US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus

October 14, 2019

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Defending our Civilization, News Highlights, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government . . . ”

Food for thought. END

F/N, U/D: Prepared text, found. I think he mostly read the speech, let us clip and discuss below.

PS: First, a different view on political spectra (than where one sat in the French legislature 200 years ago or thereabouts):

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

Third, Schaeffer’s line of despair analysis, as adjusted and extended:

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

JAD, I've been extra busy the past few days (this being crunch week leading up to an Election plus a few other concerns) so pardon delay. A good first point is Wiki's concession on objectivity:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject . . .
This of course brings up warrant, reliability, certainty, accuracy, observer influences and more. One key facet is the Plato's Cave regress challenge: once one has general delusion on the table, that perception opens itself to the same concern at level 2 thence 3, 4 . . . Thus, reduction to absurdity. Any view that reduces credibility of mind and linked intellectual functions to grand delusion is absurd and self-defeating. So, we have good reason to hold that we do not live in anybody's grand delusion world; even without being able to prove it false. The grand delusion undermines rationality thus even proof or disproof of itself. It is to be set aside as self-discrediting, self-falsifying. I do think though that one needs some stiff background to be able to understand this and what it is getting at. Especially, if one has been indoctrinated into using crooked yardsticks as standards of truth, fact, knowledge and reason. Which, regrettably, describes all too many today. And BTW, those who do not look into the logic of being and need for a reality root of necessary being character are often tempted to dismiss God as fairy tale and conscience as effectively socially supported delusion. The result of the latter is rapid reduction to grand delusion. The former fails, first to reckon with the obvious fact that God is a serious candidate reality root necessary being. Such will either be impossible of being [cf. a square circle] or will be actual. Of course, those who toss out such rhetorical claims have never met this burden of proof. Secondly, many millions report and manifest in life and at death bed having met and been transformed by God; so much so that the fairy tale or other strawman type dismissal invites grand delusion absurdities. KFkairosfocus_{November 13, 2019
November
11
Nov
13
13
2019
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PST}

KF,
Our senses insofar as they deliver a sense of a tangible or visible object etc, are also mental.
Indeed. We could all be living in some kind of virtual reality computer simulation-- a VRCS (did I just coin a new acronym?) Or we could go the whole nine yards with Descartes Demon which argues that matter doesn’t exist at all, only minds do and we’re all being deceived by an immaterial evil master mind. Logically and ontologically that’s a possibility.john_a_designer_{November 11, 2019
November
11
Nov
11
11
2019
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PST}

JAD, it is well worth clipping:
Moral values and obligations are abstract “objects” (there’s the misleading term again) that exist in our minds. In that sense they are subjective, because that’s how we apprehend them, with our minds not our senses. However, moral values are socially quite useless if they do not carry binding interpersonal obligations. It is those interpersonal moral obligations that are “objective.” Maybe the best analogy to as to how moral values exist come from the world of mathematics. What exactly are numbers? Where do they exist? Like moral values they are abstract objects which exist in our minds. Numbers for example have properties that are either true or false. For example, it’s true the numbers 1, 3 and 5 are odd and 2, 4 and 6 are not… that the numbers 9, 16 and 25 are perfect squares. Those examples are easy to see. But what about the number179426369? Is it a prime number? It either is or it is not. Your subjective opinion about whether it is or not does not make any difference. Whatever the truth is, it is an objective truth. In other words, truths about abstract objects like numbers or moral values are objective because they do not rely on someone subjective opinion.
KF PS: Our senses insofar as they deliver a sense of a tangible or visible object etc, are also mental. On the road to Salem I DV will drive on soon, there is a stretch where it at first seems there is a deer browsing by the side of the road. As one passes by, it resolves into a row of croton bushes. And even after one has seen this clearly, the perception of the figure against its ground persists. Likewise, screens like this one present arrays of coloured dots which are actively perceived as objects, including text. The perception of motion, similarly, is contrived. And yet I daresay no sane person would think say the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II is a wholly subjective event.kairosfocus_{November 11, 2019
November
11
Nov
11
11
2019
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PST}

BA77, Thanks, for the life of me I could not quite recall this clip, though I knew Berlinski had said it:
“There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.” [Link: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html ]
Mills is like unto that:
“In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
So, Mathematics is indeed pivotal, as has been noted several times above but brushed aside as though the point has no probative force. Itself a sign, a bad one. The key of course is that the heart of mathematics describes constraints on the logic of distinct being in a possible world such that possible entities must be internally coherent [no square circles, tut tut] and mutually compossible, then must be describable in a sufficiently complete set of mutually consistent propositions that frame the possible state of affairs. Every one of these things is abstract, has effect through distinct identity and so we find a-causal constraints on reality. These are world framework necessary beings in key part. Indeed, Berlinski said:
The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there.
That should sound a tad familiar. Where, given an actual world and the failure of trying to span the transfinite in finite successive steps, a world will have a finitely remote root once it is actual with causal-temporal successive stages. Ultimately the root of reality is a necessary being. Further that reality contains morally governed creatures leads to the necessary being world root being adequate to ground moral government, thus being inherently, through and through good and utterly wise. Where, necessary being already implies eternal. Yes, that a world is requires that something that is necessarily existent and eternal is at its causal root. What is manifestly happening across our civilisation, reflected in this thread, is that we have refused to be intellectually disciplined by considerations of the logic of being and the implied world root. KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2019
November
11
Nov
11
11
2019
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PST}

Hazel, 718, there is not an equivalence of Mathematical or logical entities or propositions [the actual truth bearers . . . ] and morals as to substance. However, the valid point is and remains, these are all abstracta that have a reality connected to circumstances of there being a distinct possible or actual world, especially one inhabited by significantly free, rational, responsible creatures. JAD's comment on Mackie et al stands. Of course abstracta are different from tangible, material entities and will seem strange to those locked into evolutionary materialism and nominalism etc. All that means is that reality is challenging the crooked yardsticks. And it is particularly relevant that some given large odd number X will be prime or even a member of a pair of successive primes as a truth independent of our opinions, biases, preferences etc; such aptly illustrates the nature of objective truth as regards an abstract entity. I add, that disagreements on historical or forensic reality and truth abound, but no sane person would take that to imply that the actual relevant past (which cannot be tangibly accessed, we only take traces and reports of various kinds to infer its state) did not occur. Perhaps, that will help you to clarify key concepts which may then be extended to first principles and inextricably entangled first duties of right reason. Which, recall, are the substantial matter on the table, the anchor points on which rational, responsible views on matters of substance can be prudently and reliably built. Ironically, for over 700 comments now, every objection, every counter-argument, every tangent has inescapably been based on precisely these principles. That that irony still escapes you is itself a telling manifestation of the failed worldviews of our time. And, all of this ties back to US AF Barr's concerns laid out at the outset, for the fairness and justice due to those adhering to the Judaeo-Christian tradition that is under ruthless ideological attack through cultural marxist tactics, are direct manifestations of those first principles and first duties. KF PS: Primes up to 1 million: https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/prime-number-lists.html and up to a trillion http://compoasso.free.fr/primelistweb/page/prime/liste_online_en.phpkairosfocus_{November 11, 2019
November
11
Nov
11
11
2019
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PST}

EG & Hazel, it does seem I conflated you, though I note an endorsement. KFkairosfocus_{November 11, 2019
November
11
Nov
11
11
2019
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PST}

Over on the Short Sermon thread, I wrote this:
I personally am sympathetic to this sentence from the OP: “When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.’ ”
So it looks like some significant other peoples (Einstein and Spinoza) agree with me about the possibility of there being a God who doesn't "concern himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."hazel_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PST}

And I responded to that by saying that you have no idea.ET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST}

Back at 562, I wrote this, which is also relevant to math in the universe:
It is entirely possible that some intelligent component of the universe is a cause behind the genetic code and the development of life forms [and the fine-tuning of the universe and it's being describable in terms of math and logic], but yet has no more interest in our behavior than it does with the behavior of bacteria or lions or any other particular life form. In this case, it would have nothing to do with the objectivity of morals.
So I don't think there is an equivalence between math and morals such as is being suggested at 717..hazel_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PST}

JAD Very thoughtful observations. I especially liked this part “Maybe the best analogy to as to how moral values exist come from the world of mathematics. What exactly are numbers? Where do they exist? Like moral values they are abstract objects which exist in our minds. “Numbers for example have properties that are either true or false. For example, it’s true the numbers 1, 3 and 5 are odd and 2, 4 and 6 are not… that the numbers 9, 16 and 25 are perfect squares. Those examples are easy to see. But what about the number179426369? Is it a prime number? It either is or it is not. Your subjective opinion about whether it is or not does not make any difference. Whatever the truth is, it is an objective truth. In other words, truths about abstract objects like numbers or moral values are objective because they do not rely on someone subjective opinion.“ Vividvividbleau_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

Spontaneous generation is a myth. Universal common descent is a myth. And yet I have no doubt that hazel accepts them both as gospelET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST}

That's compelling, spew nonsense about a myth and think your work is done. How do you know it's a myth? You do realize that objective morals come from the Bible, right?ET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST}

That's compelling, arguing by referring to a myth from the Bible! :-)hazel_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

It's as if Bob, Ed, hazel and seversky have never heard of the Tower of Babel...ET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PST}

hazel:
Bob makes a critical point:
And it has been refuted- or rather shown to be bogus
Also, even if objective morals exist, the wide range of disagreement about what they are, across both people now and throughout different cultures and times, makes it clear that all people have is subjective opinions, which they choose to adopt, about what those objective morals are.
And? Because people can alter anything they so choose doesn't mean the original never existedET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST}

Ed George:
It is not the existence of error that is the problem with objective morality. It is the frequency and magnitude of this “error” that undermines objective morality.
Any and all perceived errors are due to humans, Ed.
If objective morality is true then the frequency and magnitude of the “errors” are such that it is not fit for purpose.
That doesn't follow. Just because humans can introduce errors into a system doesn't mean the system didn't have an original purpose.ET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST}

re 702. Bob makes a critical point:
Moral subjectivists think that morals are are real as moral objectivists do. The difference is just that they think morals are arrived at by a different route.
Also, even if objective morals exist, the wide range of disagreement about what they are, across both people now and throughout different cultures and times, makes it clear that all people have is subjective opinions, which they choose to adopt, about what those objective morals are. As Ed points out, with a good analogy,
It is not the existence of error that is the problem with objective morality. It is the frequency and magnitude of this “error” that undermines objective morality. I work in the analytical chemistry field. Fundamental to this field is the understanding of error. We call it measurement uncertainty. When the magnitude of the measurement uncertainty is high, we conclude that the analytical method is invalid (not fit for purpose). If objective morality is true then the frequency and magnitude of the “errors” are such that it is not fit for purpose.
hazel_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST}

Bob O'H:
This is simply wrong moral subjectivists think that morals are are real as moral objectivists do.
It doesn't matter what they think, Bob. The fact is subjective morals are arbitrary- not based on anything beyond "feelings" of some alleged majority. They can change faster than the climate. :cool:ET_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST}

Hazel
November 10, 2019 at 11:15 am re 703: ED, kf has got you confused with me. At 691 I wrote,
I just thought that with KF’s attention to detail that he would verify his false claim before repeating it. Or maybe he has just been drinking ET’s koolaid and believes that you and I are the same person. :)Ed George_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST}

re 703: ED, kf has got you confused with me. At 691 I wrote,
I remember going to Sunday School as a kid and hearing all those Bible stories, and we had big book of Bible stories at home. I couldn’t buy it: they were all obviously myths just like the Greek, Roman, and Nordic myths that I enjoyed reading
hazel_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PST}

KF
PPS: You made that precise comparison in discussing your childhood, confusing entire genres not just logic of being and roots of reality issues.
Rather than make the same false assertion twice, you would be wise to look back to comment 694 where I mention my childhood. Not a single mention of any religion (or myth) other than Christian. No mention of Greek, Nordic or Roman gods. I have pasted it below for your review.
Hazel, it sounds like your early life was similar to mine. My parents felt it was important that we obtain knowledge about Christianity (or maybe it just gave the Sunday mornings to themselves ???? ). And when I got married, it was in a church but the minister who performed the ceremony was openly gay and living with his male partner. And this was 37 years ago. The minister and his partner remained in a loving committed relationship until he died. It is largely because of him that I support SSM.
Or is your repeated error just a clever ploy to emphasize your point that humans are error prone? :)Ed George_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PST}

J.L. Mackie argued that moral values don’t exist because if they existed they would be “queer.” This is his so-called queerness argument against moral realism. He writes:
If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else.
Personally, I have never liked the word objective when it comes to ethical discourse. When I can I prefer to use terms like moral facts or moral truths. However, objective is the common parlance among ethical theorists. The reason I don’t like it is that some people think we are using the word in the most literal sense. They think that if morals are objective they exist somewhere out there in space like rocks, mushrooms and frogs or protons, electrons and quarks. That’s not what we mean. Moral values and obligations are abstract “objects” (there’s the misleading term again) that exist in our minds. In that sense they are subjective, because that’s how we apprehend them, with our minds not our senses. However, moral values are socially quite useless if they do not carry binding interpersonal obligations. It is those interpersonal moral obligations that are “objective.” Maybe the best analogy to as to how moral values exist come from the world of mathematics. What exactly are numbers? Where do they exist? Like moral values they are abstract objects which exist in our minds. Numbers for example have properties that are either true or false. For example, it’s true the numbers 1, 3 and 5 are odd and 2, 4 and 6 are not… that the numbers 9, 16 and 25 are perfect squares. Those examples are easy to see. But what about the number179426369? Is it a prime number? It either is or it is not. Your subjective opinion about whether it is or not does not make any difference. Whatever the truth is, it is an objective truth. In other words, truths about abstract objects like numbers or moral values are objective because they do not rely on someone subjective opinion. I know what the truth is do you? Like Mackie someone could say that prime numbers are “a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.” But just because they strike someone subjectively as being strange or queer, it doesn’t follow that they don’t exist. However, I agree with Mackie that atheistic naturalism does not provide a sufficient basis for interpersonal moral obligations which includes universal human rights. On the other hand, it’s very dangerous, as Mackie claims, to argue that we invent right or wrong. Whose standard of right or wrong? Based on what? Someone’s subjective opinion? How do we decide whose opinion is better unless we have a higher moral standard? But where does that standard come from?john_a_designer_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST}

EG, that error is our common struggle is a truism. And absolutely nothing you have asserted undermines the actual claimed self evident first principles and duties of right reason that pivot on first the principle of distinct identity(with its immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM) then also on our known duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence (thus, warrant), to sound conscience, to fairness and justice etc. Indeed, just as was pointed out at the outset, in objecting across a thread of 700+ comments, at every stage your objections appeal to those said principles and duties. They are inescapable, and you have repeatedly exemplified the fact, despite your obvious wishes to the contrary. What then becomes interesting is why such stout resistance even in the face of the obvious self-referentiality? The answer comes back, that these principles cut clean across major worldview commitments and cultural agendas in our time. So much the worse for such, in objecting they only manage to substantiate what they would deny. Case proven, long since. KF PS: You and other subjectivists and relativists exaggerate disagreement. I suggest a read from C S Lewis on the matter of the astonishing degree of consensus on core morality when one or those one cares about are on the receiving end. There are but few cultures that prize cowardice in battle, for just one instance. Or, that imagine that habitual deceit as norm for speech is even feasible. And more. Well do I recall the businessman very willing to help other men out in keeping their wives happy but who would not take kindly to the other way around. PPS: You made that precise comparison in discussing your childhood, confusing entire genres not just logic of being and roots of reality issues.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST}

KF
EG, your fallacy of confident manner dismissive comparison of the Scriptures with Greco-Roman mythology...
I believe you are confusing me with someone else. I don’t believe that I have ever made that comparison.Ed George_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PST}

JAD @ 700 -
Most of our regular interlocutors describe themselves as moral relativists or subjectivists. Moral subjectivists don’t believe in moral obligations because moral obligations require real moral standards.
This is simply wrong moral subjectivists think that morals are are real as moral objectivists do. The difference is just that they think morals are arrived at by a different route.Bob O'H_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST}

KF
EG, you seem determined to imply that disagreement and error undermine objectivity, warrant and establishment of reliable truth as knowable and known, especially what is self-evident.
It is not the existence of error that is the problem with objective morality. It is the frequency and magnitude of this “error” that undermines objective morality. I work in the analytical chemistry field. Fundamental to this field is the understanding of error. We call it measurement uncertainty. When the magnitude of the measurement uncertainty is high, we conclude that the analytical method is invalid (not fit for purpose). If objective morality is true then the frequency and magnitude of the “errors” are such that it is not fit for purpose.Ed George_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PST}

How can one have an honest discussion or debate about morality and ethics with someone who has no obligation to be honest? Most of our regular interlocutors describe themselves as moral relativists or subjectivists. Moral subjectivists don’t believe in moral obligations because moral obligations require real moral standards. They rationalize that in a democracy they can reach a consensus but how can you reach a consensus when there is no standard to judge which arbitrary moral ideas are right or wrong, or distinguish between good, bad, better or best? Human rights are moral obligations writ large. In other words, human rights must be universal and morally binding across cultures and throughout history. They cannot exist under a worldview which embraces moral relativism or subjectivism.john_a_designer_{November 10, 2019
November
11
Nov
10
10
2019
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

EG, you seem determined to imply that disagreement and error undermine objectivity, warrant and establishment of reliable truth as knowable and known, especially what is self-evident. For cause, that has been shown an obvious fallacy. Error (even widespread error) or stubborn refusal to acknowledge warrant (especially inescapable truth) on your part does not entail that there are no self-evident truths in general or such that address moral realities and abstracta in general. In particular, it is manifest that distinct identity and close corollaries are first inescapable principles of right reason that are antecedent to all demonstration. Likewise, simply to be responsible and rational reasoning creatures we must be free to infer, weigh up and conclude, implying moral rather than mechanical and/or stochastic government of mind. In that context at no point have you or any other objector been able to show that first duties of right reason are anything but inescapable. Note, here. Indeed for coming on 700 comments, every objection put up plainly manifests appeal to our known duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant], sound conscience, fairness and justice etc. Further to this, you have also reflected the attempts to erect a troubling moral inversion. I again highlight the case of a kidnapped, sexually assaulted, murdered child destroyed in pursuit of someone's sick pleasure, and say first that this is manifestly, self-evidently evil. Second, that the case brims over with implications for rights, law and government in a sound community. None of this, have you been able to overturn. Finally, the surrounding context underscores that US AG Barr was right, there is a terrible agenda afoot that would slander the Christian faith and Christians as the equivalent of nazis, opening the door to that old bane, persecution under false colour of law, driven by misanthropy. We have been there before, it cost a lot to get out of it; there is no good reason to go back there. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PST}

EG, your fallacy of confident manner dismissive comparison of the Scriptures with Greco-Roman mythology (claimed to be so since childhood) is duly noted for its failure to address historical warrant and major, glaring worldviews and comparative difficulties considerations. Ethical theism simply is not to be equated with pagan mythology, starting with logic of being and roots of a reality involving morally governed rational, responsible, significantly free creatures, us. The implication is, your arguments fail to properly address worldviews issues, relying on popular selective hyperskepticism and the Bulverism of confident manner strawman caricature of ethical theism and the Judaeo-Christian tradition and history, on fair comment leading to a warped, hard to correct view. I suggest, you would be well advised to ponder here and to read here. In this context, your repeated obsession with imposing the moral inversion of wanting us to establish sexual perversities as though they are equivalent to what accords with our built-in morally governed nature manifest in the complementarity of the opposite sexes and requisites of child nurture and stable societies is duly noted for its misanthropic implications as we now see in the insanity of 3 to 7 year old children being put up as subjects for sexual identity confusion and surgical or chemical mutation. Not to mention grooming of children for sexualised exploitation under false colour of educational readings in libraries, and more. KF PS: I should add, that the reaction of radicals to an attempted court of appeals "compromise" in a Caribbean territory over the past few days shows the intensity of the cultural marxist radicalism. Not even a [problematic] civil union proposed as legally functionally equivalent to but distinct from marriage is acceptable. The intent is clearly to kidnap marriage under false colour of law, drain it of meaning and turn it into a wrecking ball under false colour of law to subvert the moral government foundations of our civilisation, unjustly implying that those who object on principle are the equivalent of nazis and racists. In that cause, unaccountable courts are expected to re-write constitutions from the bench, inventing and imposing as they will out of thin air. That only serves to undermine liberty and self government, bringing the key institutions of law and law making into disrepute. Such misanthropy leads to fatal disaffection and onward collapse. Of course that may seem to be desirable to say those who imagine that the USA or Western Civilisation is what is wrong with the world. To those with a saner view, such would lead to bloody chaos and a new dark age armed with weapons of frightening power.kairosfocus_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PST}

Hazel, it stands that the fantasy I saw is irresponsible and ignorant of logic of being, imposing Bulverism. I have indeed found atheists who have tried to stipulate in discussion that belief in God is equivalent to belief in fairy tales, and who have been astonishingly dismissive of the firm minimal facts of history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, his life, his clash with the colonial and local powers, his death by kangaroo court and the origin and impact of a church founded on the unshakeable testimony of the 500 witnesses and eyewitness lifetime record of same. Such gives me cause to be concerned about the strawmannish caricatures and fallacy of confident manner in the teeth of comparative difficulties challenges as well as logic of being, root of reality issues which we face. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2019
November
11
Nov
9
09
2019
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PST}

1 2 3 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply