Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on February 21, 2016, 11:22:03 AM
-
I think the court should be nothing but atheists. Either that or justices who affirm their religious beliefs will not be part of their process for making decisions on legal maters (you know, their job)
Seeing Scalia's religious based arguments in the case mentioned below is disgusting.
Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court
BY LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS
Who should replace Antonin Scalia? On Monday, the Times reported that the Justice himself had weighed in on the question: last June, in his dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia wrote that the Court was “strikingly unrepresentative” of America as a whole and ought to be diversified. He pointed out that four of the Justices are natives of New York City, that none are from the Southwest (or are “genuine” Westerners), and that all of them attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Moreover, Scalia wrote, there is “not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” on the Court. (All nine Justices are, to varying degrees, Catholic or Jewish.)
Scalia’s remarks imply that an evangelical Christian should be appointed to the Court. That’s a strange idea: surely, the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution strongly suggests that court decisions shouldn’t be based on religious preference, or even on religious arguments. The Ten Commandments are reserved for houses of worship; the laws of the land are, or should be, secular. Still, I’m inclined, in my own way, to agree with Scalia’s idea about diversity. My suggestion is that the next Supreme Court Justice be a declared atheist.
Atheists are a significantly underrepresented minority in government. According to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, about twenty-three per cent of American adults declare that they have no religious affiliation—which is two percentage points more than the number who declare themselves Catholic. Three per cent of Americans say that they are atheists—which means that there are more atheists than Jews in the United States. An additional four per cent declare themselves agnostic; as George Smith noted in his classic book “Atheism: The Case Against God,” agnostics are, for practical purposes, atheists, since they cannot declare that they believe in a divine creator. Even so, not a single candidate for major political office or Supreme Court Justice has “come out” declaring his or her non-belief.
From a judicial perspective, an atheist Justice would be an asset. In controversial cases about same-sex marriage, say, or access to abortion or birth control, he or she would be less likely to get mired in religion-based moral quandaries. Scalia himself often got sidetracked in this way: he framed his objections to laws protecting L.G.B.T. rights in a moral, rather than a legal-rights, framework. In his dissent, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas—a case that challenged a Texas law criminalizing gay sex—Scalia wrote that those who wanted to limit the rights of gay people to be teachers or scoutmasters were merely “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” To him, religion-based moral objections seemed to deserve more weight than either factual considerations (homosexuality is not destructive) or rights-based concerns (gay people’s rights must be protected). Indeed, Scalia’s meditation on the Court’s lack of religious diversity was part of a larger argument that the Court’s decision on same-sex marriage did not reflect prevailing religious and moral values. An atheist Justice, by contrast, would have different intellectual habits. I suspect that he or she would be more likely to focus on reason and empirical evidence.
In addition, the appointment of an atheist Justice would send a meaningful message: it would affirm that legal arguments are secular, and that they are based on a secular document, the Constitution, which was written during the founding of a secular democracy. Such an appointment would also help counter the perceived connection between atheism and lawlessness and immorality. That unfortunate and inaccurate link is made all too often in the United States. A Pew survey conducted last month showed that, once again, Americans would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate than for a candidate who has no experience, is gay, was involved in financial improprieties, has had extramarital affairs, or is Muslim. Atheists are widely, absurdly, and openly mistrusted.
That distrust has ancient roots: because religion long ago claimed morality as its domain, atheism has long been connected to immorality. To many people, religiosity confers an aura of goodness. In the U.K., when people who had listed their religious affiliation as Christian on the national census were asked by the Richard Dawkins Foundation why they had done so, most said it was not because they actually accepted the detailed doctrines of their faith but because it made them feel like they were good people. This is a two-way street on which both directions point the wrong way. By the same token, when good people openly declare that they cannot accept religious doctrines or question the underlying concept of God, they are often classified as “bad.”
The prejudice against atheists has real-world consequences. In December, 2014, the Times reported that seven states—Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—still have laws on their books that make atheists ineligible to run for public office. And anti-atheist prejudice is shaping our Presidential race, too. Consider the case of Donald Trump in South Carolina. After Trump insulted Ted Cruz using a sexist slur, one voter responded by saying, “The way he speaks—that doesn’t sound like somebody who really believes in God that much. You want your children to look up at the President of the United States.”
Implicit in that statement is the idea that a politician’s belief in God is, in itself, a reason for children to look up to him or her. Meanwhile, other aspects of a candidate’s character seem not to matter. If the opinions of Cruz’s colleagues in the Senate and elsewhere are any indication, he seems to be rather unlikable; his competitors in the Republican primaries have suggested that he is less than truthful, as well. Still, Cruz captures a significant fraction of the evangelical vote because his character seems to matter less than his open and pronounced invocation of God in discussing his policies.
Our strange attitudes about atheism warp our politics and our laws. It’s time to remove the stigma attached to it. One way to do that is by appointing an atheist to the Supreme Court. Happily, such an appointment would be a tribute to the spirit, if not the letter, of one of Scalia’s last opinions. More than that, it would be a tribute to the secular principles upon which this country was founded.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court
-
Only if you're a douchbag lib.......guy went strictly by the Constitution...didn't make shit up.
-
Only if you're a douchbag lib.......guy went strictly by the Constitution...didn't make shit up.
really?
Scalia himself often got sidetracked in this way: he framed his objections to laws protecting L.G.B.T. rights in a moral, rather than a legal-rights, framework. In his dissent, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas—a case that challenged a Texas law criminalizing gay sex—Scalia wrote that those who wanted to limit the rights of gay people to be teachers or scoutmasters were merely “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” To him, religion-based moral objections seemed to deserve more weight than either factual considerations (homosexuality is not destructive) or rights-based concerns (gay people’s rights must be protected).
-
Yes, because we all know that someone without morals has worked really well. ::)
-
I don't think the goal should be to appoint an atheist, but I also don't see anything wrong with it if they are qualifed. Lack of theology has nothing to do with morality.
-
Yes, because we all know that someone without morals has worked really well. ::)
You are more immoral than I ever will be and I am an atheist.
Explain that.
-
Yes, because we all know that someone without morals has worked really well. ::)
So every atheist (or non-bible thumping christian) is without morals?
Maybe we should also disregard Article 6 of the Constitution and institute religious tests so only "moral" religious nutbags can hold any office?
-
HAHAHA. Epic denial.
-
Haha yea b.c no liberal judges vote based on their moral views
-
Haha yea b.c no liberal judges vote based on their moral views
Morality has nothing to do with religion.
-
Morality has nothing to do with religion.
Ok, tell us all about it with your years of education and study
-
Ok, tell us all about it with your years of education and study
???
I spent 12 years in catholic school (if you want to count the pre-K year) and I can tell you that he's right.
Some of the most religious people are screaming we need to pre-emptively carpet bomg a villiage of 10,000 because there are 20 guys hidden there who may attack us one day.
And some of the biggest atheists are calling for helping the weak and the poor.
-
???
I spent 12 years in catholic school (if you want to count the pre-K year) and I can tell you that he's right.
Some of the most religious people are screaming we need to pre-emptively carpet bomg a villiage of 10,000 because there are 20 guys hidden there who may attack us one day.
And some of the biggest atheists are calling for helping the weak and the poor.
::) ::) congrats you've proved that some religious people are hypocrites....groundbrea king stuff
-
::) ::) congrats you've proved that some religious people are hypocrites....groundbrea king stuff
and that some non-religious people are very sweet, caring, etc.
-
and that some non-religious people are very sweet, caring, etc.
Wow, I guess that proves it...
-
Wow, I guess that proves it...
Look, if someone is only "doing good" because they fear their god or are trying to get in good graces with Jesus or their church, then that person is a piece of shit and only doing something for selfish reasons. So what they are saying is if they did not have their religion, the would not even bother doing it.
Whereas the atheist, does good because it is morally right, benefits the recipient, and makes the person doing the good feel fulfilled.
With that said, religious people can do the same good without religion. If they can't, then something is wrong with them morally.
-
Look, if someone is only "doing good" because they fear their god or are trying to get in good graces with Jesus or their church, then that person is a piece of shit and only doing something for selfish reasons. So what they are saying is if they did not have their religion, the would not even bother doing it.
Whereas the atheist, does good because it is morally right, benefits the recipient, and makes the person doing the good feel fulfilled.
With that said, religious people can do the same good without religion. If they can't, then something is wrong with them morally.
Lol so based on your views anytime anyone does anything for reasons other than altruistic ones they are for selfish reasons?
It can be argued that no actions are altruistic, your argument makes no sense. Nobody is saying that without their religion they would go wild and never do good things...That's your stupidity and arrogance getting the better of you.
-
Look, if someone is only "doing good" because they fear their god or are trying to get in good graces with Jesus or their church, then that person is a piece of shit and only doing something for selfish reasons. So what they are saying is if they did not have their religion, the would not even bother doing it.
Whereas the atheist, does good because it is morally right, benefits the recipient, and makes the person doing the good feel fulfilled.
With that said, religious people can do the same good without religion. If they can't, then something is wrong with them morally.
T H A N K Y O U!!!!
-
Lol so based on your views anytime anyone does anything for reasons other than altruistic ones they are for selfish reasons?
It can be argued that no actions are altruistic, your argument makes no sense. Nobody is saying that without their religion they would go wild and never do good things...That's your stupidity and arrogance getting the better of you.
Y O U R E W E L C O M E!!!!
-
Lol so based on your views anytime anyone does anything for reasons other than altruistic ones they are for selfish reasons?
It can be argued that no actions are altruistic, your argument makes no sense. Nobody is saying that without their religion they would go wild and never do good things...That's your stupidity and arrogance getting the better of you.
Do you think religion is necessary for morality?
-
Do you think religion is necessary for morality?
what you said is that morality has NOTHING to do with religion...not that morality stems from religion.
Do you think that some people form their morals based on religion?
-
what you said is that morality has NOTHING to do with religion...not that morality stems from religion.
Do you think that some people form their morals based on religion?
No. Every moral they have can be sustained the moment they drop religion. (unless they are a shitty person, why would they all of a sudden cease to be moral just because they are no longer religious unless they are psychopathic) All their morals can also be had without ever having religion. So there is no basis for needing religion for any moral.
Another interesting fact is prison population and religiosity.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/5b/d3/f05bd364fff73e24be9f6282036afc44.jpg)
-
The religion of someone is not relevant, the job of the court decide if a law is constitutional or not. The simple fact that R and D try to stack the court with people that will legislate from the bench is unacceptable.
-
No. Every moral they have can be sustained the moment they drop religion. (unless they are a shitty person, why would they all of a sudden cease to be moral just because they are no longer religious unless they are psychopathic) All their morals can also be had without ever having religion. So there is no basis for needing religion for any moral.
Another interesting fact is prison population and religiosity.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/5b/d3/f05bd364fff73e24be9f6282036afc44.jpg)
Again that's not what you said, what you said is that religion has nothing to do with morals.
Do you think that some people get their moral beliefs from religion? Easy question...
You're arguing a point no one is contesting, morals can be derived from a number of places...One of which is religion
-
Again that's not what you said, what you said is that religion has nothing to do with morals.
Do you think that some people get their moral beliefs from religion? Easy question...
You're arguing a point no one is contesting, morals can be derived from a number of places...One of which is religion
1. Morals have nothing to do with religion.
2. No. Human beings DO NOT get their morals from religion. There are some bad morals in the bible that I am glad people do not use in today's society.
-
The religion of someone is not relevant, the job of the court decide if a law is constitutional or not. The simple fact that R and D try to stack the court with people that will legislate from the bench is unacceptable.
Yet we have an example of Scalia making religious based arguments in one of his in his dissent, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas
-
1. Morals have nothing to do with religion.
2. No. Human beings DO NOT get their morals from religion. There are some bad morals in the bible that I am glad people do not use in today's society.
So your viewpoint is that nobody gets their moral values from their religion?
-
A lesbian tranny atheist native Indian of Chinese decent with Afro hair would cover all bases.
-
So your viewpoint is that nobody gets their moral values from their religion?
I can't think of a scenario of how they would get morals from religion. Can you?
-
I can't think of a scenario of how they would get morals from religion. Can you?
Absolutely and so can the author of the article seeing as of their issues is how is imposed his RELIGIOUS morals on the court...I personally get a lot of my morals from religion
-
Absolutely and so can the author of the article seeing as of their issues is how is imposed his RELIGIOUS morals on the court...I personally get a lot of my morals from religion
Which morals do you get from religion?
-
Which morals do you get from religion?
According to Tonys statement he gets "a lot" of his morals from religion
I too would be curious to know the many morals he gets from his religion and also the other ones that he doesn't get from religion and what is the source of those morals
-
According to Tonys statement he gets "a lot" of his morals from religion
I too would be curious to know the many morals he gets from his religion and also the other ones that he doesn't get from religion and what is the source of those morals
hahaha.
Be prepared for him to question you in an effort to get you to make his argument for him as he can't on his own.
-
Yet we have an example of Scalia making religious based arguments in one of his in his dissent, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas
Have you actually read the dissent? Are you making the argument that "deeply rooted in the nations history and traditions" is based on religion? He seems to argue that the court is not being consistent on what the due process clause actually means.
-
Have you actually read the dissent? Are you making the argument that "deeply rooted in the nations history and traditions" is based on religion? He seems to argue that the court is not being consistent on what the due process clause actually means.
I'm saying that “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” is basically a religious argument.
Couldn't that same argument be applied by people who object to unwed mothers (or gay people) being teachers.
How about a Muslim or Christian who objects to a Jewish person being a teacher or scout master (you know they kidnap and murder the children of christians and use their blood for religious rituals)
-
I'm saying that “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” is basically a religious argument.
Couldn't that same argument be applied by people who object to unwed mothers (or gay people) being teachers.
How about a Muslim or Christian who objects to a Jewish person being a teacher or scout master (you know they kidnap and murder the children of christians and use their blood for religious rituals)
Not necessarily, an atheist could believe that being gay goes against the laws of nature, and come to conclusion that the behavior is destructive to society. I personally saw no specific reference to religion in the dissent, and he seemed more concerned with the fact that the due process clause was not being interpreted in a consistent manner.
-
Not necessarily, an atheist could believe that being gay goes against the laws of nature, and come to conclusion that the behavior is destructive to society. I personally saw no specific reference to religion in the dissent, and he seemed more concerned with the fact that the due process clause was not being interpreted in a consistent manner.
is that a religious argument ?
is that a valid legal argument?
What if I personally believe obese people to be gluttons and I believe that goes against the law or nature and that behavior is destructive to society as a whole and I don't want my children to be exposed to that immoral and destructive lifestyle.
Does that mean I should be able to take away the rights of obese people?
-
is that a religious argument ?
is that a valid legal argument?
What if I personally believe obese people to be gluttons and I believe that goes against the law or nature and that behavior is destructive to society as a whole and I don't want my children to be exposed to that immoral and destructive lifestyle.
Does that mean I should be able to take away the rights of obese people?
Go read the dissent, I'm not sure where you are coming up with this argument
-
Go read the dissent, I'm not sure where you are coming up with this argument
feel free to tell me your beliefs or even answer the question as to what legal argument is "“protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
in the context of the case (two men in a private residence having consensual sex)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
-
feel free to tell me your beliefs or even answer the question as to what legal argument is "“protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
in the context of the case (two men in a private residence having consensual sex)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
I read the dissent, what I took from it was A) does a state have the constitutional ability to make sodomy illegal? Now from what I can find this did not only apply to homosexuals. B) is sodomy a natural right according to the constitution? Is it up to consenting adults to do said act in the privacy of their own home. C) Has precedent been set, is it "deeply rooted in the nations history and traditions"? How long have the laws been on the books and is it consistent through out the majority of the states. D) Is the due process clause being used constantly by the court.
Scalia's dissent was based on jurisprudence and consistency with other similar cases presented to the Supreme Court.
My beliefs, I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as it is legal and doesn't affect other's in an adverse way. If you haven't noticed by now I am not a big fan of .gov and think they should get out of people's lives. I don't need or want big brother.
-
I can't think of a scenario of how they would get morals from religion. Can you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pastor-rick-henderson/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-good-atheist_b_4442287.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pastor-rick-henderson/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-good-atheist_b_4442287.html)
You clicked on this post for one of two reasons. Either you're hoping that I'm right or you know that I'm wrong. For those of you who are eager to pierce me with your wit and crush my pre-modern mind, allow me to issue a challenge. I contend that any response you make will only prove my case. Like encountering a hustler on the streets of Vegas, the deck is stacked, and the odds are not in your favor.
Before our love fest continues, allow me to define an important term, "worldview." A worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality, Nickleback -- everything. Everybody has one.
While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:
1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).
2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.
Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.
A good atheist -- that is, a consistent atheist -- recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.
For those of you who think you're about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:
"Modern science directly implies that there ... is no ultimate meaning for humans."
--William Provine
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
--Richard Dawkins
"No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history."
--Edward O. Wilson
Based on the nonnegotiable premises of atheism, these are the only logical conclusions. But I've never met an atheist who's managed to live this way. All the atheists I've known personally and from afar live as if there is objective meaning and morality. How is this explained? In a Hail Mary-like attempt to reconcile the inescapability of objective morality and their assurances of atheism, two possible answers are launched.
1. Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution. This is a two-pronged attempt at justifying moral claims. First, a sense of morality evolved to ensure human survival. Much like an eye or tooth, it is necessary for the human race to continue. If this were true, for any claim to be moral, it would have to serve the practical purpose of advancing the human race. So compassion for the dying would be immoral, and killing mentally handicapped children would be moral. Perhaps the most moral action would be men raping many women and forcing them to birth more children.
Morality, in this view, can only mean those actions that are helpful to make more fit humans. It does nothing to help us grapple with the truth that it's always wrong to torture diseased children or rape women.
Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society's borders or endure longer than a society's existence.
Furthermore, within our own society, the most immoral are not merely the ones who transgress our code but the ones who intend to change it. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most immoral -- that is, until they become the majority and institute change. I suppose they then become moral, and traditionalists become immoral. But it's the math that determines rightness or wrongness of a side, not the content of any belief or argument.
So this view of morality does nothing to provide a reasonable answer for why it would be objectively wrong to torture diseased children, rape women or kill those who don't affirm a national religion. It only provides a motivation for continuing the delusion of objective morality.
2. Morality is logical. Atheists who take this route start in a position of checkmate without realizing it. First, the temptation is to pervert this conversation into a debate about whether atheists can be moral. Of course they can. That is not the question. The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the rules that atheism demands.
Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality. The only way to make a logical moral argument is to presuppose morality and meaning to start with. Try making a logical argument that slavery is wrong without presupposing morality. It is impossible. A woman wrote to me with her attempt at doing just that. Her claim was that slavery is logically wrong because it diminishes other human beings. The problem is that that argument presupposes human dignity. In the strict framework of atheism outlined above, what reason is there to ever assume human dignity?
All logical arguments for morality assume that human thriving, happiness and dignity are superior to contrary views. The strict framework of atheism does not allow for those starting points. So any person arguing for 1 or 2 would not be a good atheist. That is, he lives in contradiction to the mandates of his worldview.
Conclusion
Intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I'm asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can't answer this question, it doesn't deserve you.
One sign that your worldview may be a crutch is that it has to appeal to an answer outside itself -- becoming self-contradictory, unable to reasonably account for the question. Any atheist who recognizes objective meaning and morality defies the atheism that he contends is true.
If your worldview can't makes sense of the things that make most sense to you (like objective morality), then it's not worth your allegiance. This new reality may launch you onto a journey of reluctant discovery. Whoever you are. Wherever you are. Whatever you believe. You deserve a foundation that is strong enough to carry the values that carry you.
-
You are more immoral than I ever will be and I am an atheist.
Explain that.
Prove it.
-
1. Morals have nothing to do with religion.
2. No. Human beings DO NOT get their morals from religion. There are some bad morals in the bible that I am glad people do not use in today's society.
Where do humans get their morals from?
"1. Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution. This is a two-pronged attempt at justifying moral claims. First, a sense of morality evolved to ensure human survival. Much like an eye or tooth, it is necessary for the human race to continue. If this were true, for any claim to be moral, it would have to serve the practical purpose of advancing the human race. So compassion for the dying would be immoral, and killing mentally handicapped children would be moral. Perhaps the most moral action would be men raping many women and forcing them to birth more children.
Morality, in this view, can only mean those actions that are helpful to make more fit humans. It does nothing to help us grapple with the truth that it's always wrong to torture diseased children or rape women.
Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society's borders or endure longer than a society's existence.
Furthermore, within our own society, the most immoral are not merely the ones who transgress our code but the ones who intend to change it. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most immoral -- that is, until they become the majority and institute change. I suppose they then become moral, and traditionalists become immoral. But it's the math that determines rightness or wrongness of a side, not the content of any belief or argument.
So this view of morality does nothing to provide a reasonable answer for why it would be objectively wrong to torture diseased children, rape women or kill those who don't affirm a national religion. It only provides a motivation for continuing the delusion of objective morality."
-
I read the dissent, what I took from it was A) does a state have the constitutional ability to make sodomy illegal? Now from what I can find this did not only apply to homosexuals. B) is sodomy a natural right according to the constitution? Is it up to consenting adults to do said act in the privacy of their own home. C) Has precedent been set, is it "deeply rooted in the nations history and traditions"? How long have the laws been on the books and is it consistent through out the majority of the states. D) Is the due process clause being used constantly by the court.
Scalia's dissent was based on jurisprudence and consistency with other similar cases presented to the Supreme Court.
My beliefs, I don't give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as it is legal and doesn't affect other's in an adverse way. If you haven't noticed by now I am not a big fan of .gov and think they should get out of people's lives. I don't need or want big brother.
I'm looking at the specific verbiage of his dissent. Is it a legal argument or a religious argument?
If it's legal then what is the precedent that you're referring to or is that precedent just other religious arguments
-
I'm looking at the specific verbiage of his dissent. Is it a legal argument or a religious argument?
If it's legal then what is the precedent that you're referring to or is that precedent just other religious arguments
All the other cases are cited in the dissent including Roe V Wade, it is not an exciting read, but I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that his dissent is based on religion.
-
Which morals do you get from religion?
You can start with anyone of the 10 commandments, helping those less fortunate than you and many more.
-
Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society's borders or endure longer than a society's existence.
I've made this same point a number of times to getbiggers who feel that morals are based on what's best for society...
-
All the other cases are cited in the dissent including Roe V Wade, it is not an exciting read, but I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that his dissent is based on religion.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know of any legal argument that includes the premise of “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” in the context in which Scalia made that argument.
-
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know of any legal argument that includes the premise of “protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive.” in the context in which Scalia made that argument.
Wait I thought you were in the same camp as TA in that you didn't feel that morals were derived from religion?
-
You can start with anyone of the 10 commandments, helping those less fortunate than you and many more.
Watch this.
-
Watch this.
Seen it many times, doesn't prove your point at all and it doesn't disprove any of the points made by obsidian...
-
You can start with anyone of the 10 commandments, helping those less fortunate than you and many more.
If you were going to make a list of like the ten things you absolutely can't do, wouldn't you put on there rape, incest, bestiality, slavery? But, instead, they have things like "Don't swear," you know, "Don't build statues to other Gods," obviously the ideas of primitive man living in primitive times, and this is what you look up to.
-
Does someone really need the bible to tell them not to kill someone? ???
-
Does someone really need the bible to tell them not to kill someone? ???
Apparently some people do, or there would be no murders.
-
If you were going to make a list of like the ten things you absolutely can't do, wouldn't you put on there rape, incest, bestiality, slavery? But, instead, they have things like "Don't swear," you know, "Don't build statues to other Gods," obviously the ideas of primitive man living in primitive times, and this is what you look up to.
Again you're not proving your point............ Whatever the morals, they are derived from religion. Whether you agree with them is irrelevant to the conversation.
-
Does someone really need the bible to tell them not to kill someone? ???
As opposed to morals derived from the idea of the greater good which means that murder is perfectly exceptable if it benefits society?
-
As opposed to morals derived from the idea of the greater good which means that murder is perfectly exceptable if it benefits society?
Ask Jesus about that one. He had to be murdered in order to be your savior so I guess murder was acceptable in that case. :D
-
Does someone really need the bible to tell them not to kill someone? ???
That's not the point of the Bible or evidence against a Creator. The fact that atheists are not out killing people are for economic reasons and because most people don't enjoy ending up in jail for life (unless you're non-white in Denmark and many European countries where sentences are lenient).
So what point are you trying to make? There is no Creator because atheists are not killing millions of people?
-
Which morals do you get from religion?
If morals are purely a biological attribute that developed in social animals like humans as a survival response, why do you have morals that would have zero impact on your survival? Or are you saying you don't have morals? If a stranger's dog suffers or is in pain, why would you care? Since your survival does not hinge on the welfare of this animal?
-
If morals are purely a biological attribute that developed in social animals like humans as a survival response, why do you have morals that would have zero impact on your survival? Or are you saying you don't have morals? If a stranger's dog suffers or is in pain, why would you care? Since your survival does not hinge on the welfare of this animal?
Dawkins has shown there is this thing called empathy which reflects on a group which betters the chance of survival of not only the individual, but the entire group as well. Mirror neurons and such.
-
William Lane Craig (Christian) totally destroys Hitchens (Atheist) in this debate. It's embarrassing to watch. Notice how Hitchens twitches and fumbles with his pen during cross examination starting around 1:21:00
Opening Statements:
13:16 William Lane Craig (Christian)
33:42 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Rebuttals:
54:20 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:06:50 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Cross-Examination:
1:19:29 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:25:56 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Responses:
1:33:02 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:40:36 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Closing Arguments:
1:48:18 William Lane Craig (Christian)
Christopher Hitchens (Atheist) - yielded his time
1:54:12 Question + Answer Period
-
If morals are purely a biological attribute that developed in social animals like humans as a survival response, why do you have morals that would have zero impact on your survival? Or are you saying you don't have morals? If a stranger's dog suffers or is in pain, why would you care? Since your survival does not hinge on the welfare of this animal?
Also, not all of our actions has to have a survival mechanism or be directly related to our survival.
Morality is a human construct, Empathy is not. Countless animals have empathy. Other species of animals caring for completely different species which may not necessarily enhance their survival per se, but they have empathy to do so.
-
William Lane Craig (Christian) totally destroys Hitchens (Atheist) in this debate. It's embarrassing to watch. Notice how Hitchens twitches and fumbles with his pen during cross examination starting around 1:21:00
Opening Statements:
13:16 William Lane Craig (Christian)
33:42 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Rebuttals:
54:20 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:06:50 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Cross-Examination:
1:19:29 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:25:56 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Responses:
1:33:02 William Lane Craig (Christian)
1:40:36 Christopher Hitchens (Atheist)
Closing Arguments:
1:48:18 William Lane Craig (Christian)
Christopher Hitchens (Atheist) - yielded his time
1:54:12 Question + Answer Period
Already seen it and William Lane Craig gets destroyed easily here.
You must have been watching something else. What a joke.
-
Dawkins has shown there is this thing called empathy which reflects on a group which betters the chance of survival of not only the individual, but the entire group as well. Mirror neurons and such.
Dawkins avoided debates with William Lane Craig for years and when he finally agreed was destroyed. Atheists tremble when Craig debates them! LMAO!
-
Dawkins avoided debates with William Lane Craig for years and when he finally agreed was destroyed. Atheists tremble when Craig debates them! LMAO!
What a joke. You probably think Ken Hamm is amazing as well. I can't take you serious at all at this point.
-
Also, not all of our actions has to have a survival mechanism or be directly related to our survival.
Morality is a human construct, Empathy is not. Countless animals have empathy. Other species of animals caring for completely different species which may not necessarily enhance their survival per se, but they have empathy to do so.
If predators have more species to choose from it could enhance the survival of a specific species if other species survived. So they would benefit by helping another animal of a different species to ensure their own survival.
However, William Craig has addressed this issue as well.
Kevin Harris: That brings up the question, Bill, of animals. From a Christian standpoint, perhaps God’s grace in the animal kingdom and animal companionship to man. Because we hear stories, and he relates stories of how dolphins have saved swimmers to no benefits to themselves. They weren’t fed a fish or given a treat for that. How dogs have often helped human beings, and things like that. From a strictly Darwinian view, you would say that’s where all this stuff came from and then we are back to the source. What about a view that this is all perhaps part of God’s good creation and providence.
Dr. Craig: Well, absolutely. I think that we do think that the animal world, as well as the human realm, is under the providence and planning of God, and if God knew that in order to have social animals that live in groups you would need to have these kinds of behavior. Then he could have designed the world in such a way that they would exhibit these kinds of behaviors. He says that’s why the dolphin will help the human swimmer to be saved; not because the dolphin gets something out of it in that specific case, but because this general kind of helpful behavior is useful to the dolphin species and helps it to survive. It just happens that in certain cases we are lucky to become the beneficiaries of this. Even among elephants and pigs, among any kind of social animal that lives in groups, you see this kind of cooperative behavior because it is advantageous in the struggle for survival. So, we are talking here simply about this kind of behavior that is exhibited by social animals, and as you said, I see no reason to think that God couldn’t have, in his providence, created animals in such a way that they would exhibit this sort of behavior for their own benefit.
Kevin Harris: Dr. De Waal makes a distinction between empathy and sympathy. CNN asked him, “By empathy, you mean that they feel each other’s pain?” De Waal says,
Well, feeling someone else’s joy is also empathy. Being affected by the laugh, as humans are, is a form of empathy. So empathy basically says that you’re sensitive to the emotions of others and react to the emotions of others.
Dr. Craig: And if I might interject here, that is where people who are psychopaths come in. They fail to exhibit this kind of empathy. They don’t identify with the emotions of others or react to the emotions of others. The reason a psychopath is capable of killing in cold blood without any remorse at all is precisely because he lacks this empathy with other human beings.
Kevin Harris: He says,
Sympathy is a bit more complicated. Sympathy is that you want to take action. You want to help somebody else who’s in trouble. So sympathy is a bit more specific, it’s a bit more action-oriented. Empathy is just a sensitivity. Empathy is not necessarily positive. If someone wants to sell you a bad car for a high price, he also needs to empathize with you in order to get you to buy it.
He goes on to the animal kingdom here, and says that you can see female primates, monkeys, and so forth, chimpanzees, who when one of them is giving birth some of the other females will gather around and they will crouch and do the same things she is doing, kind of in empathy. I have seen my own dogs do this. My dogs, when one of them starts scratching the other says, “I know, that feels good” and he starts scratching. Now, Bill, that is a huge extrapolation to say this is where we humans derive our empathy, and then this turned into morals and moral values and duties, when it’s just these naturalistic tendencies, and itches, and empathy things.
Dr. Craig: Well, just think, Kevin, if there is no God - imagine atheism. There is nothing beyond the natural world. The natural world is all there is. Then to me, it seems that De Waal is right, that this is all morality would be. I think it’s just extraordinarily difficult to see, in the absence of God, why on naturalism these forms of empathy and sympathy that human beings exhibit to one another are of any sort of moral significance. I can’t see why the psychopath does anything morally wrong on naturalism. He just doesn’t have this empathy that most other members of the species does, and so, he doesn’t exhibit this sort of cooperative behavior, but why on atheism does the psychopath do anything morally wrong? I can’t see any reason to think that. So, once you get rid of God as a transcendent anchor point and foundation for objective moral values and duties then, it seems to me, that morality is just a behavior pattern among human beings that originates, as you say, in scratches and itches and feelings of empathy. There isn’t any other foundation. Where else would it be found?
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Do-Animals-Display-Morality#ixzz414DAfihZ
-
What a joke. You probably think Ken Hamm is amazing as well. I can't take you serious at all at this point.
Brilliant rebuttal!!! you're getting shown up on the points you turned to after your original views got debunked and dismissed...
-
Wait I thought you were in the same camp as TA in that you didn't feel that morals were derived from religion?
Tony confused
what a surprise
I've never said a word on this thread about where I think morals come from
Morals are nothing more than arbitray rules about "right" and "wrong", either derived from your own personal beliefs or derived from some other source which could be a religion
You don't need any religious belief to be a moral person
-
Tony confused
what a surprise
I've never said a word on this thread about where I think morals come from
Morals are nothing more than arbitray rules about "right" and "wrong", either derived from your own personal beliefs or derived from some other source which could be a religion
You don't need any religious belief to be a moral person
Good to know you too disagree with TA about morals having to do with religion at least for some people.
It appears though your ok with justices voting based on their morals as long as they aren't based in religion, is that correct?
-
Good to know you too disagree with TA about morals having to do with religion at least for some people.
It appears though your ok with justices voting based on their morals as long as they aren't based in religion, is that correct?
Jesus Christ your reading comprehension sucks.
I said morals are arbitrary rules and they could come from religion.
I want justices making decisions based on the Constitution and nothing else.
Not their personal religious beliefs or their personal morals.
-
Watch this.
Great video.
I've never seen this one before
-
Jesus Christ your reading comprehension sucks.
I said morals are arbitrary rules and they could come from religion.
I want justices making decisions based on the Constitution and nothing else.
Not their personal religious beliefs or their personal morals.
Completely agree, it's just funny that you have never said anything about the injection of morality by liberal judges is all
-
Completely agree, it's just funny that you have never said anything about the injection of morality by liberal judges is all
feel free to provide some explicit examples of liberal judgeds "injection of morality" and I'll comment on them
-
How about put someone for unregulated capitalism and ending the fed and public school on the supreme court? and ending law changing by judges?
-
How about put someone for unregulated capitalism and ending the fed and public school on the supreme court? and ending law changing by judges?
great contribution
were you sniffing glue last night?