US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus

October 14, 2019

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

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

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

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

Food for thought. END

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

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

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

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

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

JAD “Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?” It gets even worse, they assert for the existence of that which they deny exists. Crazy Vividvividbleau_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Jad RE 596 and 602 Nailed it Vividvividbleau_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

re 603: I pointed out at 568 that we had a long discussion about this a while back. Here's the link.. You can go read that. I'm not going to rehash that again, for sure.hazel_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

UB Please keep participating. All I was trying to convey in 565 was that I have found its better to narrow the focus and first isolate the areas of disagreement before moving on to something else. For instance KF writes “5: So, E is true, is known to be true once we understand it and is undeniably true on pain of patent — obvious, hard to deny — self contradiction.” My point is that until agreement is reached on 5 what’s the point in trying to get agreement from what follows from 5 which is “6: It is therefore self evident.” It appears there is no disagreement on 5, although Sev wants to clarify some things . With all in agreement on 5 we can now move on to 6. I did point this out to Hazel and of course crickets. Vividvividbleau_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

A moral subjectivist believes there are NO OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES. Again that means there are no real interpersonal moral obligations, therefore, there is no basis for universal human rights. That is their perspective not mine. I would argue that they have rights even if they don’t believe that. They’re the one who are arguing that nobody really has any rights. Moral subjectivism is a very irrational self-refuting moral perspective. I have every right to criticize that kind of thinking, even if I doesn’t come across as being nice or “civil.” I am not very patient with people who show up online peddling nothing but nonsense. The purpose of my life is to help make a better world. However, you can’t make a better world if there is no moral truth or no real basis for universal human rights. Moral subjectivism is a morally and intellectually bankrupt way of thinking that is based on egocentric self-righteousness that cannot be defended rationally or logically. As I have pointed out here before it’s self-refuting.
Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?
This is logic 101. If you fail to posit a self-evidently true premise your argument fails on logical grounds. Logical contradictions can’t be true. Moral subjectivism fails because it is based on a self-refuting, therefore, irrational claims. Actually, it’s a “morality” based on egocentric self-righteousness being used to justify immorality, intolerance and contempt for ones fellow man. Furthermore, if it’s subjective why do you feel compelled to try to convince anyone else that it’s true? (Again that is logically self-refuting.) Obviously what is “true for you” is not necessarily true for anyone else. Moral subjectivism is not based on reason but on rationalization. Your rationalization does not refute that there really is objective moral truth and, therefore, a solid basis for universal human rights. Irrational egocentric moral subjectivism, on the other hand, offers no way to improve the world. PS: So to answer Bob’s "question," I have a moral obligation to make this world a better place. But is there is no real interpersonal moral standard to determine what is really good or bad, or what is good, better or best there is no way to make a better world. So does that let people like Bob off the hook? Not exactly because that obligation exists whether or not Bob, I or anyone else believes in it… But I’m okay with Bob believing what Bob wants to believe. I just don’t understand why he and our other interlocutors want to stop us from creating a better world. Ironically he could help us by JUST LEAVING US ALONE.john_a_designer_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
With regards to the issue of moral obligation, the first question that springs to my mind is – moral obligation to who (or what)?
If only, for once, Bob O'H were to be sincere in his question. The answer, obviously, since a 'what' is completely amoral, is that it is God from Whom morality must necessarily arise and that it is Him that we are therefore necessarily morally obligated to.
The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
Moreover, if Bob were ever inclined to honestly pursue that line of questioning further, he might further ask, "But how do I fulfill my moral obligation to God?" And the answer to that question is that, through our own strength and efforts, we can never completely fulfill our moral obligation to God. God's standard is moral perfection. No human is able to meet that standard of perfection. When compared to God's standard of moral perfection, EVERYONE, from Mother Teresa to Chairman Mao, have failed to meet that standard of perfection. The fact that no human is able to meet that standard of moral perfection is testified to by the fact that we all die. Herein lies the beauty of Christianity. Jesus was able to live a completely morally perfect life without ever once sinning and transgressing the moral perfection of God. i.e. Jesus fulfilled man's 'moral obligation' to God for moral perfection! That Jesus lived a life completely free from sin is testified to the fact that He was raised from the dead by God. And it is through that atoning sacrifice of Jesus life, death and resurrection, that we are able to stand justified before God.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Moreover, Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome temptation, sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf, (since we were and are completely incapable of doing so), so that we may be set free from our sin, even from death, and reunited with Him. Love is the only proper response on our part.
Matthew 26:53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Temple Veil – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNHoijNO2I
bornagain77_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

"moral obligation to who (or what)?" No obligation to anyone monikered 'Bob O'H', that's certain. Andrewasauber_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

A moral obligation to yourself and others, Bob.ET_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

JAD - With regards to the issue of moral obligation, the first question that springs to my mind is - moral obligation to who (or what)?Bob O'H_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

JAD, I add a thought, what is compelling about facts and their entailments, save that we have certain first duties of reason that do carry the compulsion of duty under sound law? Here, built-in law, law of our responsibly and rationally free morally governed nature. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Let me repeat a point I made earlier in this long already overly repetitious thread. (See my comment at #140 where I provide the following quote.)
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. 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.
https://uncommondescent.com/religion/us-ag-barr-on-the-importance-of-religious-liberty/#comment-686118 Personal opinions are not arguments, therefore, prove nothing. So why waste everyone’s time? Unfortunately ignorant people conflate being argumentative with making logically sound arguments. The former is an absolute waste of time the latter isn’t. Logical arguments begin with FACTS which are either (1) self-evidently true, or (2) very probably true via in valid inductive reasoning. That’s logic 101. (Logic is a branch of philosophy for those who are adverse to philosophy.) The proposition, “Personal opinions are not arguments, therefore, prove nothing,” is self-evidently true. You can believe your opinions but that doesn’t obligate me to believe you. This becomes serious when we are discussing or debating morality or human rights because what we are talking about is OBLIGATION. (Ethics and morality BTW is another branch of philosophy.) If your argument about morality rejects moral obligation then whatever you are arguing for IS NOT morality. To persist arguing that way is in fact immoral because you are trying to force your personal views on someone else. What right do you have to do that?john_a_designer_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Back on OP issues, notice two significant things, a toxically misanthropic, hate-filled slander: https://www.thedailybeast.com/lets-call-religious-freedom-by-its-real-name-poisonous-anti-lgbtq-bigotry?source=articles&via=rss (notice here on the grooming and worse issue https://www.amazon.com/Last-Closet-Dark-Side-Avalon-ebook/dp/B0787XLK4H ) and an expose on coverup re Epstein and his network implicating the credibility of the major media houses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA Food for thought as we contemplate the underlying breakdown of responsible rationality that has emerged across this thread.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

UB, you are no thread hijacker. KF --ownerkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

JAD,
if moral obligation or “ought” does not really exist then so-called morality is just a pretense where selfish people try to con and manipulate others to get what they want. Of course, none of this bodes well for the weak and afflicted in society, who are told they are oppressed only to be exploited by so-called social justice activist who are promising to liberate them. The oppressed end up being pawns in a ruthless and unprincipled power struggle.
Sadly, deadly accurate and a warning on the implications of fashionable marches of folly already in progress. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Core first principles and duties of right reason are not somehow "evolved" by societies but are inescapable antecedents of rational behaviour. Societies and individuals cannot escape them, but may not recognise such explicitly. In some cases, due to ill-advised ideologies, there may be resistance to their manifest force.kairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Sev, error arises in the context of intent to assert or believe accurate description that fails. 99% accuracy may be good enough for many practical purposes but is 1% error. I pick up another revealing comment:
As I see it, the real danger is totalitarianism, whether religious or political. When people come to believe they are in possession of some incontrovertible truth, whether it be the dogma of a particular faith or a political ideology, it is but a short step to believing that they have a warrant to do almost anything in the furtherance of that truth. That is why we see some adherents of a religion believing that they are entitled to kill all infidels or advocates of a political revolution believe they should kill all those who are held to have oppressed the masses. I believe that, over time, any free society will evolve a set of moral principles to which the vast majority are content to be subject of their own free will.
What part of error exists, necessarily and self-evidently, not just as a commonplace observation, is so hard to recognise? If error exists, then we face the humbling challenges of duty to right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness and justice, etc: we are finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed. Does that not imply that arbitrary, nihilistic imposition by raw might or more subtly by might in deception [= manipulation] is misanthropy? And, the nihilist's creed is its own refutation. These are utterly different from recognising that there is objective warrant that rises above bias to the point where a prudent person will respect and work with the result. With science that comes long before we get to moral certainty, the weakest degree. We are willing to treat as empirically reliable the explanatory frameworks of science despite the clear logic that empirical support cannot deliver the indubitable truth of a best so far explanation. Further to this, it is to logic, mathematics and patent absurdity on denial that we must go to to find the higher degrees of warrant that can and in many cases do deliver conclusions that are certain beyond revision. For example, 2 + 3 = 5 is not going to change, nor will the result of constructing squares on the sides of a right angle triangle. Ruthless closed mindedness and misanthropy are not the product of first principles and duties of right reason, Just the opposite, it is these that give us hope of correction. I also find the obsession with "religion" as prime source of such misanthropy offensive in the extreme. There are indeed religious fanatics. But we live in a day when over the past century radical secularism has spread and has gained power, costing over 100 million of the already born their lives and somewhere between 800 and 1,400 millions of our living posterity in the womb have also been slaughtered under false colour of law. So, a degree of balance is required. The point is, responsible rationality is a key step towards correcting errors and turning back marches of ruinous folly and hate. Which in the specific context of this thread includes the slander that Christians are right-wing theocratic, racist [or equivalent, X-phobic, fill in blank at whim] nazis. Something that is so manifestly false that it should not be tolerated. But, it seems to be being entertained by far too many people, with predictably ruinous consequences. We had better wake up to our folly and turn back from the crumbling edge of a cliff. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Vivid, I agree with your sentiment in #565, and will stop jacking this thread. The demonstration of Ed's inability to walk it like he talks it was complete long ago. cheersUpright BiPed_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

DDM:
It’s worth remembering that calling it a genetic “code”, “translation” etc are metaphors. In reality it’s just chemical reactions.
Here we go again, the convenient, it's only an analogy and we can dismiss such at whim. Nope, analogy, to begin with, is a key component of inductive reasoning and pivots on the like a duck principle. That is, in logic of being, an entity has core, distinguishing characteristics, where others will be in common. So, a man, a woman, a boy, a girl have distinguishing characteristics culminating in being a particular human individual of a particular life stage and sex, but we all share archetypes of humanity, living beings, entities with bodies, intelligence, etc. So, on seeing sufficient factors in common one may point from case A to case B responsibly. Mess this up and you kill vast domains of reasonable, responsible thought and action. But, we are not even dealing with an analogy but with an exemplification. A digital system uses physical phenomena to effect an information-using system that relies on discrete state or at least sufficiently distinguishable state entities. DNA code uses 4-state elements based on molecular scale prong height [similar to the common Yale lock and its keys] and in effect van der Waals forces of interaction, which aren't quite chemical but that will do. Recognising and identifying the code was a project that won Nobel Prizes; we now know of about two dozen dialects. Which of course demonstrates that the code is not a matter of mechanical necessity. Code, of course, is a linguistic phenomenon, and is a signature of intelligent behaviour. But, so strong is the resistance to the implications that cell based life comes from language-using intelligent behaviour that almost any excuse to blunt the rhetorical force will do. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

EG (& Sev et al): Perhaps the most inadvertently telling comment above is this, on Royce's proposition, E = error exists:
[KF, to H:] Hazel, there is a difference between a generally acknowledged objective observable fact and an undeniable truth. KF [EG:] And the difficulty is who determines which is which.
Therein lies exposed the poison of subjectivism and relativism, through its implicit denial of objective warrant that rises above might and or manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights,' 'proof,' 'knowledge' etc. Where, such implicit nihilism and linked misanthropy are their own refutation. No, EG, a SET stands as such be being true, by being understandable as such, and by being true on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on the attempted denial. As it was obviously studiously ignored, I again cite Wikipedia speaking against its known interest:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity [–> they have to push in their agenda!] refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
The problem you have is that you imply denial of first principles of right reason and avoid facing the absurdity that results by personalising and projecting the issue to others. This becomes evident from your refusal to engage the actual demonstration of absurdity on attempted denial. Asserting NOT-E directly implies E. For the former plainly means, it is an error to hold that error exists. Thus, the denial cannot succeed. (And this has been on the table above and for years.) As for, well, what do you mean by error, that can be readily seen as missing the intended mark of truth understood as the accurate description of reality. And if you do not understand the difference between what one can say is the case and what the case is, then one's failure is one of basic ignorance enabling understanding (maybe, a 2-year old?) or else the implications of various ideologies or worldviews that warp our ability to understand even the simplest things. I am sure the problem is the latter, yet another sign of the failure of such schemes of thought. KFkairosfocus_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

.
D: It’s worth remembering that calling it a genetic “code”, “translation” etc are metaphors. In reality it’s just chemical reactions. UB: The computer you are typing your messages through is “just chemical reactions” too. D: You’re typing on a chemical-reaction-based computer????
I placed the words “just chemical reactions” in quotes for a reason; your point being that the genetic code is just a metaphor - that it contains no symbolic or semantic content whatsoever, and is merely chemistry (lawful dynamic processes) at work. Generally, in my experience, the only people who make that claim are internet trolls and ideologues, because the claim itself has been so deeply and thoroughly refuted in the literature over the past 50 years that it likely requires those types of blind protectionist motivations in order to argue for such an uninformed position in public. I don’t know if you are either an ideologue or a troll, but I do know this is the second time I’ve seen you make statements on this website that display a remarkably wide gap in reasoning. In any case, my point to you is that you could sit down with the laws of physics and fully describe all the "chemical reactions" in the genetic translation process, from the creation of an mRNA script to the production of a polypeptide chain ready for folding. However, upon the completion of your project, what would be missing from your calculations and descriptions would be the important fact that a CUA triplet results in Valine being added to the sequence of amino acids being assembled. The same result would occur if you attempted to describe your computer in the same way; you would end up not having the code that actually enables the computer to function. In other words, you don’t really understand the system you are talking about. If you are neither an ideologue nor a troll, I would simply suggest you stop making that claim and try to acquaint yourself with the relevant material instead.Upright BiPed_{November 6, 2019
November
11
Nov
6
06
2019
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Re 583 584 “ But, but, but....what about KF and Ba” https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Whataboutism “Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, “ Nuff said Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

VB
Hundreds of words saying the same thing
Are you addressing this to me or KF, or BA77? Oops, Hazel has already asked the same question. I wonder why.Ed George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Hazel The difference between you and me is that I am willing to point out to those on “my side” that it is better to use less words not more and counseled that it it is better to isolate on one thing first before moving on (see 565) You on the other hand have your cheer leader outfit on all the time. Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

re 582: LOL. Ask kf and ba about that! :-)hazel_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Duck duck Is there some kind of prize in repeating “People and cultures disagree about morality therefore no objective moral standard exists” Hundreds of words saying the same thing Vividvividbleau_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

hazel:
It is entirely possible that some intelligent component of the universe is a cause behind the genetic code and the development of life forms, but yet has no more interest in our behavior than it does with the behavior of bacteria or lions or any other particular life form.
Is it? How do you know that?ET_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Derek:
It’s worth remembering that calling it a genetic “code”, “translation” etc are metaphors. In reality it’s just chemical reactions.
No, they are not metaphors. And in reality there isn't any chemical reaction that turns a mRNA codon into an amino acid. There isn't any chemical reaction that determines the code. In that sense the genetic code is arbitrary. The translation is real. In reality the ribosome is a genetic compiler. It takes the source code of mRNA codons and produces the object/ working code of a functional protein. And when the ribosome spots an error it stops translating and ejects the defective sequence.ET_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

"As we have seen throughout history." 500 years ago John Calvin would have argued all day long that his morality was objectively perfect, indeed biblical. Irrefutably correct. Also he believed heretics should be murdered. You don't agree? Are you...a heretic?DerekDiMarco_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

JaD
In other words, if moral obligation or “ought” does not really exist then so-called morality is just a pretense where selfish people try to con and manipulate others to get what they want.
That sounds like an argument from consequences. What you have left out is people trying to live within a society. I think we all agree that there are some moral values that are necessary for most of us to follow if our society is to be stable (don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t steal a parking spot, don’t tell your wife that her dress makes her look fat). That doesn’t make them objective. In a different society they may be different. As we have seen throughout history.Ed George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

KF
Hazel, there is a difference between a generally acknowledged objective observable fact and an undeniable truth. KF
And the difficulty is who determines which is which.Ed George_{November 5, 2019
November
11
Nov
5
05
2019
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply