Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 7, 2004 9:59:59 GMT -5
I large part of why Lwood & I not connecting on any level deals with the diffinition of Liberal. Now, given Rush's description of Liberals I would not be one, the far left would consider me moderate, Lwood I assume would consider me extreme extreme left. I'm not assuming anything about your position on the many issues of the day. You described yourself as an open minded liberal and said that you did not want Republicans or religious zealots legislating morality. The entire gist of my exchange has been to ask you do you think anyone should legislate morality or should we have an all out live and let live approach to legislation? You said we should have a live and let live approach as long as it does not hurt someone else. You also said that morality can be legislated but you don't want it to be legislated by Republicans and religious zealots. Is that an accurate description of what you think? Here's what I think: I don't care what your opinion is of the many issues of the day. My whole point in this exchange has been to demonstrate how stupid your comments were in your original post. Morality has always been legislated and criminalized and will always be legislated and criminalized by all societies no matter what their form of government. In this country, and all others who use a representative form of government, the laws are up for grabs by the group of people who organize themselves the best and get the votes needed to legislate their point of view. It is a never ending back and forth game. What is legal or illegal today may be the opposite next year. We need both the "liberal" and "conservative" points of view in the legislative process in order to better serve the needs and beliefs of the many. I am a Christian and I want to be able to raise my children with the same values and beliefs that I was raised with. I want to be able to freely worship my God. I want to be able to freely tell my children what God says is right and wrong. I don't care what you or anyone else does with their life. As a Christian I know that is between you/them and God. Other people should respect my religious tradition the same way they would respect the religious traditions of a Buddist or Muslim. When it comes to public policy and participation in the legislative process I have a Constitutional right to participate as much as any other citizen. The truth is that there are a lot of Christians in this country. Therefore, if we organize ourselves better than another group does and we influence a particular party to support and legislate our values then we can change the laws to represent what we believe. I expect that if someone like yourself does not share my beliefs then you will be irritated by the laws that I want passed. Likewise, I do not share many of your beliefs and I will be irritated by the laws you want passed. Welcome to democracy in action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2004 10:36:34 GMT -5
Isn't there a huge difference between morality and legality? Not all laws legislate "morality."
I guess it all depends on how you are defining morality.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for one to state that they don't want someone else to determine what morality is based on THEIR religion, and then institutionalize that morality through the legal system.
This is not to say that laws cannot reflect this same definition of morality. Only that their religion should not be the sole basis for the laws.
Simple rule of thumb: don't define something as wrong simply because your religion says it is wrong; we need to know WHY it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 7, 2004 12:15:24 GMT -5
There are also societal standards that are made into laws.
Actions that are considered perfectly fine in both legal and religious terms in other countries might seem barbaric and cross the lines of legality in our country.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 7, 2004 21:42:46 GMT -5
Isn't there a huge difference between morality and legality? Not all laws legislate "morality." Definitely not all laws have a moral basis, but many do. Then it is also reasonable for one to say that they do not want someone else to determine what morality is based on THEIR personal definition, and then institutionalize that morality through the legal system. We all bring our personal values/morals into the political arena and use them when determining what laws we want passed and which candidate we will support. Not so simple to the devout. A devoted and faithful follower of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. believes that because God said it is wrong is the only reason they need. "I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be lead astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ", 2 Corinthians 11:3. I would quote you something similar from the Quoran, but I'm not a Muslim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2004 22:59:54 GMT -5
Not so simple to the devout. A devoted and faithful follower of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. believes that because God said it is wrong is the only reason they need. Maybe not simple to the devout, but simple to me. I fear the "devout." I fear anyone who thinks they know what is right and what is wrong without bringing reason to bear on the question. Again, for example, don't tell me gay marriage needs to be made unconstitutional because it is immoral. Or because it is a "sin." Show me why it is such a danger. (And I'm not saying one cannot make such a case. But I want to hear the argument.) And I beg to differ with you about laws legislating morality. I don't believe any law gets passed simply because it is the "moral" thing to do. There needs to be more to it than that. At least, that was the case before the Religious Right seized control of our government.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 8, 2004 4:46:14 GMT -5
At least, that was the case before the Religious Right seized control of our government. The Religious Right should be the least of your worries (R)uffda. I'd be more concerned with the socialists within the Democratic party trying to seize control.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 9, 2004 17:43:01 GMT -5
Maybe not simple to the devout, but simple to me. I fear the "devout." I fear anyone who thinks they know what is right and what is wrong without bringing reason to bear on the question. I fear anyone who thinks that what is right and what is wrong is determined by the individual's personal definition. Bringing human reason to bear opens the door to accept the extreme. That person lacks a moral system and therefore may be able to justify any action as fitting with their personal definition of right and wrong behavior. Hitler clearly thought that he was justified in his actions against the Jews because his personal moral system said there is no God who created all men equal, therefore it is okay to eliminate an entire group of people. Read the definition of morality: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. We have already discussed this topic at length. I understand what you are saying that you want to hear a "rational" argument from the individual. What you don't understand is that to a devoutly religious person they don't need man's rationalization to arrive at their position. It is okay to them to simply say my God established a system of right and wrong conduct long before I was born and it is not my place to say he is wrong? The religious right is not a new thing in America. We have been around since the beginning (before the Constitutional Convention). Frankly, the non-religious left is the group who has recently emerged in the last century. The religious right sought to establish a government that used a moral system that said there is a power higher than men, therefore men are created equal and should govern themselves accordingly. All people have a right to participate in government and collectively establish laws. That's not my opinion of history by the way. Read Locke, Burke, Luther, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, even Franklin (an Agnostic) if you don't believe me. My whole point through this entire discussion has been to say that both the right and the left are necessary in determining public policy. Morality is legislated. Morality is a system of right and wrong behavior. Many of those behaviors we all agree on, like not killing people. Other behaviors we do not agree on, like killing the unborn. I respect the right of people who have differing opinions than me to participate in policymaking. However, I will not back down and be told that I am ignorant zealot who has no right to participate in the legislative process because I follow a moral system that is no longer followed by the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2004 18:06:21 GMT -5
I fear anyone who thinks that what is right and what is wrong is determined by the individual's personal definition. A misrepresentation of my point, but carry on. The greatest "wrongs" inflicted in human history have almost always been in the name of God. No quarrel with that definition, but I have a major problem with how that "system of ideas" is created. Well, I'm not so much asking for a rational argument from an individual (except from an individual who is telling me something is wrong). What I am saying is that I much prefer laws which have been established through rational argument than I do laws which are SOLELY based on one group's interpretation of their religion. And, in this regard, I agree with ItsAllAboutMe's overall point. Religion has been around since the beginning of this country. But the Religious Right was not in control then to the degree they are now. Nor was religion the sole guideline for the establishment of our "moral system." Well stated. But I don't think that's what I was saying --or what Its was implying. Again, all I ask for is rational discourse when enacting laws. If all that can be used in the defense of an argument is that "My God tells me this is wrong" that's not enough for me. It doesn't mean that the action being discussed is NOT wrong, I just expect more. I do not want the equivalent of Muslim Fundamentalism in this country. I don't even want to head in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 9, 2004 18:46:44 GMT -5
Assuming that everyone involved is a consenting adult (21 years old), are you for legalizing prostitution, drugs, and polygamy? Yup, yup, and yup. Would it be okay with me? Well... not the drugs. However, would I want the government to come down on my loved family member because of his/her bad (in my judgement) choices? Nope.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 9, 2004 23:56:59 GMT -5
The greatest "wrongs" inflicted in human history have almost always been in the name of God. People using the name of God to justify their personal ambitions is no different than people using their disbelief in God to justify their personal ambitions. Communism is responsible for over 100 millions murders and does not recognize God. Communism views religion as evil and seeks to destroy it. Both situations are the same. People seeking their own evil ambitions. The Quoran, the Bible, the Dao De Jing, etc. do not tell people to do these great wrongs you describe. People who will do evil things find many ways to rationalize their behavior. Evil is evil no matter what angle is used to justify it. Rational arguments were made in the early part of the 20th century against the equality of humans. The Nazis believed that people are evolving. Some have evolved more than others and are therefore superior. The "weeds" of humanity needed to pulled. So Jews as well as the mentally ill and disabled were destroyed. That was SOLELY based on a group's rational argument. Today we have a large group who through rational argument have decided that it is morally correct to kill millions upon millions of unborn children. Again, the Quoran, the Bible, the Dao De Jing, etc. do not tell people to do these great wrongs you describe. You are so wrong. The religious right is anything but in control today. They were more in control during the beginning of this nation than now. Who were the first settlers in this country? The religious right. Agreed. However religion is responsible for the concept of unalienable rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights established by their Creator. Men will then determine the laws. Hopefully they have a moral compass that seeks to protect people's rights. I'm going to head you off on your next post. I never said I was for denying gay people their rights. I said that marriage is a religious concept that should not be tampered with by the state. Find a way for them to maintain their rights without attempting to change Theology. I agree that rational discourse is the process for determing public policy. I believe that all perspectives are necessary when establishing laws. It also does not work for me that someone says something is right or wrong simply because they have decided it to be true for themselves. I'm saying the same thing you are, but about the non-religious. I understand that for the person who has rationalized right and wrong for themselves that they are devout to that belief. Which brings us full circle to my original response to ItsAllAboutMe. Suck it up. Both the Left and the Right are going to participate in the legislative process. If you don't like the laws, then get politically active.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 10, 2004 0:10:30 GMT -5
I'm going to head you off on your next post. I never said I was for denying gay people their rights. I said that marriage is a religious concept that should not be tampered with by the state. Find a way for them to maintain their rights without attempting to change Theology. Imho, this is an invalid argument unless you simultaneously argue that the state should not permit marriages which are not performed within a religious context (i.e. civil weddings). I have seen no one argue that Britney Spears and whoever he was should not have been allowed to marry. (I've seen people argue that it was a dumb thing, but not that they should have been prevented by law from marrying the way they did.) So long as you recognize, and fail to protest, secular weddings performed by justices of the peace, you cannot argue that the govt form of marriage is based on a religious concept.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 10, 2004 8:47:17 GMT -5
Imho, this is an invalid argument unless you simultaneously argue that the state should not permit marriages which are not performed within a religious context (i.e. civil weddings). I have seen no one argue that Britney Spears and whoever he was should not have been allowed to marry. (I've seen people argue that it was a dumb thing, but not that they should have been prevented by law from marrying the way they did.) So long as you recognize, and fail to protest, secular weddings performed by justices of the peace, you cannot argue that the govt form of marriage is based on a religious concept. I'm going to respond because you are being so persistent. StanfordFan and I had a long discussion a couple months ago about gay marriage. I was intending to head off another lengthy discussion about gay marriage by making a simple all encompassing statement. I was also tired when I wrote that little tangent. I agree with your reply. My statement was simplistic when taken out of the context of a much larger previous discussion. Here are the highlights of what I said then. 1. In the Judeao Christian tradition homosexuality is a sin. bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Ge+19:5-8 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Le+18:22 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Le+20:13 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Dt+23:17 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Jdg+19:22 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Ki+14:24 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Ki+15:12 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Ki+22:46 [a href="/http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=2Ki+23:7 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Ro+1:24"]/http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=2Ki+23:7 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Ro+1:24[/a] bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Ro+1:26 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=Ro+1:27 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Co+6:9 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Ti+1:9 bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=NIV&search=&passage=1Ti+1:102. Marriage establishes the family through procreation. Family names are carried forward by offspring. 3. Political science 101: The family is the foundation of society. The family teaches people how to govern their own lives. People who can govern their own lives can then participate in the governing of others. In other words if a people have no respect for authority and laws then government is useless. The family is responsible for teaching children to respect authority and laws. 4. Can homosexuals adopt children and teach them to respect laws and authority? Of course they can. Can homosexuals procreate and establish a genetic family tree? Of course they cannot. 5. What rights do married people have that homosexual life partners do not? All citizens can visit people in the hospital. All citizens can will property to people, organization, even cats and dogs. There is a growing trend among many organization to allow non-family members of employees to enroll in their insurance programs. It is not the government's place to tell companies what benefits they have to provide their employees. Companies who want to compete for good employees provide good fringe benefits. The government already has a health and retirement program of its own that it makes employers pay into called FICA. Granted it's not a particularly good program, but that is a separate issue for Congress to debate. All citizens can legally establish who they want to name as the guardian of their children via a will. The courts will usually respect the legal will of a citizen. However, sometimes the courts will side with the genetic family members in custody cases. A marriage license will not stop custody battles from occuring. 6. Now lets look at the bigger picture. If gay marriage is legal then the government is saying the lifestyle is now a societal norm. Couple this with the hate speak legislation being pushed by the socialist left. It would then be possible to prosecute any person who teaches their children that their religion views homosexuality as wrong. Essentially the government could say a parent was abusing their child and teaching them hate. Now you will probably say that won't happen, it is too extreme and rational human thought will prevail. I agree that most people will respect other citizens first ammendment right to practice their religion. But history has also shown that a large group of people can rationalize horrorible things. 7. I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom. I don't care who lives together. I care about any attempt to restrict religious freedom. There is a solution to this problem. Introduce bills into each state's legislative process and find an answer that fits the people of each state. I do not agree with a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. I do understand why it is being discussed. Its because the people who want to change the law are trying to get it done through the judicial branch instead of the legislative branch. The Constitutional Amendment is a political response. The gay community needs to regroup and change their tactics in order win the support of the majority of Americans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2004 10:02:57 GMT -5
Not me. I don't think I've entered the Gay Marriage debate.
But that's OK.
The only thing I have to say about Gay Marriage is that I'm surprised it's even an issue, legally. I would have thought the protests would have been much more prevalent within the various Church communities.
Maybe they are.
+++
To me, the perfect example of one's religion getting in the way of good sense is W and Stem Cell Research.
But then, I have no clue what religion W is following. It sure isn't Christian, by any definition I know.
|
|
Lwood
Sophomore
Go Lions!
Posts: 247
|
Post by Lwood on Apr 10, 2004 12:16:29 GMT -5
Not me. I don't think I've entered the Gay Marriage debate. But that's OK. The only thing I have to say about Gay Marriage is that I'm surprised it's even an issue, legally. I would have thought the protests would have been much more prevalent within the various Church communities. Maybe they are. +++ To me, the perfect example of one's religion getting in the way of good sense is W and Stem Cell Research. But then, I have no clue what religion W is following. It sure isn't Christian, by any definition I know. I corrected my post. You're right. It was StanfordFan.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Apr 10, 2004 16:43:13 GMT -5
1. In the Judeao Christian tradition homosexuality is a sin. A) Many of those dealt with prostitution (including, presumably, male-homosexual prostitution) and not specifically w/ homosexual acts. B) I'd want to see what other translations said before coming to a firm conclusion, but most of them also only condemned male homosexuality. I guess the lesbians are okay in Judeo-Christian tradition. C) Polygamy is okay w/in the biblical context. Watch what you're asking for. D) Basing laws on religious tradition is establishment of religion, which is a no-no in the US. A) Marriage is not necessary to create a family. B) (As you note below) Procreation w/in the partnership is not necessary to create a family ("family" consisting of offspring) A) So my wife and I have no foundation in society, since we have no kids? What about Catholic clergy? B) Aristotle stated that even earlier. Should we look upon Athenian society what relationships are okay? C) Homosexuals (as you noted) can have families as well. Not yet anyway. A) The right to combine income and deductions when paying taxes. B) The right to presumed inheritance when a spouse dies intestate. C) The right to not testify against their spouse. D) The right to visit in the hospital (no, a random person can't visit anyone they want in the hospital). E) The right to collect govt retirement benefits (FICA) as a spouse and as a surviving spouse. F) The govt looked into it, and found some 1000 rights, benefits, and responsibilities at the federal level which are based on marriage. No more than the KKK being legal means that it is a societal norm. Nope. "Hate speech" must affect a protected class before it is criminal. There are people right now teaching their kids that blacks are inferior (just watch Jerry Springer for a few seconds as you flip past) . Are they being prosecuted? Now, if your child is brought up believing that homosexuality is wrong, and that right-thinking folk ought to do something about it, he might get into trouble when he acts on those beliefs. Finally, even if correct, this is a related consequence, just like health benefits disparaties are. Address the root of the problem (i.e. certain non-violent speech being prohibited because it is "hateful"), and not the consequence. Like preventing two consenting adults from being recognized as "married", because of their chromosomes? How does recognizing gay marriage restrict religious freedom? The govt is not compelling churches to perform or recognize them. Won't address the larger issues -- A) federal rights, privileges and responsibilities of "marriage" B) "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Should a person whose speech is being suppressed by law petition the legislature for a repeal of the law, or should he petition the courts for an overturning of the law on first amendment grounds?
|
|