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

Hazel, since as an atheist you have no possible objective moral basis that you can appeal to, (in fact Darwinian Materialism is completely amoral in its basis), and since you grew up in a culture with its moorings laid in Judeo-Christian ethics, you are far more Christian in your objective moral basis than you realize or will ever care to admit:
Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity - 2016 It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian. Excerpt: The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable. “Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian. “We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves. Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity?fbclid=IwAR0QqBmBxdpkHh_iiXlJX-UbwShtej-wnB721Z1eULApM6fuxSUzSjnBJA8
bornagain77_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

ET
And I would strongly support people going to another baker. That’s the beauty of it. You can even start a “go fund me” page to start your own bakery that will rival and beat the close-minded bakers.
The black students could have avoided the Woolworth’s diner. Rosa Parks could have sat in the back of the bus. But they chose not to, and the rest is history. Are you suggesting that they were just whiners?Ed George_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

kf writes, "Why then do you consistently side-step this ..." One reminder: see post 94 above. P.S. I'm not sure who is being a misanthrope, but certainly not me.???hazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Hazel, that is precisely what you have indulged above, look at the pattern of your rhetoric. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

ba, I don't see me "trashing Christianity". I am not a Christian and don't have Christian beliefs. Also, as I am saying, I have beliefs that some Christians also have, and some don't. Neither of those things is "trashing" Christianity. I do argue against some positions, but not because some Christians hold them, but because I think they should not be embodied in law. And last, my feelings about the inappropriateness of giving religious beliefs some special dispensation in respect to the law applies to all religions, but because Christianity is the major religion in the US, most issues involve Christian beliefs. But disagreeing about some aspects of Christian religious belief is not "trashing" it. My life is surrounded by people close to me as well as less close to me that are Christians, or members of other religions, that go to church, that follow various beliefs, etc., and that's all just fine with me. My feelings about them depend very little, if at all, on their religious beliefs. You say your life has become much better since you became a Christian, and that is good. I now lots of people who feel their religion makes their life better. I know lots who have abandoned religion and feel their lives are better for that. I support people finding a path that makes their lives better.hazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

ET, Jesus was a semite, not a nordic. KF PS: 30 years ago, in letters to the Editor in response to those twisting theology in racist ways in South Africa, I pointed out this, which is in a bronze plaque at the foot of Mars Hill, Athens, traditional site of Paul's Areopagus discourse:
Ac 17:22 So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I observe [with every turn I make throughout the city] that you are very religious and devout in all respects. 23 Now as I was going along and carefully looking at your objects of worship, I came to an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN [d]UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you already worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26 And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27 This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
There is no sound basis for racism in the Christian faith. Period. BTW, we don't get to define or redefine the Christian faith, that was done 2,000 years ago by Jesus and his apostles, recorded well within eyewitness lifetime then handed down as precious scripture at cost of martyrdom. For shame!kairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Hazel, I find it interesting given the exposed misanthropy, that your focus is on religion, and on characterising the religious by aberrant demonstrably erroneous views. The pivotal issue is moral government starting with our minds, as has been repeatedly highlighted and argued. Moral government is a characteristic of freedom, and it calls for examination of world roots. These are philosophical, but highly relevant issues, pointing to a world root that is inherently, utterly good. Yes, that is recognisable and in our civilisation, identified -- for good reason -- with God, an inherently good, utterly wise, maximally great necessary being . . . and these are philosophical not religious characteristics; though they do feed into systematic theology. In this light as I pointed out, moral government includes duties to the civil peace of justice as well as duties to sound reason and truth. These lead to the intelligible law of our morally governed nature, i.e. to the natural law (which has been studied in our civilisation for about 2500 years). It turns out that the judaeo-christian tradition endorses the core of it. As Aquinas and others back to Paul of Tarsus took pains to point out, this is not turning on arbitrary impositions. It has also had enormous, massively positive impact on history and government, as say the 1st two paras of the US DoI directly report. Why then do you consistently side-step this, which is in fact also highlighted in Barr's speech and in the onward correction to the emotive, misanthropic reactions we see. All of this is very telling about our peril. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Yes, hazel, people will invent all types of excuses and religion seems to be a favorite crutch. By the way, the odds are against Jesus being a Caucasian. So you can just bring up that fact to any alleged Christian arguing against interracial marriages. Be sure to get their response on video.ET_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Hazel, instead of you predictably trying to trash Christianity day in and day out, perhaps you should take a moment and look at all the good that it has brought into the world?
21 Positive Contributions Christianity Has Made Through the Centuries By D. James Kennedy (excerpted from "What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?") (1) Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages. (2) Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started for Christian purposes. (3) Literacy and education for the masses. (4) Capitalism and free enterprise. (5) Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment. (6) The separation of political powers. (7) Civil liberties. (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times. (9) Modern science. (10) The discovery of the New World by Columbus. (11) The elevation of women. (12) Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic. (13) Higher standards of justice. (14) The elevation of common man. (15) The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache. (16) High regard for human life. (17) The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures. (18) The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages. (19) Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art. (20) The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel. (21) The eternal salvation of countless souls. https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/benefits-of-christianity-to-society/ What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?: The Impact of Jesus in the World – D. James Kennedy - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjVfEFD3v3Q Only eighteen years after the Pilgrims landed in the New World, Harvard College, the first of the Ivy League schools, was established for the sake of educating the clergy and raising up a Christian academic institution to meet the needs of perpetuating the Christian faith. All of the Ivy League schools were established by Christians for the sake of advancing Christianity and meeting the academic needs of the New World. No better summary of this effort can be offered than the one provided by the founders themselves:,,, https://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-christian-founding-of-harvard/ The History of Christian Education in America Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all "sound knowledge and learning." http://www.ehow.com/about_6544422_history-christian-education-america.html Atheism’s Myth of a Christian Dark Ages Is Unbelievable - Mike Keas - January 22, 2019 Excerpt: Atheist biologist Jerry Coyne once wrote, “Had there been no Christianity, if after the fall of Rome atheism had pervaded the Western world, science would have developed earlier and be far more advanced than it is now.” Did Christianity really drag the West into an anti-scientific “Dark Ages,” a period said to stretch from the fall of Rome to 1450 AD? In my new book, “Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion,” I show why this and other anti-Christian myths crash and burn against the facts of history.,,, The University — A Christian Invention The institution in which most scholars investigated natural motion is also noteworthy — the university. This Christian invention began with the University of Bologna in 1088, followed by Paris and Oxford before 1200 and more than fifty others by 1450.,,, The Dark Ages Myth Contrary to the Dark Ages myth, medieval European Christians cultivated the idea of “laws of nature,” a logic friendly to science, the science of motion, human dissection, vision-light theories, mathematical analysis of nature, and the superiority of reason and observational experience (sometimes even experiment) over authority in the task of explaining nature. Medieval trailblazers also invented self-governing universities, eyeglasses, towering cathedrals with stained glass, and much, much more. Although labeling any age with a single descriptor is problematic, the so-called Dark Ages would be far better labeled an “Age of Illumination” or even an “Age of Reason.” https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/atheisms-myth-of-a-christian-dark-ages-is-unbelievable/ Michael N. Keas is Lecturer in the History and Philosophy of Science at Biola University and a Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success – by Rodney Stark - September 26, 2006 (Rodney Stark is a sociologist and historian of religion at Baylor University) Excerpt of review: Stark argues, Europe's primacy in economic, political, and social progress was due to its embrace of Christianity, which opened a space for reason and hence science-driven technology. Emphasizing the connection between medieval scholasticism, with its notion of theological progress--the logical science of thinking one's way closer to God--and Renaissance capitalism, Stark maintains that Christianity alone embraced reason and logic, and this gave Christian regions a tactical advantage in developing commerce. - amazon description The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success - Reviewed by WILLIAM GRIMESJAN. 22, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/arts/the-victory-of-reason-how-christianity-led-to-freedom-capitalism-and.html?mcubz=3 What Does The World Look Like Without Christianity? - Larry Taunton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs_Enln-E2A The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 - David Barton - video (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture) https://youtu.be/1No--GpdqCY Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011 Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science? http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html .
As well personally, I know my own personal life has gotten a lot better since I became a Christian.bornagain77_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Deciding what is really Christian, or what Jesus said and what that means, is a subject for within the Christian community: that's a sectarian issue that is not pertinent to me. My point is that when people talk about "religious beliefs" there is a very wide diversity that falls in that category, both among sects and individual people, and, that support for "traditional" and "progressive" values (as inadequate as those words are) is also widespread and varied among religious groups.hazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

hazel- Hearsay is not evidence. That woman made it all up as there isn't any such thing in any of what Jesus taught. There isn't anything is Christianity that forbids or disagrees with interracial marriage. Same sex marriage definitely is NOT part of what Jesus taught.ET_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

ET, just recently I saw a story about a woman whose refused service to an interracial couple because of her Christian beliefs. Of course, there is a very wide range of Christian beliefs so we really can't generalize to any one set, as various Christina sects, of which there are many, have different beliefs. For instance, quite a few Christians support same-sex marriage, although I think in a previous post you might have dismissed them as "not true Christians."hazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
Would the people who support a baker’s or florist’s religious rights to not provide a same sex couple their services also support the same people using religious freedom arguments to deny their service to inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, Muslim couples, Hindu couples, elderly couples, sterile couples, black couples?
And I would strongly support people going to another baker. That's the beauty of it. You can even start a "go fund me" page to start your own bakery that will rival and beat the close-minded bakers. Or you can whine about it.ET_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

hazel:
Example: some people have religious beliefs against interracial marriage.
Which religion has that?ET_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

re 140: JAD, I graduated about the same time you did, and was part of the counterculture movement at the time. I have been married for almost 50 years, and feel strongly that marriage is an extremely beneficial state for multiple reasons, although I also know that some people don't feel that way. But speaking for at least my friends from that time, many of whom I have kept in touch with, your statement that the institution of marriage is in general met with contempt is quite false. In fact, it is because of my strong support of the value of marriage to people and society that I believe that same-sex couples should have equal access to it if they wish. Yes, SSM goes against traditional values, but it does so out of great respect for the value of marriage, not because of contempt for it. I support large numbers of traditional values (honesty, respect for others, being responsible for one's actions, fidelity to one's spouse, etc.). There are others that some people think are traditional that I don't support (various things about women's roles and behavior, for instance). And last, there are some traditional values that I adhere to that are not supported by the law, such as the use of alcohol. So, as I said before, just labeling something traditional isn't really useful, as all of us, I think, support some traditional values and not others, and all of us would like to see some things change, either in people's attitudes and possibly embodied in law.hazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Hazel, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Would the people who support a baker’s or florist’s religious rights to not provide a same sex couple their services also support the same people using religious freedom arguments to deny their service to inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, Muslim couples, Hindu couples, elderly couples, sterile couples, black couples?Ed George_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

I grew up in the 1960’s (graduated from high school in 1969.) The view of the secular progressive left at the time (during the so-called sexual revolution) was that traditional institutions like marriage and the family were not only obsolete but totally superfluous and that everyone should tolerate “free love.” Of course, a little beneath the surface of this so-called tolerance was a contempt for people who still believed in traditional values. So why has the agenda changed? Why is the left now in favor of marriage? It isn’t. It still is motivated by the same contempt. The purpose of SSM is to undermine traditional values and beliefs by subverting them. Anyone who knows a little bit of history knows that’s the truth. But then, truth is another thing that secular progressives have a problem with. As the following quote illustrates how modern 20th century man abandoned the idea of truth and replaced it with power (might makes right.)
Before his untimely death in November 1963, C. S. Lewis intended to write the story of a fictional character named Ezekiel Bulver, a boy who learned by listening carefully to his parents quarrel that “refutation is no necessary part of argument.” Bulver’s unique insight was that he could avoid the rigorous demands of intellectual life by simply asserting that his opponent was wrong and then following that assertion with an ad hominem attack as supporting evidence. That, Lewis tells us, was “how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.” Refutation requires engagement with ideas, and a striving to understand the truth. From it arise norms of civility, good faith among interlocutors, and a willingness to consider the merits of different arguments. It is easier to denounce without disputation, to assume someone is wrong without bothering to discover whether they are wrong or demonstrating how they are wrong.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451391/scott-yenor-political-state-boise-state-university-sex-gender-culture-warsjohn_a_designer_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

The question is not whether people have the right to any religious beliefs they wish. The question is whether laws that the general populace believe should exist, through the legislative process, should allow exceptions because they conflict with someone's religious beliefs. Your freedom to act based on your religious beliefs does not give you the right to expect others to act on those same beliefs even if they don't accept. Of course, if you and others can persuade the general populace, though the democratic legislative process, to adopt laws that embody your beliefs, that is fine. But I don't think one can argue that one's religious beliefs are being discriminated against just because they aren't in fact embodied in law. Example: some people have religious beliefs against interracial marriage. The law has no such prohibition. Obviously, one can choose to not marry a person of another race, or not associate with mixed race couples, or any other legal and freely chosen acts, but they can't refuse to follow a law just because it involves an interracial couple. There are important distinctions here, and specific cases need to be looked at one-by-onehazel_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Heartlander, great catch:
Laura Hollis: In contemporary American parlance, "theocracy" is inevitably used in the context of a threat -- as in "So-and-so wants us to live in a theocracy!" So when I saw it popping up all over the Twitterverse last week, I was curious: What now? Turns out it originated right here at Notre Dame. United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School on Oct. 11. Right on cue, all the unhappy warriors who see Gileads bubbling up in every American small town raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described. It wasn't just fringe groups like RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.” Or even LGBTQ Nation, which accused the Trump administration of wanting to “tear down” the separation of church and state. (The headline read “2 Trump officials said the U.S. should be run as a Christian theocracy.”) The Nation’s headline cried, “William Barr is Neck-Deep in Extremist Catholic Institutions” and writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell." . . . . The Washington Post asked in a headline, “Is This Barr’s Cry for Help?” and author Catherine Rampell dutifully repeated the trope that Barr's speech was "a tacit endorsement of theocracy." Columnist Paul Krugman at The New York Times perhaps took it furthest: “God is Now Trump’s Co-Conspirator,” read his headline. (To his credit -- I think -- he was speaking tongue-in-cheek and hypothesized that Barr's speech was less about establishing a theocracy and more about providing a smoke screen against Trump's impeachment by rallying the anti-secularist troops.)
Misanthropes. They have told us beforehand. All we need to do is to turn back the turnabout accusation to see their intent. We would be suicidal fools to allow such misanthropy and slander to succeed. Hollis is apt:
But Barr's primary concern is for the protection of the Free Exercise clause, not the Establishment Clause, as the full text of his remarks makes clear. In other words, the attorney general endeavors to protect the right of the American citizen to practice his or her religion without undue government interference. He is not asserting -- explicitly or implicitly -- that the government should make Christianity (much less Catholicism) the "official religion" of the United States. Claims to the contrary are ignorant, deceitful or both. Not to mention ahistorical. Barr's speech was peppered with quotes from philosophers and America's founders alike. John Adams' statement about the necessity of a moral citizenry is particularly well known: "We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by ... morality and Religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Yes, a morally well founded people and state is not a tyranny. Her conclusion is telling:
a free country comprised of citizens with strong moral values grounded in (for example) Judeo-Christian belief is not a theocracy. If, as we so often hear, it is not the job of the government to "legislate morality," then morals, values and principles must have some other source. Our government should be protecting citizens whose lives are a reflection of their religious beliefs and practices. The U.S. Constitution requires it. The stability of our country and our culture depend upon it. All William Barr did was acknowledge it.
The misanthropy is exposed. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

EG, you put up a cluster of irrelevancies that were part of the talking points used to lead us into inversion of darkness and light. Fail, en bloc. Start with, how do you ground reasoned discussion apart from undeniable duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc? And if our intellectual lives are morally governed, where does that point. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

FYI: A Moral Citizenry Is Not a TheocracyHeartlander_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Monopolizing conversations? Feelings of entitlement? Inability to admit error? Belittling others? These are all classic signs of narcissistic personality disorder.
KF, do these symptoms remind you of one of the frequent commenters here?Ed George_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
A sterile couple cannot make a baby. Elderly couples cannot make babies. By this argument, these couples should also be denied marriage?
OK
If two people love each other, and as long as they are of legal age and sound mind, I have not heard any compelling argument why they should’t be allowed to get married.
Why limit it to two people? And why limit it to people?
The argument that it weakens marriage is nonsense.
Perhaps in your very limited mind
My marriage is as strong now as it was before SSM became legal.
The institution of marriage, Ed. Not any particular marriage. As I said, you have a very limited mind.ET_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

All of America’s founding fathers, whether they were Deists or Christians, were guided by the idea that moral truth, which was the basis of civil law and human rights, was transcendent or “providential,” therefore, objective and binding. They were also quite cautious of democracy-- especially direct democracy. They saw the danger of subversive “factions” illegitimately seizing power and destabilizing the government. That is one of the reasons they designed so-called checks and balances in the constitution so it would be difficult to seize or monopolize power. For example, Kevin Williamson who writes for The National Review points out:
John Adams hated democracy and he feared what was known in the language of the time as ‘passion.’ Adams’s famous assessment: ‘I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.’ Democracy, he wrote, ‘never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.’
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/03/donald-trump-populist-demagogue-john-adams-anticipated/ Adams goes on to warn us,
[that] no government [is] capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness 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. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.
The difference between then and now? The majority of people living in America at the time believed that moral values and obligations were grounded in a transcendent moral standard (an eternal self-existing Creator and Lawgiver-- God.) Today we live in a society dominated by moral subjectivism and relativism. What value are so-called human rights if they have no grounding in something eternal and transcendent. If morals are only very transient human inventions then they carry no real interpersonal obligations. Without real interpersonal moral obligations there is no such thing as a right. There is certainly no possibility that human rights are universal and timeless.john_a_designer_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

JaD
*1. Man-woman marriage (MWM) is essentially natural. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is not. Two men cannot make a baby. Two women cannot make a baby. MWM is therefore the natural basis for the family. It cannot be claimed that SSM is, in any sense, essentially natural.
A sterile couple cannot make a baby. Elderly couples cannot make babies. By this argument, these couples should also be denied marriage?
*2. Historically and traditionally MWM has always been recognized as marriage. No such history or tradition for SSM, prior to the mid-20th century, exists.
Historically and traditionally women have been subservient to men. It was not until the 20th century that this changed. Just because we have always done it this way is not an argument for maintaining the status quo.
*3. MWM is not the result of a redefinition. SSM obviously is.
Removing the word "obey" from the woman's vow was a redefinition of marriage.
*4. Only MWM can be said to be God-given. There is no straight forward theological argument that SSM is God given.
Marriage is not restricted to theists. And even many theists accept SSM. There are several Christian denominations that will preside over SSM.
*5. The purpose of MWM was not/is not to oppress gays or gay couples. It is a legal fiction to claim that it is or was.
I have not suggested that it was.
*6. SSM is (it cannot be otherwise) the result of legal fiat; MWM clearly is not.
Yes, it is a legal decision. Marriage is a legal contract. In many jurisdictions it took legal intervention to allow inter-racial and inter-faith marriage. I don't see anyone arguing that these are not marriages.
*7. SSM must resort to legal coercion. MWM has always had a broad unforced consensus.
As the vast majority of people in the US now support SSM, where does the coercion come into play? To the best of my knowledge, no church has been legally required to preside over a SSM. Frankly, I don't see what the issue is. If two people love each other, and as long as they are of legal age and sound mind, I have not heard any compelling argument why they should't be allowed to get married. The argument that it weakens marriage is nonsense. My marriage is as strong now as it was before SSM became legal.Ed George_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

JAD: There is a term: misanthrope. It was used to describe those responsible for the French Reign of Terror. Tell me why it should not be used to describe those who sneer like that about love and marriage. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Secular progressivism has one overarching purpose and goal: to demonize and vilify anybody who believes in, follows or defends what are now derided as traditional moral values. For example:
Family — once a beautiful joint enterprise of people overcoming differences between the sexes to support each other and their children — came to symbolize weakness, not joy. For far too many feminists, marriage is a patriarchal ploy, and love itself is manipulative. Kate Millett, author of the 1970 feminist classic Sexual Politics, wrote: “The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation which the male is free to exploit. . . . Romantic love also obscures the realities of female status and the burden of economic dependency.” The birth-control pill, which permanently broke the link between sex and children, has irreparably changed our mores, too. Prior to the Pill, casual sex could not be quite so casual because sex usually meant the possibility of children. Men and women knew this and acted accordingly. Without any link between sex and having children, marriage’s ability to keep spouses together to nurture any resulting children became weaker. Childless sex and a casual approach to sex and relationships do more than fuel the #MeToo movement. They make it more difficult for women and men, especially those who do not engage in casual sex, to form families. They are the ones who have higher demands in relationships. Those who see one path to family through lifelong marriage are in a minority and will find it harder to compete in the relationship market.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/settle-down-lean-in-unhelpful-advice-to-young-women/ Of course, abortion exists because birth control is not 100% reliable. And furthermore, the truth is the push to legalize “same sex marriage” was never motivated by the belief that marriage is something good, rather it is nothing more than a cynical tactic used by activists as a way to further undermine society’s moral foundations. Foundations that secular progressives see as obsolete and oppressive. Tragically most people on my side of the issue have been either asleep or spineless when trying to counter the leftist agenda.john_a_designer_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

JAD, let's deepen: where does rational argument gain compelling power, the sense that we . . . em, ah, um . . . OUGHT to heed its progress from start points to conclusions? Is it not, then, manifest that our intelligence is in material part governed by duties to truth, right reason, sound conscience, prudence [so, warrant, thence knowledge], fairness, justice etc? What happens were we to dismiss and disregard such duties? For example, what if we held them to be delusions of a jumped up ape with too many spare neurons for its own good, a manifestation of GIGO? (Then, is the level 2 perception not subject to the same dismissal, etc in an infinite regress? Do we not, then, need self-evident first principles?) Then, what sort of roots of reality must be in place for there to be a world with rational, responsible, significantly free creatures? KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

JAD (& attn EG et al), I note, there is an historical exemplar: Nero Caesar, after he kicked his pregnant wife to death in a drunken rage it seems castrated and "married" a 9 y/o boy who resembled her (and later "married" another man). The details and context in Suetonius' lives of the Caesars are beyond shocking. Rom 1 has serious context, between Nero and Caligula. (Try this, vv 26 - 27: "exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural [a function contrary to nature] . . ." Then note the cascade of "progress" to ruin from v 28: "since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or consider Him worth knowing [as their Creator], God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do things which are improper and repulsive, 29 until they were filled (permeated, saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and mean-spiritedness. They are gossips [spreading rumors], 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors [of new forms] of evil, disobedient and disrespectful to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful [without pity] . . . " On this last, ask the ghosts of 800+million victims of the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb carried out under false colours of law. Not to mention the further million per week.) The Scriptures clearly endorse that a core of law is inbuilt, testified to by conscience and manifest to reason governed by sound conscience, as Rom 1, 2 and 13 highlight. It also clearly warns that minds that reject the testimony of the world without and of conscience guarded reason within become debased, warped, even reprobate and lose ability to think straight. That is why reasoning about natural law will always be challenging, there is a lot of clever but warped and debased thought and advocacy out there. Some of it quite learned. Thus, the need for plumb line, self evident test cases to sort out crooked yardsticks. So, too, manifestly the notion that the Bible teaches arbitrary divine commands that we can then see as an imposition of priestcraft and freely dismiss in a "scientific" age where we are so "enlightened" that -- in Carroll's cat out of the bag words "everyone knows that God doesn’t exist" -- is a strawman caricature. Indeed, it goes further, it is arrogant imposition of manifest falsehood. For, questioning or disagreeing with evolutionary materialistic scientism is not to be equated with Dawkins' notorious, telling quartet: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. (And how does an advocate of evolutionary materialistic scientism actually bridge the IS-OUGHT gap and find a world root level IS that sufficiently founds the good so we may objectively discern the evil, the error, the false and know we ought to shun such? Starting with, grounding duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbourliness, fairness and justice, etc? The implication of this thread and the previous -- given the silence, distraction and ad hominem strawman tactics of such objectors as show up -- is the objectors have no cogent, substantial answer. The balance on the merits is plain.) Going further, we see in thread after thread an obsession with introducing homosexualism, imposition under colour of law of so-called "same sex marriage" and the like. This points inadvertently to the real problem: if one makes a crooked yardstick his or her standard of straight, accurate and upright, then what is genuinely such cannot pass the test of conformity to crookedness. Hence, the obvious intent of agit prop operators to use propaganda and lawfare to nihilistically pervert the framework of laws as established by state power. That is how we come to a place where -- this is the central case, from which the others flow -- under false colour of law a million more of our living posterity in the womb are killed every week; mostly for the capital crime of being inconvenient. How do we deal with such? By putting up a plumb line that is naturally straight and upright. You have provided a summary of such regarding the manifest roots of marriage, literally a law written into our genes by way of XY and XX chromosomes and linked biological development, let me give an example of natural law reasoning from a classic source:
Matt 19:3 And Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” [--> a current issue and debate in Jewish law, theology and social thought] 4 He replied, “Have you never read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female [--> naturally evident creation order rooted in the inherently good, utterly wise creator-God], 5 and said, ‘For this reason [--> note, fulfillment of such naturally evident creation order purpose is reasonable] a man shall leave his father and mother [--> family of origin showing requisites of nurture, and identifying the chain of reproduction] and shall be joined inseparably to his wife [--> a successive generation of family], and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [--> a stricture that puts divorce on the defensive, how much more so, that which flies in the face of sound creation order manifest in our genes and bodies. This is a fortiori logic in action.] 7 The Pharisees said to Him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because your hearts were hard and stubborn [--> the diagnosis: hardness of heart, implying ameliorative regulation of social evils towards sound reformation and minimisation of the evil] Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. [AMP]
Immediately, it is false that the Bible is devoid of relevant legal reasoning that uses the natural law, setting a powerful precedent or even a paradigm. It also shows how civil law must cope with established evils, and so may be imperfect but responsible. And, we also see here a case of how scriptural teaching and natural law evident to reason intersect and mutually support, providing a context for both amelioration and sound reform. Which provides for genuine progress that does not go over the cliff. This utterly contrasts with the utter absurdities of relativism and subjectivism -- which is what objectors would substitute:
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.
Of course, objectors routinely studiously ignore this and hasten to the latest list of their claimed triumphs. This manifests the clear unreasonableness and nihilistic trends warned against by Plato 2350+ years ago -- again, something such have studiously ignored, year after year here at UD:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
Remember, these lessons were paid for through the self-ruin of Athenian democracy. My fear is, we are living through the collapse of liberty and self government through constitutional democracy in our time, through absurd radical agendas that will take us over the cliff of fatal disaffection. KFkairosfocus_{October 17, 2019
October
10
Oct
17
17
2019
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Or, to state my point more succinctly: Human made-up moral opinions cannot be the basis for interpersonal moral obligation or universal human rights because there is no objective way to determine whose made-up opinion is right and who is wrong. That requires some kind of transcendent standard. If everyone recognized this fact I think we would still be okay. The problem is that the secular progressive left treats the latest moral fad or trend as if it was a moral absolute and moral progress. That’s because we are hard wired to think that way. In other words, what good is morality if there is no such thing a morally binding obligation?john_a_designer_{October 16, 2019
October
10
Oct
16
16
2019
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply