Two questions
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
Where did you infer that?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
As long as I'm involved!
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
espeir wrote:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
As the anti-choice crowd will affirm, people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court. It also should be noted that, in this case, the decision was not unanimous, and Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read
i'll go read it.
-
espeir wrote:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
write a law to stop monkies too
LOL
-
espeir wrote:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
With monkies, parents can maintain the pretense that somehow humans have a more artisic or nobel means of expressing their affection. We remain at liberty to categorize the monkey behavior as subhuman, or at least inappropriate for humans. When humans are involved, the explanations are more difficult... Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it doesn't go on. You're wrong, end of story. This nation was not established as some kind of f***ing secular-humanist utopia, and no matter how much revisionism you spew, that is simply the way it is.
Nations grow and change -- the founders planned for that, and I think their ideals are still mostly well-represented -- and no matter how much anti-secular-humanist, hyper-conservative interpretive history you spew, it'll never be 1700 again. That is simply the way it is.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the founders planned for that
Absolutely they planned for it - by a strictly defined mechanism, amending the constitution not by interpreting it for the benefit of one paticular philosophy. The kind of country we are today is what the founders were most concerned that we might become and tried most diligently to protect us from becoming. Unlike yourself, the founders were wise enough to understand that any central government that could dictate one set of principles to the people had the power to dictate any set of principles to them. The irony is that the only reason we are threatened by religious extremism today is because of the very power the federal government has stolen from we the people in order to protect us from religious extremism. These are battles that we the people should be fighting among ourselves, and not giving the government the power to fight them for us. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read
i'll go read it.
ahz wrote:
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
When I questioned whether or not Protestant law being applied to non-Protestants was right, I was thinking about more a personal sense of right and wrong, rather than legally, hence my disagreement with the Supremes. I think my statement is relevant in that context.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
With monkies, parents can maintain the pretense that somehow humans have a more artisic or nobel means of expressing their affection. We remain at liberty to categorize the monkey behavior as subhuman, or at least inappropriate for humans. When humans are involved, the explanations are more difficult... Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it.
Aha! Tell that to the "believers". Unless you accept Christ as your saviour, you're nothing but dead meat, going straight to hell, and is incapable of do the right thing.
-
espeir wrote:
That's how you interpret it because you're a bigot and can't see it any other way.
I don't see how that statement shows bigotry; but since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag.
espeir wrote:
Sensibility has everything to do with it. The populace prefers such a statute so it exists. Humanists want to remove the democratic nature of our government to force their religious beliefs on unwilling people. By forcing the removal of a law, you're simply removing the rights to self government of the people of Fulton (unless they vote it out).
Humanists don't want to force religious beliefs on anybody, you thick-headed waste of breathable atmosphere. Removing restrictions is not forcing anything. You are still free not to buy alcohol on Sunday. Free. Not restricted. Free. One way, you can either buy or not. The other, only the "not" part. Get it?
espeir wrote:
Here's another question. In my city (Sandy Springs), which was incorporated just a few months ago, there was a moratorium placed on "adult businesses". There are 2 strip clubs. This was ushered in by our mayor, who is Jewish (despite being a very Christian town). It was not motivated by religion, but rather a "not in my backyard" ideal because we don't want those types of businesses effecting our property values. So, being that this was not inspired by religion but is congruent with how most Christians would view the situation, should this law be overturned? If so, then what rights to we have? If not, then why? Is it because it was not inspired by morality rooted from religion? If that's the case, then why do atheist/humanist values count while theist values do not?
Adult businesses bring down property values. This is a quantifiable, secular reason for zoning ordinances. This is restriction because of something that would negatively affect everyone, regardless of religious beliefs. As opposed to restricting activity because "my God says it's bad."
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag.
:laugh: Oh man, that's great! My sig is due for an upgrade, may I? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
-
espeir wrote:
I notice that no secular humanists want to address this question
Perhaps there are none here. The appropriate answer, however, is that switching the arguement from religiously based prohibitions on certain type of commerce on Sunday to Public sex acts is quite a strawman tactic. The two are not really comparable, and laws against public sex acts are justified as protecting young children from being exposed to behavior they would not understand (hell, I wouldn't understand 80 year old hoboes making it in public. The mental image alternates between appalingly comical and nauseating) and that the vast majority of people would find objectionable on grounds that have no particular religeous basis. The argument is not whether laws that restrict public behavior are wrong in themselves, but whether one can justify them purely on the basis of a majority religious inclination. It happens that what is for the general public good often overlaps the instructions common to many religions. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
The appropriate answer, however, is that switching the arguement from religiously based prohibitions on certain type of commerce on Sunday to Public sex acts is quite a strawman tactic.
I'm afraid you're the one trying to pull a strawman tactic. The issue isn't religion, but rather the ability for people to govern themselves and determine which laws they find suitable. You personally seem to find public sex acts unsuitable and you try to justify it by saying it's harmful to children. Well what if I assert that it's natural and beautiful and not harmful to children at all? Should I be able to impose my will on an unwilling public, as you want to do? What if the opposite is true and I do not want public sex acts allowed, but only because I find it abhorrent due to my religious affiliation? Can it therefore not be outlawed because it is based on the fact that I am offended by it because of my religion. It's completely biased, discriminatory and bigoted to tell the religious that they are second class citizens and that laws based on their morals cannot be law simply because they have a religious affiliation. But that's why we have Democracy in America...So we're not overrun by minority tyrants.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head.
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
...we could still have communities that burned witches.
Is this necassarily a bad thing? I know a few witches and burning them might be fun. :laugh: "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
How about separation of church and state. I favor the second one - sell the alcohol on any day of the week - 24 hours a day if possible :cool: People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
-
How about separation of church and state. I favor the second one - sell the alcohol on any day of the week - 24 hours a day if possible :cool: People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
Blake Miller wrote:
How about separation of church and state.
What law states that?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag.
:laugh: Oh man, that's great! My sig is due for an upgrade, may I? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
Certainly.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the founders planned for that
Absolutely they planned for it - by a strictly defined mechanism, amending the constitution not by interpreting it for the benefit of one paticular philosophy. The kind of country we are today is what the founders were most concerned that we might become and tried most diligently to protect us from becoming. Unlike yourself, the founders were wise enough to understand that any central government that could dictate one set of principles to the people had the power to dictate any set of principles to them. The irony is that the only reason we are threatened by religious extremism today is because of the very power the federal government has stolen from we the people in order to protect us from religious extremism. These are battles that we the people should be fighting among ourselves, and not giving the government the power to fight them for us. "You get that which you tolerate"
I still disagree, but will grant that you seem like both an educated and a well-informed jackass.
-
I still disagree, but will grant that you seem like both an educated and a well-informed jackass.
:laugh: Why, thank you. All I ask for is recognition... "You get that which you tolerate"
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
Just a note: my wife, raised a Catholic, looked at your second point and said, "he really doesn't know what he's talking about, does he?"
-
Suggesting that laws based on morailty that is based on religion should be outlawed is expressly bigotted against religion. You're just saying that those with religious beliefs contrary to your own should simply be ignored by a secular totalitarian committee.
No, you're just saying that those with non-religious beliefs, contrary to your own, should simply be ignored by a religious totalitarian committee.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it.
Aha! Tell that to the "believers". Unless you accept Christ as your saviour, you're nothing but dead meat, going straight to hell, and is incapable of do the right thing.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Unless you accept Christ as your saviour, you're nothing but dead meat, going straight to hell,
Huh? How am I going to "hell" if I don't accept your beliefs? Fine. Doesn't affect me; being athiest has it's advantages.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Unless you accept Christ as your saviour, you're nothing but dead meat, going straight to hell,
Huh? How am I going to "hell" if I don't accept your beliefs? Fine. Doesn't affect me; being athiest has it's advantages.
I was being sarcastic.. :rolleyes:
-
espeir wrote:
Again, you're applying your sensibilities to another community.
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
espeir wrote:
What do you think about public sex acts? Should they be legal?
As long as I'm involved! :laugh:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
Having "a law against murder" is a circular statement because murder is a legally-defined term for certain types of killing. By definition, all murder is illegal. On the other hand, not all forms of killing are illegal. If someone is attacking you, it should certainly not be illegal to kill the attacker during a reasonable attempt to defend yourself. (Yes, "reasonable" is subjective.) So... laws against murder aren't necessarily bad, but a total ban of all killing would be. Laws would ideally only apply to damage inflicted on others. The problem is that nearly everything can be overzealously shown to have some degree of effect on others. Alcohol-related laws are a prime example. The odds are overwhelmingly against you ever harming anyone by drinking and driving, but they can use statistics to show that you're "more likely" to harm someone, which means they're preventing some percentage of harm by throwing you in jail. Of course, they ignore the harm caused by the taxes used to pay for it all. :) Using the same logic behind drunk driving laws, we should ban the practice of shaving. You're far more likely to transmit blood-related diseases to others if you shave, because people who shave are more likely to get cut and bleed. So by shaving, you're contributing to the prevalence of AIDS and hepatitis, just like how all drunk drivers (most of whom never get into an accident or harm anyone) are a danger to society. That will be $0.02 please. Cash or charge?