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

And, as an atheist with no moral foundation, just Who's morality are you appealing to in order to label abortionists, oops I mean Trump, "egregiously immoral"?bornagain77_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

No, Trump is not a "sinner like the rest of us." That statement itself is a deflection from acknowledging how egregiously immoral he is.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

H, irrelevant to the focal issue. I know, I know, you are desperate not to discuss the focal issue and to pretend that we do not recognise that a certain current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a sinner like the rest of us, in need of repentance, forgiveness and transformation by grace. We can guess why, just as we can guess why in a previous thread, objectors have been so absent now that Carroll has let the cat out of the bag yet again on atheistical presumption. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

to JAD, ET, kf, and Barr (although he's not here): Do you think Trump is morally defensible?hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Funny, an atheist with no real moral foundation, and who finds unrestricted and widespread abortion to be just fine and dandy, lecturing others on how morally reprehensible she imagines President Trump to be.
Hypocrisy of the Left's Morality https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/11/hypocrisy_on_morality_139144.html
bornagain77_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

hazel:
But the issue here for me is that Barr is a flaming hypocrite for making these arguments and also supporting Trump,...
Cuz you say so? Really? Grow up, hazelET_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

LoL! hazel thinks that the US Constitution protects all atheists. And hazel doesn't know jack about President Trump.ET_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Neither, JAD. But the issue here for me is that Barr is a flaming hypocrite for making these arguments and also supporting Trump, and his philosophy isn't worth a nickel in the real world if he can espouse this philosophy and still act like he does.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Let me try to simplify the issue here. Members of PETA believe that other sentient creatures have rights on par with human rights and everyone is obligated to respect those rights. So am I obligated kowtow to PETA’s agenda because that’s their belief and opinion? Am obligated to accept their beliefs because they believe everyone is obligated to accept their beliefs? Am I obligated to not offend them because I disagree with their beliefs? This is the kind of nonsense you start running into when moral relativists and subjectivists start basing the idea of rights (human and otherwise) on personal beliefs and opinions. Yes you have the right to believe in nonsense but I’m not obligated to believe your nonsense. Moral obligations, especially when it comes to human rights, must be universal and binding, but how can anyone’s personal opinions and beliefs be universal and binding? That’s something Hazel does not understand or refuses to understand, which means that either she is ignorant or willfully ignorant.john_a_designer_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Hazel, you keep on pushing irrelevant talking points on which there is plainly more than one side of the story. That is not helpful; especially in a situation where we know that the political system and media system as well as the academy are malfunctioning seriously, leading to serious manipulation and warped perspectives -- not least, on the roots of law and government, rights, justice, law and more . . . where in 40+ years, 800+ million unborn posterity have been slaughtered, the direct backdrop for what is going on as we saw with the slander attacks against US Supreme Court nominees. And, more could be said, much more, as we see shocking, increasingly routine violations of due process in Congress as well as elsewhere. Where, I have already pointed out that fatal disaffection is setting in and that in the leading state of our civilisation. Contrary to such, I highlighted something that opens up genuine reform. If we are to move to genuine reform, we are going to have to pay serious attention to those things. As far as the debates on current media amplified polarisation and worse, UD is not a proper venue for such and I suggest you carry them elsewhere. Do you or do you not have a sound basis for law, rights and justice -- a Constitution is not that basis, nor is the implied legal positivism a sound basis. That is why Cicero, last lion of the old roman republic [who literally paid with his head for his stance] is highly relevant -- not merely some Roman who agrees with Barr [which reverses the temporal chain]; and yes, rise of Empire, a lifelong dictatorship with successive dictators in chain (often with assassinations etc), resulted from the failure of the Roman republic. The failure of the Roman Republic and that of the Athenian Democracy are replete with lessons for the dynamics playing out in our civilisation today. Grim lessons. Those who refuse to learn the sound lessons of history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

kf writes,
Mr Barr is not engaging the current controversies over our civilisation’s moral foundations; I already gave enough for you to pause and recognise that there are other sides to the story now being stirred up in ways that will not pass calmer muster; likely, at the foot of the cliff when this generation needlessly shatters our civilisation’s inheritance of sound liberty.
Sure, he is engaging current controversies, and so are you. What good is your philosophy of moral foundations if you can't look at moral corruption in the face and say, "No"?hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

F/N:Let me lay out now, my own 101 on these issues: >> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. Thus, (c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these, (d) we may frame just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government.
For instance: 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. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia. F/N2: Likewise, as Ben Mines summarises from Leibniz, maximal goodness, wisdom and power are arguably mutually, inextricably entangled once we understand/accept that the good implies an evident proper end or purpose:
Leibniz has given an argument to show that omniscience and moral perfection [–> also, omnipotence] are mutually inclusive: all freely willed action strives towards some goal; all goals are the pursuit of some good entertained by the agent; [ –> real or imagined?] the scope and quality of entertainable goods is dependent on knowledge; the maximisation of knowledge perfects an agent’s judgment of the good. An evil being therefore lacks perfect knowledge; and lacking perfect knowledge, is not omniscient; and lacking omniscience, cannot be omnipotent since there will be some actions it lacks the knowledge to perform. The proposition, It is possible that a maximally great but evil being exists is therefore broadly incoherent. A being cannot be both evil and maximally great.
F/N3: This principle of built-in moral government under known law also applies directly to gospel ethics, discipleship and evangelism. For, example, it means that "sin" is not merely an oppressive invention of priestcraft designed to bring us under theocratic tyranny -- which, is the exact implication of many objections to gospel ethics today. Instead, sin is in the first instance willful moral error, defiance therefore of the inherently good and utterly wise Creator who made us, gave us responsible freedom, commanded us to live by love and truth, and gave us sound conscience as a witness. Therefore, too, we have real guilt against the law of our nature, the law of our creator, not just mere painful emotions to deal with. It is in this context that the gospel is good news: in his love, our creator has made a way for us to be forgiven, rescued and transformed.>> KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

I did not ask you if the constitution guarantees your legal rights. I asked you if your moral right to liberty would still exist if that piece of paper were destroyed?. Simple question. The answer is also simple. The answer is YES!,, your moral right to liberty would still exist since your moral right to liberty is not arbitrarily given to you by any piece of paper, or by any man, or by any government, but is a right that is endowed upon you by your Creator, i.e. endowed upon you by God! That is a 'self evident truth'. A truth that our founding fathers thought well worth fighting and dying for. A self evident truth that, in this day of increased government intrusion into our personal lives, many on the right and especially on the so called progressive left, would do very well to remember. To wit this upcoming documentary
No Safe Spaces: Dennis Prager - Teaser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtwujTfcgaA
bornagain77_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Hazel, In the speech focal to this thread, Mr Barr is not engaging the current controversies over our civilisation's moral foundations; I already gave enough for you to pause and recognise that there are other sides to the story now being stirred up in ways that will not pass calmer muster; likely, at the foot of the cliff when this generation needlessly shatters our civilisation's inheritance of sound liberty. I have asked that we focus the issues, which are pivotal and need to be thought through. And your dismissive reaction about a classic voice on the subject, Cicero c 50 BC --whose historical impact is not in doubt -- as though he were merely agreeing with Barr [rather than the other way around!!!!] speaks volumes. Not in favour of the side you obviously are taking. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "I suggest there is more than one side to the story" Yes there is. Barr is telling one side of the story, which is a side that I disagree with strongly. You can quote all the people you want to that agree with Barr, including dead Romans, but I stand on the other side of the story, as well as denounce Barr for being a hypocrite: if he really had the moral foundation he claims should be adhered to, he would resign and denounce Trump in a heartbeat.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

The Constitution guarantees my legal rights.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

as to: "From our Constitution." in response to question of "“And just where do you think the rights of atheists to be atheists comes from? ” LOL, so words written a piece of paper guarantee your moral right to liberty? LOL,,, Really??? What if that piece of paper were destroyed? Would your moral right to liberty still exist?
Government is not the source of our rights March 10, 2018 Jefferson begins the Declaration by discussing natural rights. Jefferson places the origin of natural rights in the “Laws of Nature of Nature’s God,” as well as being self-evident. Natural rights spring from very nature of man. These right are “unalienable,” meaning that they can be neither taken nor given away. Any government action attempting to infringe such rights would be by its very nature illegitimate. These rights exist, not according to which group you categorize yourself, but belong instead to each individual. Jefferson makes clear that natural rights are not a gift of government, to be arbitrarily modified or expunged by the stroke of a pen or will of a tyrant, but instead belong solely to each sovereign individual. In describing natural rights, Jefferson first writes that “all men are created equal.” This equality is not one of result, in which material benefits might be confiscated and redistributed, but one in which no individual enjoys any rights-based advantage over their neighbors due to heredity, and all are held equal before the law. Specifically, Jefferson describes the broad categories of natural rights as including “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Not the right to total happiness, but to pursue happiness. Not the right to liberty to be free from want, but the liberty to be free from government coercion. Not the right to a life to which one feels entitled, but the right to live your life as you see fit according to the dictates of your own conscience and within the bounds of the rights of your neighbors to the same. These are negative rights. They do not describe what one is owed by the government or society; they describe our right to be left alone. The source and operation of our natural rights thus have vast implications for what constitutes good and legitimate government. As Jefferson writes, the entire purpose of government is to protect the preexisting natural rights of individuals. Governments are not founded in order to create new rights and arbitrarily dispense benefits upon preferred groups, but to secure rights that existed before governments were ever created. It is the people, therefore, who give the government its power, without which it would be powerless, and without which it cannot legitimately act. Jefferson writes that when and if an established government fails to protect our natural rights, its only legitimate function, it is the right of the people to abolish it, and establish new government to achieve these ends. These ideas were, and continue to be, nothing short of revolutionary. But that is not how the Progressives of the early 20th century, who continue to exert influence upon American politics from beyond the grave, saw things. For the Progressives, the natural rights theories of the Founders were incompatible impediments to the government driven “progress” they wished to achieve.,,, https://pacificlegal.org/government-is-not-the-source-of-our-rights/
bornagain77_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Hazel, ad hominem. I suggest there is more than one side to the story you put up to try to disqualify and dismiss. I request that we renew focus on the civilisation-level subject on the table and lay aside agit prop, biased media amplification and lawfare. (On this, I speak as one who lived through a foolish, needless civil war and saw first hand how it played out in the media etc.) KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

PS: Let me lay out Cicero on such matters, as a convenient point of reference:
> —Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
kairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

A line from another article" " It takes some serious chutzpah for the guy driving the Trump sycophant train to complain about moral relativism." The biggest example of a complete lack of morals is the man Barr is working diligently to support and to protect from investigation: Trump. The hypocrisy meter buries the needle and explodes on this one.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: I continue clipping:
As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that: “Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.” How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government? First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the Two Great Commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. But they also include the guidance of Natural Law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the Divine wisdom by which the whole Creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things. From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will. Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other worldly-superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy.
These are serious considerations, not to be lightly dismissed or ignored. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Hazel, there is a linked transcript. I note, a Constitution may affirm that certain rights are so but it lieth not in man to create fundamental rights. That is in fact one of the key points in the speech. it is sad that we have reached a point of such polarisation that we are unwilling to even entertain a presentation even as we resort to knocking over a patent strawman caricature. Not even when that is pointed out. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "Hazel, it is evident you have not listened to the speech." Completely true, and I'm not about to watch an hour long video of Barr talking about these things. ba writes, "And just where do you think the rights of atheists to be atheists comes from? " From our Constitution.hazel_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Hazel states,
Yes, we need to protect religious liberty. Protecting religious liberty is indispensable to sustaining our free system of government, but that is different than saying religion itself is indispensable to sustaining our free system of government. Those with no religion have exactly the same rights to have their beliefs protected as those with religious beliefs.
Really??? And just where do you think the rights of atheists to be atheists comes from? It certainly does not come from your atheism. Atheism is completely amoral and it is simply ludicrous for you to presuppose that any moral foundation for a nation, that guarantees the liberty of its peoples, including the freedom of atheists to be atheists, can be built upon anything within your atheism. Many atheists in the 20th century rose to power, most often through explicit violence, and tried to set up their nations along lines that were to be atheistic utopias. Nations that were totally free from any influence from religion, i.e. free from 'the opiate of the masses'. These Marxist 'experiments' into atheistic utopias had unimaginably horrid results. Stalin ended up killing more of his own people than he lost in the entirety of WWII. Mao surpassed even Stalin in his cruelty towards his own people. Upwards of 100 million Chinese slaughtered. Likewise, here in America, abortion is the leading cause of death in America. Upwards to 60 million unborn babies have been slaughtered due to atheistic influences that brought about Roe v Wade. Might it be too obvious to suggest that a nation that slaughters its own children at such a 'industrial scale' cannot long survive, much less thrive, as a nation? And yet here you sit Hazel, in the face of such unmitigated horror perpetrated at the hands of atheists, pretending as if religion is of no real consequence for a nation. Bottom line, atheists, in securing their 'moral right' to be atheists, are just as dependent on God for that moral foundation as everybody else is. i.e. Like Van Til's spoiled brat, they must sit in God's lap even to be able to reach up and slap God's face.
The Brat Who Slapped Her Father's Face Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til's application? The girl's behavior illustrates rebels who live in God's world and who are supported by God's common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God's lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11). Their denial of God is His affirmation. Atheism does not invalidate theism, but proves it because atheism is only possible given the premise of theism. As the atheist Nikita Khrushchev once described the Soviet Union, In Russia, thank God, there is no God. https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations
bornagain77_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: I add to the OP three infographics that I think will help our thinking. Let me also link a recent post (still at top of current threads) that discusses linked issues i/l/o Carroll's ill-founded claim that in this scientific era somehow we all know there is no God: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/sean-carroll-nowadays-when-a-more-scientific-worldview-has-triumphed-and-everyone-knows-that-god-doesnt-exist-really/ That, too is relevant. KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

Found the prepared text: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics Clip 1, core theses on foundations of responsible freedom:
From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States. 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. In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.” It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a Revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before. They crafted a magnificent Charter of Freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations. This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world. In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test. There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state. That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism. But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge. The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society. They never though the main danger to the Republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions. By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the Classical Christian tradition. These practical Statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil. Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large. No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity. But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny. On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles. Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language: “Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites….Society cannot exits unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment. They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and virtue of the American people. In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…” This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves. But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free Republic those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings. Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with and infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being. In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and manmade law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles. As John Adams put it: “We have no government armed with the power which is 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 for the government of any other.”
KFkairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

Hazel, it is evident you have not listened to the speech. The WaPo and other sources of like ilk are NOT responsible, reliable sources on this sort of matter; similar to Wikipedia or the like. I suggest that you actually listen to it. And your use of theocracy as an insinuation is not only far from the mark of what he actually said (and gave significant examples of) but it reflects precisely one aspect of the problem of radical secularist imposition and militancy under false colour of law that is now beginning to improperly impose on freedom of conscience and religion, association, expression and publication. We are in very dangerous territory as a civilisation. I would suggest that the pivotal issue is the grounding of moral government, thus law and civil government; there is a world of difference between a consensus of ethical theism and theocracy, which lies far beyond even what the US Constitution actually forbids, establishment of a federal level state church [to the point of imposing itself as final law on it, Congress has no jurisdiction to pass such a law], much less what is encouraged: free exercise of religion. Barr, in effect argues that the pendulum of self correction has been damaged or smashed and that consequences flow therefrom. Consequences we see in several alarming trends that manifest how moral self-government has been eroded, which is the ruin of liberty through licence and libertinism. We are at a sobering pass as a civilisation and shouting accusations of theocracy at expressions of concern is not helpful. KF PS, the speech text would be helpful.kairosfocus_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Speeches are meaningless noise. Trump's executive orders on this subject are carefully crafted to change nothing. He orders federal agencies to THINK about religious freedom, if they feel like it. Bureaucrats don't feel like thinking about religious freedom, so they won't. The executive orders don't require any ACTIONS at all.polistra_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

The 1st Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The purpose was to prevent Congress from declaring any one religion, be it Roman Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, etc., from becoming an official religion of the United States. There's a difference between theology and religion, which the founders understood. Theology is the root of religions. Judaism is a theology with various movements, Conservative, Chabad, etc. Each movement is considered a distinct religion. Did Attorney-General Barr say he calls on Congress to declare Roman Catholicism to be the official religion of the United States?BobRyan_{October 15, 2019
October
10
Oct
15
15
2019
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

@Hazel@5 Between the evidence of what Barr said and your interpretation of the evidence, and your exposition of the evidence, and your explanation of the evidence there are gaps which you have filled in with your post. It won’t do, you know.Belfast_{October 14, 2019
October
10
Oct
14
14
2019
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 22 23 24 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply