US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus
October 14, 2019

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

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Atheism
Defending our Civilization
News Highlights
Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

VB
Ought we not be piling on if in fact that’s what we’re doing?
I saw what you did there. :) :) :)Ed George_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Oh you can pile on, Vivid, but there will be consequences! 10 yards! :-)hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Roughing the passer?hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

EG Ought we not be piling on if in fact that’s what we’re doing? Vividvividbleau_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

VB, UB, KF, ET, ten yard penalty for piling on.Ed George_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

What kind of consequences, kf?hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Hazel, unfortunately, a "pass" on this subject itself has consequences. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

kf writes, "it is clear that Hazel’s move is a pass." Yes, kf, that is exactly what I've been saying. What part of "I’m not going to go over that issue anymore" is hard to understand?hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Vivid, it is clear that Hazel's move is a pass. Self evident truths, as St Paul knew, are at the core of rational communication, pivoting on distinct identity. That is also at the core of logic and mathematics, indeed I outlined how the key number systems emerge from it. Going further, SET's clearly include moral issues, including that said rationality undeniably is morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness, justice etc. We saw how Seversky tried to confine reality to the empirical-material but failed, and should have been aware that reality contains abstracta. The root problem is, that in our rationality we must be significantly free and responsible, i.e. morally governed. So our intellectual capacities operate on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap, pointing to the need for unity which post Hume can only be seen in the world root. The big challenge for those who reject God as root of reality, is that he is the only serious candidate reality root that can bridge is and ought, and he is also a serious candidate necessary being. So, God either is impossible of being (a challenge today's atheists are at a loss to propose a cogent answer to) or is actual, there being no good reason to hold that God would not be an independent, eternal being framework to worlds. That is, atheism is in big worldviews comparative difficulties trouble. That is part of why Carroll's cat out of the bag assertion is so out of line and so telling. KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Hazel “Why are we still going over this, I wonder?“ OMG I’m in the looking glass. Don't have time to say anything more at the moment. Vividvividbleau_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

That was perfectly clear at the time, Vivid, as it is now. Then kf wrote,
You ask a truly pivotal question. It would be interesting to see the response on self-evident truths. Without such, rational discussion is lost.
And then I responded to kf and said I wasn't going to discuss that topic anymore. Why are we still going over this, I wonder?hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Hazel Just a straight answer to a simple question, unlike you my purpose was stated quite clearly in # 89 Vividbleau October 15, 2019 at 11:01 pm Hazel re 21 No Hazel the constitution does not guarantee your rights. What guarantees your rights is a consistent enactment of the recognition and acceptance of the presuppositional truth of this basic principle which gave rise to the Constitution “We hold these truths to be Self-Evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….. Do you accept self evident truths? Do you recognize that to the framers rights do not come from men or woman, Governments or society but from the Creator, that this was the bedrock upon which the Constitution rests?Sheesh this is basic civics Vivid Clear enough? Vividvividbleau_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I'm not sure what your purpose is??? You wrote,
“Vivid I participated in some of them, although I have no idea which ones.” But you have confirmed by your own words that the discussions you participated in included self evident truths…."
I don't see what the issue is here: I don't remember the names of the many threads that I have posted on, either briefly or extensively, that have dealt with the topic of self-evident truths And I don't understand, and didn't at the time, your objection to 281. But to try to be clear: 94 was in response to kf's request for a response about self-evident truths, and I explained that I wasn't going to discuss that topic anymore. Surely that is clear?hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Hazel “It should be clear that I was referring to self evident truths” Clear, you can’t be serious but you are so muddled in your thinking you actually are being serious. Have you forgotten about this exchange on this very subject you claim you have been so clear about? October 19, 2019 at 5:19 pm Hazel “Vivid I participated in some of them, although I have no idea which ones.” But you have confirmed by your own words that the discussions you participated in included self evident truths.... Vivid And your reply was NO and followed it up with a bunch of word salad that so confusing I could not make heads or tails of it. If anyone else can please enlighten me. 281 Hazel October 19, 2019 at 5:27 pm No, they included the discussion of the topic of self-evident truths, and claims about the topic, but I didn’t say they “included self-evident truths”. And I answer once again that I am not discussing that any more. Go read the threads if you want to explore the past. “Clear” yeh right. Vividvividbleau_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Also, kf, we (many of us) had a long, multi-thread discussion about the nature of math about a year ago: it was that subject that brought me here. My thoughts on that are out there in the past someplace, FWIW.hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

kf, another part of 94 said,
I know that discussing this again in this venue would lead to the same type of discussion, with the same results, so it’s not worth my time to do that anymore. ... I’m not going to go over that issue anymore.
hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Hazel, are or are not the law of identity, excluded middle and non contradiction self evident? KF PS: Try, St Paul, "1 Cor 14: 7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? " (See the Epictetus-level problem?) PPS: It seems it took that many replays to get the evasion games to partially stop. You then went on to endorse a failed rebuttal; it's your move again, please.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

kf referred to your question about self-evident truths at 89, and added "Without such, rational discussion is lost." kf posts interminably about his views on this subject: for instance, he has re-posted #25 six or more times on this thread alone. My reply was addressed to kf, and it said in part, "I know what you all think, I know that and why you think I’m wrong, and I know why I think you are wrong." It should be clear that I was referring to self-evident truths. (P.S. the "you all" above refers to various others that make similar arguments, but on this thread it has been kf making his points.)hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Hazel “ I know why I think you are wrong.” Wrong about what? Vividvividbleau_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

PPS: A useful discussion on objective moral truth, by Nathan Liddell, part 1 :
https://thedailyapologist.com/the-moral-argument-part-1-do-objective-moral-truths-exist/ . . . First, what is meant by objective? President John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”[2] This is essentially what it means to say morals are objective. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, objective, in the sense in which the MA uses it, means: “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”[3] Its synonyms are actual, real, empirical, verifiable, existing, or manifest. In other words, objective truths are mind-independent facts of reality—facts that are true regardless of the feelings or opinions of any person. For example, Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Since the Copernican revolution, science has demonstrated this to be a fact beyond dispute. Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun than Earth, and Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are farther away. This is true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels about it. By contrast, the word subjective means “Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions” and its synonyms are personal, personalized, individual, internal, emotional, instinctive, intuitive, and impressionistic.”[4] According to the MA, moral truths are not subjective. Whether killing the innocent, for example, is right or wrong is not a matter of personal opinion or feeling. Moral duties and obligations are not determined by the feelings of individuals or groups. Instead, the facts of external reality make murder wrong and bind moral obligations. Second, what is meant by moral? A moral truth is a truth concerning good and bad, right and wrong, ought and ought not. A moral truth claim is a statement like it is “wrong to torture a child” or “it is right to save a life.” These are the kind of truth claims with which the MA is concerned. Third, what is meant by truth? Truth is that which corresponds to the facts of reality.[5] To say it more simply, to tell the truth is to tell it like it is. Having these definitions in mind, premise two may be summarized as saying: regardless of what anybody thinks about it, some things really are right and/or wrong. This particular view of morality is called Moral Realism. Pojman and Fieser give this definition: “Moral facts exist and are part of the fabric of the universe; they exist independently of our thoughts about them.”[6]
Part 2 adds:
https://thedailyapologist.com/the-moral-argument-part-2-why-should-we-believe-objective-moral-truths-exist/ . . . But is this right? Do objective moral truths exist as a part of reality? Answering this question is as simple as filling in the following blanks: It is always wrong/bad/immoral for anyone to _________________. It is always right/good/moral for anyone to _________________. If there are answers to put in these blanks, then objective moral truths exist. The MA argues that there are such answers. For example, it is always wrong for anyone to torture a baby for fun. This fact is obvious and indisputable. Similarly, it is always right to feed the hungry. Again, this fact is obvious and indisputable. Consequently, it is argued that premise two is obvious and indisputable. The shared moral experience of life demonstrates it. Several objections are raised against premise two. Among them are 1. Moral Nihilism which says there is no good or bad really. Torturing a child and feeding the hungry are morally neutral acts, neither good nor bad[2]; 2. Moral Skepticism which holds that we just cannot know whether these actions are right or wrong;[3] 3. Moral Relativism which claims that actions like these are determined to be right or wrong by the opinions or feelings of individuals or groups.[4] According to this view, moral facts are subjective, not objective. As William Lane Craig notes, however, these positions do not match with our shared moral experience. He writes:[5]
My claim is that we are justified in believing (2) on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.
Consequently, many, if not most, atheists will agree with premise two. (They may take one of several positions such as Atheistic Moral Realism, Moral Naturalism, or Atheistic Moral Platonism.) Atheist Louise Antony holds, “…any argument for moral scepticism will be based on premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values and duties themselves, that is than (2) itself.”[6] To deny premise two then is to reject shared moral experience and to hold a position that is less obvious than premise two. For these reasons, premise two should be accepted as true.
The attempt to imply or suggest that perceptions of moral truths are delusional, opens up the abyss of grand delusion, my point 3.kairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

PS: A quick reminder on subjectivism and relativism about morality and where they end up:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
kairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Seversky (et al), You have already been corrected regarding the core matters at stake, as time permits I comment more specifically. >>I would argue that this is neither self-evident nor moral nor true.>> 1: Already demonstrated and your objection would saw off the branch on which we all must sit. Notice, the note:
"The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth."
2: In short, you made a dismissive assertion that pivots on what it would push away. Fail. >>Evidence is not a simple concept, as a reading of the article on that subject at the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy website should make clear. >> 3: Strawman, no one claimed the contrary. However, there are particular relevant cases as just seen. Fail, again. >>Broadly, it can be defined as data that can be adduced in support of the truth of a specific claim or explanation.>> 4: A bit simplistic, but again not a point at issue. Evidence also includes chains of reasoning and more. >>The claim or explanation must be capable of being true or false. >> 5: Propositions are truth/falsity bearers, where truth accurately describes aspects of reality. Further, realities may be concrete or abstract. >>Under the correspondence theory of truth, a claim can only be true or false if it is about some aspect of the observable, natural world. >> 6: Smuggling in the materialistic view. Nope, truths may be about concrete observables AND abstract entities. I have often cited Ari in Metaphysics 1011b, best summary I have seen: truth says of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not. What is, reality, can be concrete or abstract. Is it true that there are infinitely many distinct reals, and that this transfinite value exceeds the transfinite value that denotes the cardinality of the natural counting numbers? Is it true that given H above we can have h = 1/H, closer to 0 than 1/n for any natural counting number reachable in +1 increments from 0? (It would be helpful to check how arguments affect maths, as a ready cross check for absurdities.) >>The extent to which it may be true or false is the extent to which, on investigation, it can be found to correspond to what it purports to describe or explain.>> 7: Core error carried forward, leading to fruit of the poison tree. >> Moral claims are not about what is – the observable nature of objective reality – but about what the claimant believes should be the case, so they stand on the far side of the notoriously unbridgeable is/ought gap.>> 8: A claim regarding what ought to be or ought to be done be done may describe truth about that aspect of reality. Fail, further fruit of the poison tree. >>By the correspondence theory, they are neither true nor false.>> 9: Fruit of the poison tree. >>The claim at 1 is not a moral claim. It does not argue that we should be subject to moral governance but that we are “inescapably under the government of ought”. >> 10: As shown, the entire rational process is in fact governed by moral duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc. Indeed, the very pattern of making objections carries that direct entailment. This is inescapable truth, it is as regards moral matters, it is a moral truth, it is self evident. Fail yet again, fruit of the poison tree. >>Since it is a claim about what is we can look for data which would tend to verify or falsify it.>> 11: It is a claim about what is and about what ought to be. In rational process we cannot escape operating on both sides of the notorious gap, leading to the need to fuse them in the root of reality. >> We observe that in most if not all human societies they observe rules of behavior which are beneficial to the functioning of that society. >> 12: In short, responsible rational freedom faces the challenge of ought not just that of is. >>While there are some similarities there are also differences spread over time and space.>> 13: Name a significant, substantial domain of thought and life where error, ignorance, confusion or deliberate wrongdoing are impossible. >>Furthermore, we observe that there are individuals and even groups that flout the ethical, moral and legal norms of their society, often with impunity. We have glaring examples of that in the current US administration.>> 14: Error and wrongdoing are real. 15: And, in the case of the US, it is clear there is a through and through pattern of evil in all major centres of power. That's why you are in low kinetic, 4th generation civil war, majoring on agit prop, street theatre, media distortion and amplification, lawfare to inflict injustice under false colour of law. If you don't wake up bigtime ant turn back from the cliff's edge you will plunge into the abyss, the high kinetic abyss similar to 1861. >>Such observations tend to undermine any claim that we are “inescapably under the government of ought”>> 16: That we do wrong obviates the premise that we didn't ought to do it? Nonsense. >> and certainly that such a claim is “self-evident”, whatever that may mean.>> 17: Inadvertently, you have managed to exemplify precisely why those first three points are so necessary. 18: The absurdities you plunged into in attempts to deny and dismiss simply illustrate the force of the third aspect. As a reminder:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.
KFkairosfocus_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

John Adams did not own any slaves. Samuel Adams did not own any slaves. They had major roles in the writing of the DoI. They opposed slavery and hoped their words would convince the others.ET_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

lol: or if they are women, or homosexual. More seriously, our Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are wonderful and important documents. But they were a product of their times, and if we believe, as I do, that we can evaluate and revise and still stay true to the ideals embodied in those documents, we should both make relevant changes (as we have done in regards to such things as slavery, women's right, and same-sex marriage) and be understanding when judging what we see as weaknesses that were reflective of the times the documents were written.hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

EG
What was stopping them from freeing the slaves that they owned? ET
Most likely economics, Ed. That and the fact that others would just scoop up those freed slaves.
I guess that makes sense. Then, if they were honest, the DoI should have been written as follows.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, unless it puts an economic stress on the person restricting these rights from others.
Ed George_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Vivid, at 283 you wrote,
Hazel Did you agree with KFs and Barry’s claims about the topic of self evident truths?
I answered that question at 94 when I replied to kf's interest in a response about self-evident truths:
I know what I think and am comfortable with my beliefs. I know what you all think, I know that and why you think I’m wrong, and I know why I think you are wrong.
hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

What work? Just spewing nonsense doesn't mean anything, hazel.ET_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Good work, Sev and Ed. I especially like Ed's remark about where kf goes too far.hazel_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
What was stopping them from freeing the slaves that they owned?
Most likely economics, Ed. That and the fact that others would just scoop up those freed slaves.ET_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
you only have to take a brief look at history to find plenty of examples of societies of people lying to and stealing from other societies of people, and thriving.
List those examples, then, Ed. Are those lying and stealing societies still around and thriving?ET_{October 20, 2019
October
10
Oct
20
20
2019
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply