We quickly revert to worm chow and flower fertilizer. I like it that way.
I base them on logic and my previous study of philosophy, which are very likely my best friends.
My question to you is, why do you believe in what you cannot prove? The rational stance is to not believe in god because the only evidence of your god/s or any other god are old unsupported myths that were written and plagiarized from previous cultures. We don't believe their claims on what the universe is made of or how it is organized, so why do you continue to believe in their gods?
They just don't get it because they are terrified of the possibility of Hell. They incorrectly assume that everyone believes the very same way that they do.
The way I see it, I am no more threatened by their talk of being sent to Hell then I am of a 6-year-old who tells me that Santa won't bring me anything for Christmas.
Hello, katrix. Been a while.
In what way do you believe God has changed in the NT?
You don't give your children life. Not in the sense that God does. Imagining that you do would be like my saying I, by my will, give this computer life. All I have done is hit the ON button. The computer operates because someone else with the knowledge created it, designed and built it. It is the same with you and having children. You may decide to have them, but you do not actually make them. Your body does that without any conscience input from you. You could be in a coma and your body would still produce children.
Further, even if you don't believe in God it is ridiculous to equate God with a human. To do so would mean that God has no more understanding than a human has, which isn't logical. Even if all we are doing is hypothesizing a God, it doesn't make logical sense that an entity such as God could create the universe and all that exists in it, yet somehow the same God's creation can tell it what it can and cannot do morally? If God takes the life of a child He created, what qualifies you to decide whether it is right or wrong? You don't know anything more than God took the child's life. You have no idea as to why. So what qualifies you to say it would be wrong?
Agree.
Is this an example of the critical thinking you champion so much and claim religious people lack? The answer to your question is glaringly obvious in the premise.
Pure evasion (and with snark even). Nothing like honest, adult debate. So much for a 'good' discussion.
Apparently, given the snark, you think you can establish the existence of objective morality in and of itself - without first establishing the existence of God. Good luck. It would be interesting if you actually tried to do that, but I am confident you will not even try. Hard to imagine you making any progress with that approach given you cannot even answer this repeatedly asked question:
Where does one go to acquire the specifics of objective morality - the definitive host for codes such as: 'owning another human being as property is immoral' ?
Being evasive is probably the only course of action. Wish, instead, you would just be honest and admit that you (that nobody) could pull this off.
You have to prove that your god actually exists before you can make the following religious argument. The fact that you believe that god exists is no more proof than my cat might possibly believe that I am magic because I can use a can opener and open doors.
God, or anything else, does not exist because you believe that it does, despite what you appear to desire. I have explained the concept of burden of proof to you and yet you consistently jump over that unfulfilled logical burden in your arguments.
ah, it's so interesting to see that the religious will condone murder, slavery and any other "sin" or "illegal act" as long as their God is the perpetrator of such act - they will never question if it's moral or not if their God is the perpetrator and i'm sure in their eyes it's completely moral if God is the perpetrator.
[deleted/][proselytizing]
I find it funny that you are on here promoting morality one moment and supporting trump and his ways the next. Thanks for the laugh
Have a nice evening, sleep well.
LOL
I know perfectly well that you know that if A=B then B=A. Yet you come at me with that weak sauce and accuse me of not having an honest, adult debate. You want to have an adult conversation then be an adult. You want to be a critical thinker? Then think critically. There is no logical requirement to prove God before proving morality is objective. One only has to prove that morality is objective. And they don't have to prove it to anyone other than themselves. Proof? Easy. If morality is objective, does it become subjective if someone other than yourself is not convinced? Answer, no. Objective morality doesn't depend on whether or not someone believes it is because if it did, then it would be merely subjective.
There is not wiggle room here, TiG. History can only condemn the Holocaust because we believe morality must be objective. The Nuremberg trials only have meaning if they are based on objective morals. We were only able to condemn those men because, rightly, it was taken as given that there are inviolate moral standards that are believed to apply to everyone. Without that there would be no basis for trying those men for their crimes.
Every single person who claims morality is relative contradicts themselves the moment they argue against someone else's morality. In that moment they are arguing that morality is objective. This is inescapable. It is undeniable. Subjective morality (an oxymoron) is nothing more than personal preference and is based on nothing else. It cannot be otherwise and still remain subjective. The moment you appeal to something outside your preference you are arguing for objective morality. You are appealing to some authority for morality. It's that simple.
This has been answered repeatedly. You already know what my answer is. Again, if you want to do this the adult way, don't pretend that you don't already know what my answer to this is. We've discussed it ad nauseum in the past. I have no intention of wasting my time discussing a subject you have no understanding of.
(For this debate I will use 'God' simply as a reference to the source of objective morality - this is not to be confused with a reference to the biblical God.)
We do not know that it is impossible to do so nor do we know it is possible. You are on a razors edge here. The challenge lies in the interdependency of these two concepts. You have to produce a logical argument which proves objective morality exists without proving the existence of God as part of the argument (or including it as a premise). The only way to credibly claim that this is possible is to deliver the argument.
And I give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, there must be something justifying the arrogant / nasty tone of your comment. So let's look at your argument.
We can subjectively condemn the Holocaust. But without objective morality we cannot objectively condemn the Holocaust. You must prove that we can objectively condemn the Holocaust. You cannot simply claim that we do.
Because?
Where have you established that we objectively condemned these men? Who says that the condemnation was not the aggregate subjective morality of the allies and other interested nations? Again, you cannot simply claim objective condemnation, you must prove it.
(Given what you have offered thus far, this should be interesting.)
They are?
Is it? (This lead up suggests a real let down punch line.)
Yes, subjective morality is nothing more than the collective views of a group (or an individual). A culture can have a subjective morality. So can a nation. So can a local church group. The fact that subjective morality is subjective does not mean it does not exist or that it is not in widespread application.
You have not presented an argument that morality is only objective. Not even remotely close ... a glaring non sequitur.
Yes, subjective morality is indeed subjective. We agree on that.
So when an individual Muslim appeals to the Qur'an for moral guidance, the Muslim is appealing to objective morality?
( This is a critical question for you to answer because it seeks to tease out semantics that might be missing from your post. )
Why should I bother when all you do is move the goal posts? You've already stated that objective morality cannot exist without God. If that is true, proving one proves the other. And I have already provided a logical argument.
My tone is justified by your hypocrisy. You claim critical thinking on your part but do not employ it. So, yes, let's look at my argument. Then let's look at how you do not offer cogent rebuttal. All you do is say things like:
For this to be true, then you must believe that, had Germany won the war, they would have been justified in executing or imprisoning those who did not kill Jews. Doing so would have been a moral action on the part of Germany. And if you can believe that, then you can justify enslaving people based on the color of their skin. And if you can believe that, then morality isn't really a thing except a façade created to give some sort of legitimacy to a policy or action. Morality as an actual thing would not exist. It would simply be whatever those with the most power decided it to be.
So tell me, Tig. Do you honestly entertain the idea that perhaps that is all morality is? That morality is whatever the most powerful individual or group says it its? I don't need you to actually answer that. I already know your answer. Since I have no reason to believe you are a sociopath I know you believe there is an objective morality.
Next.
Because? Are you serious? I think you only ask this because you already know what I said was true but you don't want to accept it. If you do, you have to accept my whole argument as true and where would that leave you?
But to go along with this charade, the Nuremburg trials only have meaning if they were based on objective morality. Because if they weren't it would mean that those men weren't condemned for doing something morally wrong but for disagreeing with their accusers. Morality would have no part in it.
Okay. Then suggest an alternative reason for the trials. If the prosecution was not based on objective morality then upon what were these men condemned? If you say upon the subjective morality of the men prosecuting the cases you have destroyed the meaning of morality. For morality to be an actual thing it can't depend on the opinion of the group or individual. If it could, there would be no reason against claiming that the color yellow is immoral.
To look at it another way, suppose Germany had won the war. Would their actions then be moral? That you would be doing what is right and good if you turned in a Jew or killed one?
Um, what? Am I supposed to consider this a response to what you quoted? If so, it lacks anything I can respond to.
The same, again. What is to respond to here???
And again...
Yes and no. It is inarguable that a group or individual can claim a subjective morality. For instance, Westborough Baptist Church can claim that their behavior is moral. The point, however, is that no one could oppose them if morality were relative. It is logically impossible to say that morality is subjective and, at the same time, claim that group X is behaving immorally. If you believe that is untrue, then please explain.
First, a glaring non-sequitur would be if I suddenly started talking about the feeding habits of rabbits. Since I haven't done anything like that, your accusation falls flat.
Second, I certainly have presented an argument that morality is objective. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Explain where I have not rather than simply make the accusation.
(sigh) The question is whether or not morality can be subjective or not and be considered morality, not how an individual views it. You may as well ask whether or not Earth is flat rather than a sphere because of how an individual views it.
No, it's really not. It's just you trying to inject irrelevancies into the discussion. Try this instead. Is murder wrong because it is subjectively wrong or is it simply wrong because it's murder? Subjective morality means that murdering someone can be considered moral if that's how an individual or group decides to view it. Hence, the Nazis. only someone who is insane would consider that to be true.
Consider. The Declaration of Independence declares that individuals are imbued with inalienable rights. For that to be true it has to be true whether or not anyone recognizes it. To be otherwise is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=4 is only true because of consensus.
That's nice. Prove it! Especially considering god is one of the most immoral ogre's ever imagined if one goes by the bible.
No one denies that morality exists. But there is no one "source" to morality. It is a social construct.
In other words, stroke god's cosmic ego.
The Golden Rule predates even the bible.
Morality is good. Trump was a moral alternative to the wicked witch Hillary Clinton. Whatever Trump did in his past, he’s doing a very good job as our President.
As does God who stated it. He’s always existed.
Depends on the "morality."
So you trade one immoral individual for another. That's not necessarily a "moral" improvement.
Keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
Still waiting for you to prove that.
If a god did exist, I would expect it to be better than humans - above the petty jealousy, revenge, narcissism, and other nasty attributes the bible attributes to your god. Instead, it seems far worse than most humans.
"If God takes the life of a child He created, what qualifies you to decide whether it is right or wrong? "
Because I have better morals than God. God supposedly murdered countless newborns because it was in a fit of rage at a pharaoh. Sounds a lot like Trump's temper tantrums and caused for the same reason - a psychopathic ego.
"You don't give your children life. Not in the sense that God does."
I DO give my children life. They're my eggs. No god has anything to do with it, and children are not born inherently evil just because some atrocious god is pissed off at having its ego bruised by something 2 people did millennia ago.
Could it be that god takes on the traits and characteristics of the humans that wrote the bible?
It's rather odd that some people want to give god a free pass for that (among the other atrocities he's committed). Yet, we're somehow incapable of deciding whether that is right or wrong? Seriously?
Indeed. If god had anything to do with it, then why do we need mating partners to have children? If god "gives children life" or "gifts" us with children, then we should all be able to reproduce asexually, as sexual procreation is irrelevant. The pretzel logic some people employ to explain/justify their god can be mind-boggling.
clinton = narcissist
trump = megalomaniac
look up which is more dangerous to a society. I did before I voted.
Proving objective morality proves God (the opposite, by the way, is not true). I have not changed my position. All I did was explain upfront the burden you face to prove objective morality without proving God exists (because you insisted this was possible):
I invited you to do so. What you have not done, as of yet, is prove that objective morality exists. Failure to prove your point is not 'moving the goal posts'.
Good grief Drakk, curb the venom a bit.
Hardly. Had Germany won the war their subjective morality would have prevailed - they would have found their actions moral. The allies, applying their subjective morality, would disagree but would be powerless to act.
Your logic is based on the condemnation of war criminals. What I did was expose your dual use of the word 'condemnation'. You (oddly) presume condemnation is necessarily the application of objective morality. I noted that condemnation also applies to subjective morality. To wit, we can condemn the criminals based on subjective morality. The act of condemnation does not necessarily mean objective morality was used. To make this clear I qualified condemnation with subjective condemnation vs. objective condemnation.
In short, you simply claim that condemnation is employing objective morality. A claim, no logic and certainly no proof. And here I am again just basically explaining what was already detailed in clear language.
Per their subjective morality, not per the subjective morality of others. Just like honor killings of certain Islamic sects is subjectively moral to them but not to others.
I do not preclude that as you do Drakk. The evidence suggests that morality is a function of group - that across the world different groups have different views of morality. You realize that, right? So while it is nice to think that there is an ultimate objective morality, it is logically incorrect to flat out ignore what is staring you in the face.
Very odd reasoning. The Nuremburg trials were at least based on our subjective morality and they have meaning relative to that. Had the Nazis won, their war atrocities would have been deemed moral by Nazi subjective morality and they might have tried and executed Dwight Eisenhower. To them it would have been moral but Ike would have been condemned for disagreeing with his accusers. You realize that in that case this would not be objective morality in action, right? So why in the reverse case do you insist that objective morality was applied?
The problem, I suspect, is that for some reason you refuse to acknowledge that different groups have different moral codes and act accordingly (subjective morality). That does not mean that they are right - only that they think they are right. This ugly aspect of reality does not mean that there must be an objective morality. That is a non sequitur.
Subjective morality.
I have simply noted that what is moral to one group is not necessarily moral to another. You cannot simply declare that the word 'morality' exclusively means 'objective morality'. All you are doing is claiming that subjective morality is not morality. A declaration is not an argument.
What you need to do is deliver the objective morality of which you speak. Claiming that morality can only be objective is insufficient - you need to demonstrate this. You have chosen the Nazis as your example because most everyone realizes that their acts were immoral. So we will all agree. But you have failed to show that our agreement is not simply a result of a common subjective morality. For example, explain why Islamic honor killings are objectively immoral? You must do more than simply claim they are or play games like insulting me simply because I raised this challenge. What, specifically, gives you the means to deem honor killings to be objectively immoral.
That is true for objective morality. Again, you are ignoring the very existence of subjective morality (aka relative morality). Your argument is nothing more than:
morality = objective morality
That is not an argument.
Already addressed this. Had the Nazis prevailed their subjective morality would be applied. The losers, who apply a contrary subjective morality, would disagree but would be powerless to act. The losers (us) would still consider the Nazi acts to be immoral even though we could not try them.
Already explained. You and I can claim the Westborough Baptist Church to be immoral based on the subjective morality we share. The WBC members would claim their acts moral based on their subjective morality. The condemnation is relative and both claims are valid relative to a particular subjective morality. This is what I made clear in my response to your argument. You ignore subjective condemnation and presume all condemnation is necessarily objective condemnation.
You and I believe we are right. The WBC members believe they are right. The only way to know who is right is to have an objective moral code that we can consult. Do you happen to know where we can go to look this up?
A mere claim is not an argument.
And that is your 'proof'. You claim that subjective morality cannot be morality. That is simply an assertion. So by mere assertion you strike out all subjective morality. You then use that assertion to claim that in the absence of any subjective morality, the only morality left is objective morality.
That, Drakk, is not proof. It is not even an argument. It is merely a claim. Odd that you cannot see this.
It is indeed considered moral by some and not by others. That is the very essence of subjective morality. Islamic sects engaging in honor killings consider them to be entirely moral whereas most others on the planet consider killing your daughter for dating a non-Muslim an act of immorality. You cannot just change reality to suit your needs. In summary ....
Drakk's Proof that Objective Morality Exists
∴ Objective morality exists.
That said, I return to my original request.
If objective morality exists then where do we go to learn the objective moral code?
Where do we go to find objective morality so that we can be clear on what we deem moral vs. immoral?
Might as well finish the larger argument while I am at it
Drakk's Proof that Objective Morality Exists
∴ Objective morality exists.
Drakk's Proof of God
∴ God exists.
Based solely on premise 1 of the first argument (subjective morality does not exist) one can produce an argument for the existence of God
That is why 'because I say so' is not sufficient to consider an argument sound.
That seems to be the only argument at its core some theists can come up with.
It is common. The most common seems to be 'because I believe it to be so'.
Here I think Drakk sincerely does not recognize subjective morality as a form of morality. In other words, it seems to me that Drakk considers subjective morality to be a misnomer. And I certainly can appreciate that. After all, human beings make mistakes all the time. Subjective morality clearly is error prone. So it is demonstrably at the very best a poor quality form of morality.
But one cannot simply claim that an errant form of morality (that which is evidenced by the way) is not really morality and thus a pure form of morality necessarily exists. That is a non sequitur.
Subjective (aka relative) morality might just be the best we have.
I tend to agree with you.
1. Subjective morality doesn't exist because it is impossible for diametrically opposed propositions concerning a moral position to both be true at the same time. That people and societies treat morality as subjective is only proof that people and societies treat morality as subjective. It is not evidence that morality is subjective.
2 Morality exists. For this to be true, morality has to be an actual thing in the same manner gravity is actually a thing. Gravity affects everyone the same way no matter their beliefs or location. In the same way, it cannot be that killing one's daughter for a perceived dishonor is moral in one location and not another.
3. Since morality cannot be subjective and still be morality, morality is necessarily objective.
Subjective morality is, by definition, not universal. So I fully agree that the conflict occurs and the various subjective (relative) moralities are definitely not true at the same time. They are of human origin and are thus errant. Where did you get this rule that declares the conflict of subjective morality means that subjective morality does not exist? Could I, for example, make up a rule too? Could I offer a rule such as disagreement among religious views means that no religious view can be known to be truth?
Morality itself does exist, I agree. But, again, you invoke your rule that morality is necessarily the same for everyone . I disagree. You are simply declaring subjective morality cannot exist and that the only thing that can be considered true morality is objective morality.
That is not a proof nor is it even an argument. It is merely a claim based on imposing your own very specific meaning on the word 'morality'. As I have noted and as I have detailed in my prior posts.
Simply stated, you merely assert : ' morality ' is a perfect synonym for ' objective morality ' — that no form of morality exists other than objective morality.
That is complete crap, TiG. Totally dishonest. I presented a reason for my position. I didn't just assert it.
That is called reasoning, TiG.
Complete crap again and for the same reason. I didn't just declare it, I explained the reasoning behind the position.
I am using a specific meaning for morality because morality has a specific meaning.
Two propositions:
For morality to have any meaning, only one of these propositions can be correct. Subjective morality would mean that both these propositions can be considered moral. If we treat both propositions as subjectively true then we've just destroyed the meaning of "morality" because they cannot both be right.
So can you please explain to me how this is neither proof or an argument?
Maybe you do not realize it, but your reasoning was nothing more than an assertion. You declared that subjective morality is not morality because two groups could have conflicting subjective morality.
Yes, two groups routinely have conflicting subjective morality. But your rule which ipso facto excludes subjective morality as a form of morality is simply an assertion. Another way of stating your assertion is this: the only form of morality is objective morality.
You can call that 'reasoning' but it still is nothing more than an assertion.
It is mere declaration Drakk. I will break it down for you:
I fully agree that it is impossible for conflicting things to both be true. Why does this matter? Where do you find a requirement that any group's subjective morality be true? We are talking about subjective (relative) morality - that means the truth of the morality is determined by the group. And that is also the crucial difference between subjective and objective morality:
Declaring a rule is not 'reasoning'. To put forth reasoning you have to explain your declaration. But you do not. You leave it here. So basically all you are saying is: subjective morality does not exist because it is not objective morality
Mere declaration.
Your explanation was nothing more than a declaration. Not sure why you do not see this. When you state that morality must be the same for everyone you are simply declaring that the only morality that is allowed (by you) is objective morality. You are simply declaring that subjective morality is not objective morality. And you insist that is 'reasoning'. It is not.
Yes. But you impose a more restrictive meaning on the word 'morality'. That is the point I made. You simply declare that morality = objective morality. Period. You declare that subjective morality is not morality.
Absolutely! Please read:
Note the blue above.
A given group must choose 1 or 2 as its subjective (relative) moral position. A different group could choose the other option. Indeed this happens all the time. Both will be correct per their respective groups. This is, after all, what 'subjective (relative)' means.
Objective morality will also choose either 1 or 2. The difference, however, is that objective morality (if it exists) is the position of the grandest possible entity (God). God wins. Whatever God chooses will preempt all subjective morality. In other words, God is objectively correct by definition. Assuming the arbiter of objective morality deems 2 to be the correct moral position, all groups whose subjective morality holds 1 as moral will be subjectively right but objectively wrong.
Note: God might deem slavery to be moral. If so, slavery would be objectively moral and quite a few worldwide groups in 2019 who have a subjective (relative) moral position that slavery is immoral will be ipso facto objectively wrong.
By each group individually. Subjectively ... by the group. Both propositions cannot be objectively moral.
It is your rule that the subjective morality of multiple groups must all be right - objectively. You require that subjective morality be objective morality. As I noted, your reasoning is nothing more than: morality = objective morality. You declare subjective morality out of the discussion.
Bottom line, you still are simply declaring that morality can only be objective morality. Your 'reasoning' for why subjective morality does not exist is because it is not objective morality and you have redefined 'morality' to mean 'only objective morality'.
Also, by the way, you have not proved that objective morality exists. That was the original point of this.
Here is the short version:
You declare that morality can only be objective morality.
I disagree. Subjective (relative) morality demonstrably exists. You cannot just erase it by fiat.
Well said.
Unfortunately for the right it isn't an attack, just another wad of bullshit
It is clear and obvious to all that democrat senators have been attacking nominees on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
It's not the belief that's the problem. It's whether they can keep their beliefs separate from objective, rational decisions regarding constitutional matters.
What are your thoughts on the GOP policitician in Texas who tried to have a GOP leader removed from office because he is Muslim?
It was absolutely ridiculous and I’m glad it was prevented.
James Madison also said this,
and this,
And this too.
James Madison also wrote the landmark work on the subject of separation of church and state known as Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.
The full work he wrote.... ( to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia )
He's talking about a bill in the Virginia State House concerning Pay for the ministers of religion, namely the christian religion)
A man's religion is inviolate, government is not a hindrance to nor an obstruction on a man's duty to his maker.
Religious government is slavery!
You allow an establishment of religion, what prevents subsequent legislation establishing other establishments? What prevents such an establishment from mandating complicity?
Making an establishment of religion in any way shape or form places government over god.
Once an establishment of religion is created, religion can become civil policy or be cited as civil policy, also it makes man in the form of government establishment, the arbiter of salvation instead of the creator.
Well, if you can understand the meanings here, I'll put it in 25th century language..... "Why does god need a starship?" -- Captain James T Kirk, stardate 2465
History proves that when religion is given administrative power over it's flock, the flock always yearns for a return to the days of when it wasn't so. When the church had no such administrative power. When the church was at it's greatest in their view.
An establishment of religion in civil authority throuout history has been shown to either bring forth tyranny or be it's willing helper.
Creating an establishment of religion will be viewed amongst the persecuted of the worls as a purveyance of intolerance rather than as a beacon of freedom.
In fact such establishment will be a driving force to drive people out of this nation rather than welcome them, as history has also shown.
Complete religious liberty destroys the ability of various religions from extracting and exhorting there adherents to violent bloodthirsty purges of the citizenry in pursuit of their versions of Peace Love and Charity.
Instead of spreading the truths of the creator, such an establishment would serve only to wall it off to those that most need it.
Once such an establishment is created, it will be difficult, nee impossible to enforce any law the establishment holds to be invalid. What would be the effect on government if it was seen to be ineffectual in defending it's laws against the establishment?
The will of the people, upon fair & open consideration of the establishment will reverse the will of the representatives in the legislature or the leaders of the several counties.
Madison, praying to god, that he open these representatives eyes to the truth of freedom and wish that they vote down any establishment of religion in any degree.....
Seems to me that Madison was against even such a small establishment as setting a stipend for ministers in the State of Virginia as a clear statement of the extent of his belief in the exclusion of any religious establishment in the governing of this nation.....
In 20th century language?...
Not only no but HELL NO!
I would go as far as to argue that James Madison would have been opposed to the tax free status for churches because that is a state support of religion by proxy.
He certainly didn't support have Chaplains on the government payroll.
Well, I think you are correct. (it's a reasonable assumption given his position on the relationship between man, god and government)
In fact in this little argument he clearly states that the christian religion survived and grew during some of the greatest repressions ever foisted against a people....
That's why I quoted "Why does god need a starship", by extension, "Why does god need a government?"
In case anyone objects to my reading, I can provide linkage to Washington, Jefferson, Adams & Hamilton all making the exact same argument.....
When your right, your right. I play no favorites...
There is never any good for a free and stable government by allowing the government and religious belief to mix. They saw what happened in Europe when religion gained the power of the state so they went as far as they could to build a wall between church and state that was impenetrable so it would not and could not happen in the US.
Religious conservatives and those who claim to support a literalist/originalist interpretation of the Constitution will deny all of this because these words didn't appear verbatim in the US Constitution, despite the fact that the idea was very clear and the funding fathers never suggested otherwise. Scalia went so far as to claim that there is no separation of church and state.
The non taxation of churches is part of the separation of church and state.
NO, they get stuff others have to pay for free
congress decides who gets taxed and how much.
Be very careful here in criticizing their interpretation by doing the exact same thing they do. Don't be an absolutist cause none of the founders were.
Me I cannot take one little sentence and claim that is what they meant in their entirety. Jefferson's little "WALL of SEPERATION" statement has been blown all out of proportion by your side into something as absolute as the sun will shine tomorrow.
When it really wasn't.
I play no favorites and I do not take the founders lightly, nor do I pervert them to my own absolutist ends.....
I agreed with you here cause you are correct in so far as Madison was answering a bill to pay the clergy out of state funds..... that does not mean that Madison did not support religion.
And I know a lot more about it than most.....
So lets not take a good thing, and turn it into a bad thing....
ok?
This is so you. You just got through presenting James Madison as a champion of separation of Church and State and then immediately go against it by saying the Church should be subjected to the State. You want to tax Churches yet don't seem to know what that means. If you tax Churches, then Churches will have every reason to involve itself in government. No taxation without representation was a founding principle of this country. But worse, since in your world, Churches would be taxed, they would have every right to demand tax dollars that other entities enjoy. But of course, that works for you, too, because then you get to control how churches operate because now the government has the leverage of how taxes are used to control the Church.
She is not for the separation of Church and State. She is for the subjugation of the Church by the State she envisions. She only uses the Separation clause because it is a tool she feels she can use to prevent the Church from fighting back, while ignoring the limitations the clause puts on her side of the issue. Her goal is the elimination of religious expression outside one's own mind. One cannot even vote according to their religiously informed conscience without her believing that the separation clause has been violated. Her view is you can believe whatever you wish, but you must function day to day within society according to strictly humanist parameters. Your religiously held views must be put away when you leave your home or church grounds and you must act in her version of what she considers moral. In essence, she is epitome of what she claims to fight against. Someone who is forcing her moral views upon society. Somehow she thinks that's perfectly okay to do because, in her view, her views are not religious. She doesn't realize that they are. Religion, at it's simplest is your belief about what reality is.
Put more simply, it isn't so much a secular government she is concerned with but the enforcement of a purely secular society.
A tax-exempt status for churches is an example of proxy fiscal support by the state. Why should the state support churches? The tax on churches would be a sliding scale tax with larger churches paying a higher rate. Charity income that is spent on others would be tax exempt. Missionary spending is not charity.
All of the members of the church already have guaranteed equal representation so why should the church as a group also have representation when the church is not a citizen on its own. This idea is the problem with the Citizens United decision that creates corporate citizenhood.
That is nonsense. You have the guaranteed right to believe and worship as you wish. What you don't have is the right to is the state supporting that religious belief by paying for a bible or a church for you to worship in. As an atheist why should my tax dollars be spent on the religious beliefs of others? What secular social good does religion do for society to be worthy of that fiscal support? Shouldn't a church be self-supporting by it's members?
Churches need to pay property taxes, except on religious cemeteries. I'd even be willing to give them an exemption on the minister's salary up to $50,000.
Churches tax dollars would be exempt from military spending and be limited to public education, parks and the social safety net because most religions are pacifists.
My daughter went to a religious daycare but we paid for that by the week.
Churches didn't have the fiscal power in the 1790s that they do now. There was no such thing as televangelists and mega-churches with religious TV channels. I am forced to pay for 6 religious channels that I do not watch.
The Catholic church is a criminal organization and they get huge tax dollars for that nonsense because of their hospitals and the fact they are the adoption agency in many states.
Well said by both of you.
Both of you are well stated in the truth of what you wrote. Taxing of churches is the subjugation of religion to the control of the state.
The issue here is whether we are following and honoring article VI of the Constitution of the United States 🇺🇸 of America or not regarding “no religious test” for elected or appointed office.
There is a difference between a religious test and the idea that they understand the strict separation of church and state. The religious test is there to prevent people of religions or those of no religion from being unable to hold office in the US by the majority Christians.
Maryland, among a few others still have a law on the books that states that atheists cannot be elected office, despite the fact that they cannot be enforced.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/08/there-are-states-where-you-technically-cant-hold-public-office-if-youre-an-atheist/?utm_term=.292ecce8e049
While there is no religious test with regards to Constitutional qualifications, there is a religious test with regards to public opinion in that many Christians probably will not vote for anyone who is not Christian or doesn't profess to be a Christian, regardless of a candidate's other qualifications or political plans.
Every state should have the Maryland law! John Locke was right.
NO way in hell, religion or non religion should play NO roll on if one is elected. If you want that then move the fucking Middle East where they share you religious BS
John Jay, Constitutional Framer and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court , letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
True. But when a candidate makes it clear that they will put the Bible over the Constitution - as, for example, Pence has made clear he does - they are not qualified to run, IMO. It's absolutely valid to ask these questions so that voters have the information they need. I will not vote for anyone who won't promise to put our country above their religion. Asking these questions is not, as C4P claims, a religious test.
IMO thumpers that put the bible before the Constitution don't belong on the bench, don't belong in office, and certainly don't belong in America. they won't rest until they have imposed xtian sharia on America.
You can elect all the christians you want as long as separation of church and state remains.
So you do not see laws saying non-religious individuals cannot hold office as unconstitutional?
That's just Mr. Jay's personal opinion, and that's all it is. Considering this is a secular nation with a religiously neutral government, Mr. Jay''s opinion is demonstrably wrong!
Yet, it doesn't say that in our Constitution, so that makes it his opinion only.
And other Constitutional framers felt differently and apparently were in the majority because the constitution explicitly states the opposite of John Jays personal religious opinion.
US Constitution Article VI -
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
interesting how some religious terrorists use IED's and AK's to impose their religious dogma on the unwilling, while xtian dominionist terrorists use tax exempt money and the pens of bought and paid for politicians to accomplish the same thing.
What special treatment?
I'll have a problem with it as soon as they have a russian puppet in the white house licking their asses.
That law blatantly violates the US Constitutions ban on a religious test for public office. Do you happen to remember your reply in 4.0?
Sharia law is prohibited by the strict separation of church and state that also prohibits Christian-based laws being created.
What special treatment for Muslims in Congress are you referring to?
How much longer do I have to wait for an answer to this canard?
Thanks for the bump!
President Harry Truman Speech on Our Laws
Address Before the Attorney General's Conference on Law Enforcement Problems.
February 15, 1950
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.
Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush
John Adams
January 21, 1810
(Adams criticizes Paine's attack on Christianity and defends the truth of Christian faith and his own discipleship)
Thomas Paine's] political writings, I am singular enough to believe, have done more harm than his irreligious ones. He understood neither government nor religion. From a malignant heart he wrote virulent declamations, which the enthusiastic fury of the times intimidated all men, even Mr. Burke, from answering as he ought. His deism, as it appears to me, has promoted rather than retarded the cause of revolution in America, and indeed in Europe. His billingsgate, stolen from Blount's Oracles of Reason, from Bolingbroke., Voltaire, Berenger, &c., will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have any thing moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father of the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.
Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798
"we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
From George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Too bad the Constitution, with its separation of church and state, makes all that irrelevant.
For most of our nation’s history, the people wisely kept atheists out of elected office by their vote on election days. Only when we began our departure from the Christian values and principles did this nation begin its descent into depravity and the breakdown of government
Horse shit.
Show me in the constitution where it says "Separation of Church and State".
You can't cause it doesn't.....
Oh please! As if theists ran things smoothly or atheists are somehow incapable of governing. Your bias (or hatred) against atheists is quite apparent. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were wise enough not to constitutionally exclude anyone from public service. Hence, ones religious affiliation, or lack of, is irrelevant. And this country was never governed according to "Christian principles," (whatever that is). It is governed according to the Constitution. What you seemean to prefer or advocate is a theocracy .
That's putting it mildly.
Do you think you have the right to prival or a fair trial? Those aren't explicitly in the Constitution either. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize and acknowledge the necessity and inclusion of separation.
that doesn't mean that it's not inferred.
Jefferson's own letters and contributions to the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise of Religion clause bear that out.
Jefferson first used the metaphor in his letter to Dansbury Church and the SCOTUS has used it over and over again.
Not to mention the SCOTUS also deemed separation be in the Constitution.
Not at all. I would not want a theocracy.
what the founders and past presidents were saying (and I concur) is that only those holding to Christian values and principles along with a reverence for God have the proper foundation to represent the people and act in accordance with the Constitution.
they didn’t believe atheists had that character and neither do I
If the founders did not think atheists could not or should not govern (and there's no logical reason to assume they couldn't), then they would not have included the no religious test clause. But thanks for proving me right about your bias against atheists.
Times have change (which is a good thing)......nothing wrong with atheists. Rather an atheist than a Christian who would want to change separation of church and state.
Ah, okay. So you just want all legislators and elected officials, the President, Judges, teachers, cops, our civil servants, pretty much everyone to be "Christian" and do their jobs through the moral lens of their biblical upbringing and apply Christian virtues in every day life, create and vote on laws based on their Christian beliefs, but you definitely don't want a "theocracy"...
I'm curious, but what do you imagine "theocracy" to look like? Is it only a "theocracy" if it looks like some of the Muslim theocracies where blasphemy is punishable by death? Having an evangelical sitting on a court and passing judgment based on his biblical beliefs and not the law would be a clear violation of the establishment clause, as would any evangelicals creating, voting on and passing laws that are based on any religious beliefs like banning alcohol sales on Sunday or denying gay couples a marriage certificate. You have said before you don't think the government should regulate marriage at all and I agree to a point, but the fact is the government does regulate partnerships and has laws that apply, whether a business partnership or a personal partnership which have many legal questions that have to be defined. Who's allowed to sign the checks, who's allowed to make decisions if one partner is incapacitated, who gets control of all assets if one partners dies, all sorts of legal questions that have to be defined in both business and personal life. So the government has to regulate marriage up to the extent of defining the laws that would apply to it. Allowing Religion to decide what partnerships are or aren't allowed is an obvious violation of the establishment clause.
That's nice. I sort of feel the same way about Christians and other religious persons. Only a religious person could drown her 5 kids in the bathtub or be sick enough to justify the genocide of millions. Only by believing in a higher power could they believe that whatever that higher power tells them to do is justified no matter how vile and how deplorable, if their God told them to open fire on kindergartners then to them it's justified because their God allows them to shrug off any personal responsibility. This is why I will never allow a Christian around my children without a atheist chaperone.
"While in prison, Andrea Yates stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."
Yes, Christians with a reverence for God who have the proper foundation like a belief in invisible spirits, a flawed book full of contradictions and a loving God who torments his own creations for eternity if they failed their few minutes on earth. Yeah, those are the people we should all want making laws and deciding punishments for laws breakers... /s
Since there's only ever been one openly atheist mbr of Congress I gotta think the breakdown of government and descent into depravity would fall upon someone else's shoulders (possibly religion, possibly that politicians as a whole are simply POS's)
Wrong :
Well posted pat.....
So yes it does not say it, but....
" Separation of church and state " is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson , addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut , and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
Yes I'm well aware of where it was said and who said it and why he said it.
And that most of the other founders completely agreed with it..... I also understand the why.
My thing is they claim it is a direct constitutional rule when it isn't. It is how they (the founders) believed the constitutional provision they wrote should be used/applied.
It isn't the law, it is the policy that the law embodies. And that is how the Supreme court has interpreted it and applied it.
my opinion, stop calling it something it isn't....
Are you denying the historical record?
And they still do not.
That comes from President Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that has been used by the SCOTUS as the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
Are you denying Thomas Jefferson's, John Adams', Thomas Paine's, and James Madison's historic, recorded views on Christianity and the U.S. government ?
This is absolute nonsense and you have been corrected many times and yet you still try to promulgate this lie.
Thomas Paine,
See my response @ 5.1.18
Five and a half hours ago when Perrie posted the same response to me.....
That letter is what the Establishment Clause means and how is to be interpreted by the courts. The US Constitution is not a verbatim listing of our rights. It is a statement of ideas and how the government is to be organized. If the Constitution were a verbatim statement of our rights it would dwarf War and Peace in length. We have the Supreme Court to interpret it on individual issues.
Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and Madisons' Memorial and Remonstrance drives that same idea home very clearly.
So what your describing is these peoples views of the importance of personal morality which comes from their religious education.......
I agree with each of them, but one must remember they are talking about a moral people NOT A MORAL GOVERNMENT!
In that respect, you do the same thing they do......
Absolutism NEVER WORKS. it only brings more suffering and abuse.....
The government should NOT be religious, but it should be populated by men with morals, which are necessarily learned from religion.
And any morally honest man will recognize the truth of this absolutely..... Politics aside...
MORALS: Webster
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent
Sorry, you do not have to be religious to be moral.
Also if you are deciding who is moral & who isn't does that not go against your "judge not" rule? YOU are judging whether people are moral or not - think that is a no-no for you guys.
I have to question the character and integrity of those who state one needs god/religion to be moral. Or the inverse where they state one cannot be moral without god/religion.
Can either one of you point specifically where I said one HAS to be religious to be moral?
So, now that you have read into my statements something I did not say, you feel justified in condemning me for my beliefs.....
Thank you both for a perfect example of being what your complaining against.
I was with you up till that line. Having a religious background doesn't mean a person has adopted and applied any moral code just as having an atheist background doesn't mean a person hasn't adopted a moral code. Religion and morality are not mutually exclusive. Besides, I'd wager that 99 out of 100 atheists were raised in one faith or another, very few atheists were actually raised as atheists. And the reality is, it's far more honest to admit we don't know what our origins truly are, no religion or faith has ever been proved, so after doing the research which concludes that very fact, to continue carrying water for an unproven belief just because you were promised a reward or fear a penalty is rather self serving and ridiculous.
Do you often post things you do not believe in? You posted this statement. If you do not believe it why post it? If it was not your statement where is the citation?
Judging - that is a sin - therefore you are not moral. As a Wiccan, I do not believe in sin so your words have no meaning to me. I am as moral as you are.
Religion is but one source, and it is the primary source, but not the only source....
So my statement is accurate and is not a claim that religion is the ONLY way.... (as seems to be claimed)
The rest of your opinion is of no value to me.....
It's is impossible to have a discussion of anything when one imputes their understandings or lack thereof onto another's statements......
I find that such is the normal line of discourse in today's forum environment.
Instead of inquiring as to the real point one automatically goes to ridicule.
a severe lack of open minds....
I think your reply was meant for Veronica. And I made no mention of your beliefs, whatever they are.
You said this... @ 5.2.3
It was said in response to her as support for her position questioning me.
So I responded to both of you. Your response to her is an insult to me over something I did NOT say.
That is the way I see it.
But that being said, thank you for the clarification of your intent and recognition of not knowing what position I take. So your statement is a general insult against anyone with a religious moral background and goes absolutist about it. got it....
Don't worry, I think they did too.
ridicule - huh, looks like you fall into it too.
I stand by my statement - it appears you do not.
Thank you for proving my point....
No further need to chase pointless semantics......
It was a response as an observation and personal experience. It was not an insult, nor was it directed at you.
Necessary: adjective - required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential.
Necessarily: adverb - as a necessary result; inevitably.
"The government should NOT be religious, but it should be populated by men with morals, which are necessarily learned from religion." - 5.2
If you claim morals "necessarily" come from religion, then you are claiming that is the only way to achieve them. If you intended to say "aren't necessarily" then I apologize for commenting on the mistake, but it appeared you were in fact claiming that man can only learn morality from religion, which is an obvious falsehood.
No I explained my reasoning....
I said:
Particularly in today's world..... But you can have it mean anything you want. I mean really it doesn't matter to me what you want it to mean. I made my position clear.
The Founders clearly believed that morals come predominantly from religious teachings. This is why on the one hand Religion has no place in government and on the other government has no place in religion. Religion is specifically preserved for the individual to determine how he is going to believe. They were all believers in god, yes even Thomas Paine believed in god. Most of them believed in some form of religion, with most of these very intelligent men believing that religion is the primary and in some cases the best way to inculcate morals in men. Therefore Religion was good for the nation and citizens.
There are two ideals on the philosophy of the Separation of Church & State, and they do not agree. They are called "Friendly Separation and Hostile Separation".
Let me explain....
Now that is a lot of reading, but yes there are two views on Separation of Church and State, the American view of cooperative separation, and the European view of Absolute Separation... (absolute being there is no public reference at all to religion, it is permissible in the individuals home of his church but otherwise no public recognition governmental or otherwise)
The cooperative view established during the American Revolution and the Hostile view established during the French revolution.....
In other words a republican view as the Founders of America expressed or a democratic view as the Jacobins of France expressed....
Seems to me that your arguing for the Jacobin interpretation being brought over here and established as de-facto. The complete destruction of religion in general public society.
And I oppose that completely with no reservations.....
Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause . Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.
The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. [ Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent – that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . … The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . … and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it. ") quoted in Nicole Guétin, Religious ideology in American politics: a history (2009) p. 85 ]
During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in the United States. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,
And I supported that man during his election, wasn't old enough to vote, but was old enough to ring doorbells.
I'll go with him on this one, along with the Founders....
"The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters." [Maier 2004, p. 110 ]
"The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith." [Maier 2004, p. 111 ]
Which variety does the denial of a tax paying law abiding citizen their right to a marriage license fall? Which type is represented by American citizens being denied service from public businesses?
I see very little "limit" to the "interference of the Church in matters of the State" as they stomp around demanding their right to put their commandments on court house steps, demand their right to discriminate against law abiding citizens, demanding their right to inject their religious holidays and traditions into the public square, into public schools and into local laws such as bans on alcohol sales on Sunday in many States.
I see reasonable, Christian, but secular leaning, American citizens questioning this virtually unrestricted injection of Christianity into Americas public spaces who are being attacked and vilified by other Christians falsely claiming the secular leaning Americans are "waging a war" on Christianity.
So the claim of any "hostile separation" against Christians is pure bullshit. The only "hostile separation" are the hostile feelings some Christians have as their fingers are peeled off the pedestal of privilege they have been enjoying for the last 200 years of American history.
" When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression "
But it is actually what your side is demanding of the courts and government. I don't agree with their side either cause they are demanding that religion take precedence over government, but that does not allow for your side to demand government over religion either....
So as your saying with your privileged argument is that religion has had a large influence on America, and that needs to end.
This should be a completely godless nation in which religion becomes the hidden oppressed stepchild of the revolution and creation of this nation.....
A typically progressive liberal stance, it is also the stance taken by almost every totalitarian regime man has established on the planet.
Political religion is mentioned in the details I posted, that is also a trending upwards line of reasoning, it's where a political ideology uses religious principles to advance it's tyrannical aims..... the government becomes the religion.
Hard to argue against the ideal that such is what is being revealed about the progressive democrats....
So really in essence it is just more hate.
Your last statement about "the Privileged" (meaning Christians) is a perfect example..... Most people in this nation are christians and have been since the creation of it. I guess that what your side intends is to eliminate that. By government mandate.
Placing government over religion just like your side want's to put government over everything.
Clearly Madison's exhortation to the Virginia Assembly states that is also not permissible under the Virginia articles nor this constitution.
Religion over government is a religious blasphemy, so is government over religion, both precepts are abhorrent in a free nation.
I, like the Founders, are against both. Which was the complete understanding of our system at least through the Kennedy administration.
Thank you for the discussion..... It is very revealing...... (fundamental change is the current mantra, if your side wants European ideals over here, give it up, and go move over there where you will be more happy)
When it comes to the law, YES! Government should be "over" religion when it comes to the laws that govern our nation. There are laws to prevent some people from acting on their belief that their religious rights trump others right to not be ruled by their religion, to stop those trying to legislate morality.
So we have secular laws that govern everyone, and then each faith be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaism, Buddhism can have their religious laws that they can choose to follow, or not. The secular laws only legislate actions for which the Supreme Court ruled was not violating religious freedom.
"The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief . The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action."
So when Christians "act" on their faith by discriminating or actively injecting their religious traditions into the public square, into schools and court houses, that's when they've crossed the line. It's not "hostile" to stop someone from breaking the law and if they are doing so at the behest of their religion then they should take that up with the courts, not getting all butt-hurt at the people who tried to get them to follow the law.
Correct, the point your avoiding is it is supposed to work the exact same way for the secularists....
And your side is advocating for secularists to have a greater say than the religionists. Your side is doing the exact same thing you are claiming the religionists are.
NEITHER SIDE SHOULD HAVE ANY ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHER!
And that is the problem in a nutshell.....
NO human being is qualified, nor has the right, to judge the morals of another human being. That is the exclusive right of the Creator.
And before any human being deems they have that right, let them look first in their own mirror and correct their own sin of trying to usurp the sole right of the Creator.
NO religion on earth gives anyone the right to judge another human being, as NO human being is without sin themselves.
My opinion.
AHHH and someone who actually gets it!
Good to see you sis and thank you for that!
Thank you my Brother. No one is born the right to judge others. However, there seems to be a lot of people in the world, including here on NT from all political spectrums who feel they have that right.
When it comes to politics and religion, there is no right of wrong side. Neither are without fault.
My opinion.
That is the Biblical position. I agree with it.
I have to believe that if this type of questioning had been directed at a Muslim, Jew, or even atheist, there would be a lot more outrage in the media.
It's not fair to interrogate a person about their religious beliefs or assume that they would be incapable of following the Constitution because of those beliefs. And if turns out in actual practice that they do have a problem reconciling those two, we already have remedies in place.
Religion (at least for the most common religions) should not be a litmus test for an office or a job. It is unfair and wrong to presume that a member of a particular religion is in any way less qualified than an irreligious person. The questions need to focus on qualifications and the ability of an individual to think critically / objectively on the job regardless of privately held religious views.
There shouldn't be a need for a religious litmus test, but I'm afraid there is such a need. Religious people are also unpredictable, you never know what event or words will trigger a full religious breakdown.
It varies of course, but I understand what you are saying. Personally I do not want someone with power making a decision based on faith. I think most religious politicians are ' safe ' in that regard (they -sadly- make decisions based on personal opportunity for the most part - another serious problem). An example of the faith-based decision making is George Bush 43. Bush purportedly attributed part of his war calculus to his faith: Bush: God told me to invade Iraq.
People who across time in this country who express what is above are why there is a no religious test clause in the constitution. To protect honest citizens from those who view our religious beliefs as a mental illness.
Was Gandhi moral?