Hi Raider,
Probably should have just let this thread sink into the abyss, but I thought some of your points deserved an answer, if only so we don't end up covering the same ground later on.
Originally posted by Raider179
1) like I said blame your republican controlled senate for doing it to clinton. Whats it called oh yeah paybacks a mofo.
Actually Raider, I'm not a Republican, I'm not even blessed enough to be able to call myself an American. I'm far worse, I'm one of those guys who is so much of a throwback that I have read the collected works of John Witherspoon (Scottish Presbyterian Minister, signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the men who ratified the Constitution) and agree with him on just about everything.
Also, you don't need to respond to this, but what I don't understand about this BB sometimes is the unwillingness to concede anything. For instance, you gradually went from "What's the big deal, Bush has gotten 95% of his picks" to "well they did it to Clinton, so its fair" without at any point owning up to even the possiblity of a misstatement in the original. Now I make errors and mistakes, misstatements, and grotesque "mouth open, brain absent" blunders all the time (just ask my wife) but if you point it out to me, and it's manifestly the case, I find the best policy is always to admit that I goofed and if necessary ask for forgiveness.
I point this out only because in counseling I've found that the "I'm always right, never wrong" approach held by two people in a marriage leads inevitably to divorce. Fight and die on every hill, never give an inch, and insist on winning, and you will inevitably end up sacrificing the marriage. Win the battle, lose the war.
2) Thats funny I can't remember seeing ginsberg saying anything about God telling her to do this or do that. Or her saying God says we should do this or do that. So I am not buying on her liberal secular humanism thing.
3)World view does not equal religion
4)This is not the USSR
5) You cannot compare freedom of speech to freedom of religion.
nice try though.
6) like I said you are comparing apples and oranges.
Freedom of speech is one thing freedom of religion is another.What if I was to go to school and scream at the top of my lungs throughout the entire class? would that be ok? I do have freedom of speech right? the obvious answer is of course no. There are limits on your freedoms.
I don't feel religion should mix with politics at all.
I dont feel religion has any place in schools.
I don't see how that those two statements infringe on your freedom of religion at all. [/B]
You appear to equate religion absolutely with theism. In so doing you have just removed every non-theistic religion from Wicca to Scientology to Tao to Confucianism from consideration. No one holding to those belief systems is likely to say "God says we should do this or do that" in defending their own beliefs - does that not make them religions? In fact several new age religions would explicitly say along with you and Ms. Ginsberg "Man is the Measure of All Things" or "Man is god."
The problem seems to lie in the belief that anti-theistic secular humanism with all of its assumptions and presuppositions about life the universe and everything is simply reality and that Christianity is a collection of fairy tales whose existence must for the present be endured or tolerated to a certain extent. Of course Ruth Bader Ginsberg's belief in unrestricted abortion on demand or economic socialism aren't religious beliefs because men devised these principles and man is the measure of all things.
This creates an interesting dilemma, because the framers of the Constitution (witness the declarations of Madison and Jefferson above) held the rights of man to be inalienable because they were God-given and thus superseded human laws. To attempt to abridge or remove a god-given right was to the framers simply tyranny and usurpation of the role of God by man.
However in your system, there is no God, therefore there can be no God-given rights. All rights under your system are granted by the magistrate (or if you prefer by mutual agreement in a social compact) and therefore
alienable. There are no absolutes, therefore there can be no universal or absolute rights which scenario is exactly what the Danbury baptists feared and Jefferson reassurred them about.
You've already redefined "religious freedom" in your posts so that religious freedom was actually the right to privately believe whatever fairytales you want to as long as that doesn't involve the public square.
[Incidentally, even the liberal human rights group Forum 18 out of Norway wouldn't accept your definition of religious freedom. They define it the following way:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Not as robust perhaps as Jefferson or Mason, but still note the words "public or private" and "manifest his religion" The above also includes the right to witness.]
In your redefinition the opinions of Marx and Nietschze and perhaps even Ayn Rand are fair fodder for molding the decisions of the Judiciary, but the moment Moses and Christ enter in or we use the dreaded decalogue, we have a problem. Deeply held anti-theistic political beliefs are ok, but the public square cannot tolerate deeply held conservative Christian beliefs. Those who speak and judge in the public square must believe there is no God, and no God given absolute laws. To do otherwise is to deny "reality."
Two last practical points, and then I'm done with this.
First, the idea that
"You don't need religion to teach you right from wrong you just have to be human." isn't even held by most modern philosophers. Sartre argued for instance that without a fixed reference point all other points were meaningless. Most modern atheistic philosophical movements therefore are agreed on what is called moral relativism. All morals are arbitrary without absolutes and since the philosophers have concluded there can be no absolutes, therefore there can be no fixed good and no fixed evil. Good is replaced by "preferred" and as such good is subject to change at the whims of the populace. We see that in the "I can't believe
you still believe that's evil behavior we've moved on from that point as a society attitude so common on these boards.
For instance, why in your system would a father having an incestuous physical relationship with his son by mutual consent be evil? Why would suicide be evil? How could we determine anything was evil or good? Wouldn't we ultimately mean, "I like this" and "I don't like that?"
Second point: Let me give you a practical example of how secular humanism can already trample on what Chrsitians would call God given rights.
In all states you are legally compelled to educate your children. The money to provide for public education is raised by compulsory taxation. Thus you already pay for one education for your child. If you cannot afford to pay twice for the education of your child, and as is the case in most states, a refund of the money you paid the state for their education is not available in the form of a voucher, you are compelled to send your child to a public school.
In that school, your child will most likely be taught a system of belief directly at odds with your own beliefs, they will for instance be taught in many districts that extra-marital sex is just fine and how best to do it without getting pregnant or STDs. If after following the instructions of the health teacher, your daughter gets pregnant, in many states she can go to a school counselor and obtain assistance in getting an abortion, without her parents ever being notified. You'd need parental consent for her to get an Aspirin from the school nurse, but the state will help her to undergo a life changing, invasive, and potentially fatal surgical proceedure without your knowledge.
From the conservative Christian standpoint, the state uses legal compulsion in order that they might teach your child that fornication is normal, good, and healthy, and then show them how to go about doing it, and when and if they get pregnant, they will help them to secretly murder your grandchild.
But from the Secular Humanist standpoint, it's all "good" and Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg will help to make sure it stays that way even if you try to change it by legislative means.
- SEAGOON
