Jump to content

Please !


Guest Voice Of Reason

Recommended Posts

Maybe he's a Secularist?  :excl:

http://www.ismbook.com/secularism.html

This gets back to the definition of "religion," which has already been touched upon.  Folks on Strife's side don't dare try to define "religion" with any type of rigidity.  They'd prefer for it to remain an ill-defined concept something like "having to do with belief in a god or gods."  That way they can look the other way when the ideologies they favor get promoted in public schools.

The problem is that there is no way to do education minus some type of worldview indoctrination.

LaClair's side (consciously or not) is playing the game of passing its own religious beliefs off as okay while categorizing certain other beliefs as not okay.

It's probably not deliberate hypocrisy.  More likely it's the hypocrisy that goes along with sloppy thinking.

It's not any kind of hypocrisy. It's a recognition that words are imperfect means of communicating concepts and ideas. When the Framers adopted the First Amendment, they used the word "religion," but what they were referring to were the religions of the time, which framed their concept of "religion". As many on the more modern right have pointed out, the Framers were adopting a secular religion for a nation, at least for legal purposes. This is entirely correct, and lo and behold --- it worked!

The reason it worked is that the concerns that affect our lives in demonstrable ways are all secular (in the sense that they are natural as opposed to supernatural). Since adoption of the First Amendment, we have come to realize that secular philosophies (for lack of a better term) are religions after all, but in a more classic and more basic sense than the Framers had in mind. So in fact, Bryan is actually right about something, but on the other hand the fact still remains that the Framers understood the dangers inherent in a marriage between government and theistic religions (their inclination to divide people being among the worst of them), and drew the First Amendment to guard against division of the nation along those particular religious lines. That doesn't mean that we could ever put our secular concerns on the same plane, because if we did, there'd be no purpose for having a government, since it wouldn't have any foundation for laws or any other kind of action.

One of my favorite law school professors was Richard Lempert, who taught me Evidence. He was great at pointing out the absurdities in law, even in laws that work. Bottom line: no, the Constitution isn't perfect, and it isn't even philosophically defensible if one is going to insist on that degree of perfection. That is one of several reasons why members of the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, disagree so vehemently, sometimes on relatively basic legal principles. However, when we look honestly at the history of our country and the world, we see that the First Amendment was intended to keep the state separate from the churches, and in particular to keep it from endorsing or promoting non-secular belief systems, precisely for the reason that there is no secular and rational basis for resolving disputes over things like whether there is a god and if so what are his, her or its properties, characteristics, etc. Every country with a religiously diverse population that has mixed government and religion in the sense in which the Framers meant "religion" has paid a heavy price for it. Today we have a broader understanding of what "religion" is, but that doesn't mean that we can engraft that new definition onto the Framers' intent. They were operating under another definition, so that applying a new definition to the word as they used it would produce a result they did not intend and would not have intended if they could see what has happened since --- and in fact in this case, a result that would be completely untenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe he's a Secularist?  :excl:

http://www.ismbook.com/secularism.html

This gets back to the definition of "religion," which has already been touched upon.  Folks on Strife's side don't dare try to define "religion" with any type of rigidity.  They'd prefer for it to remain an ill-defined concept something like "having to do with belief in a god or gods."  That way they can look the other way when the ideologies they favor get promoted in public schools.

The problem is that there is no way to do education minus some type of worldview indoctrination.

LaClair's side (consciously or not) is playing the game of passing its own religious beliefs off as okay while categorizing certain other beliefs as not okay.

It's probably not deliberate hypocrisy.  More likely it's the hypocrisy that goes along with sloppy thinking.

So to expand a little further: Bryan is absolutely right, and so was Jerry Falwell, there is a culture war going on. Government must operate from a set of values, which must inform the laws. The question is whether a government truly dedicated to "liberty and justice for all" can endorse one parochial religion over another. It cannot.

What it can do, however, and has been doing with great success, is require laws to be founded on a rational secular purpose. If that makes Humanism the de facto state religion, so be it. That doesn't mean that formal or organizational Humanism can be endorsed as the official state religion, but in fact there is no way to have liberty and justice for all people without legally requiring laws to have an objective foundation, and that means a secular foundation.

Don't complain to me. I didn't make the world, and maybe no one did. But like it or not, that's how it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of what a straw man fallacy is.

You can't maintain that position while supporting Paul's supposed identification of straw man fallacies by me.

It's contradictory.

And I suspect that if you had actually thought that I didn't (and Paul as well, about whom you floated the same lie, but more explicitly), you would not have offered your "helpful" explanation in such an insulting and "playing to the crowd" way.

You mean by offering several standard definitions of "straw man" that did not at all match what I did?

It's rather transparent goading. But I have to admit that it has been somewhat successful. You've pissed me off enough to descend to name calling just as you wanted, you arrogant and obnoxious jerk.

You're such a pushover. :excl:

Not "miraculously", Bryan. I am correctly able to identify exactly that, as did Paul.

That's an unsupportable assertion. Not coincidentally, it's not supported.

Your comment countered points that were no part of his argument, and in doing so, implied that they were.

What points were "countered"? There was only one point, LaClair's distress that people held certain beliefs. I made no attempt to counter that point. Rather, I made the attempt to get LaClair to better explain it.

He ignored the majority of the post in order to accept my challenge and misidentify fallacies in my work.

It's classic straw man.

You're nuts.

And since I'm certain that you do understand what a straw man is, and since I do not wish to descend to your tactic of insinuating otherwise, I'll leave it to you to re-read it and figure out why.

That sounds suspiciously close to the technique people who have no argument use.

More than a coincidence?

The only question is whether you can muster enough self-honesty to identify and acknowledge one of your own fallacies as readily as you identify and point out those of others.

That would take imagination on my part comparable to that you and LaClair have displayed.

There's no attempt by me to answer a "point" of LaClairs. It's not really an argument to be concerned about people agreeing with a teacher who thinks dinosaurs were on the ark.

You have self-confessedly lost your cool, so perhaps I can cut you some slack for your failure to think the matter through properly.

No, Bryan, you certainly shouldn't rule that out. It wasn't subtle. I was indeed ridiculing you. And why not?

Minus an argument, it's a fallacy. Maybe you don't mind arguing fallaciously, but when you do so there's not much you can say when I point out that you argued fallaciously (other than "So what?" or the like--but it's a reasonable reader who looks askance at somebody who engages in debate like you do).

You've provided something that is very worthy of ridicule, and oh so much provocation to do so. You have on multiple occasions been called out on a fallacy, sometimes correctly, sometimes not.

I'd love for you to point me to the supposedly correct identifications of fallacies by me. And I mean that sincerely. Paul's attempt was an utter flop, of course, your emotional reaction to the rebuttal notwithstanding.

And your response, even when the accusation was accurate, has pretty consistently been to 1) deny having made the fallacy, and 2) accuse the accuser (typically in a rather demeaning way) of not understanding what that fallacy is.

Typically I take the additional step of reviewing the fallacy for the benefit of the person who doesn't know what the fallacy is, as I did in this case.

Somehow that got left out of your enumeration.

There's nothing you can do or say that will make up what's lacking in Paul's attempt to call what I did a straw man fallacy. It can only be made to fit by transforming it into something other than it was. You and Paul did that with apparent glee. No longer is it an attempt to get Paul to describe what he thinks should be done about those whose beliefs distress him so. It becomes an attempt to refute the "argument" that Paul is so distressed by those folks.

That's an idiotic position to take--and you've got to own it because you've gone on about it at length.

You know, Bryan, a simple "oops" will get you a lot more slack than a lame and obvious lie such as this one:

I don't need any slack, and I wasn't lying.

You challenged him to find a fallacy of yours. He scored a bullseye hit. Then you pulled an al-Sahaf and blatantly lied about it.

You're playing propaganda minister, yourself. There's nothing in what I wrote to support your fevered imaginings about it.

As I pointed out to Paul, I specifically made reference to his phrasing concerning those who agreed with the teacher in his example--those that worry his mind.

That's not an argument on his part. It's simply a statement of feeling. There's nothing to argue with, fallaciously or otherwise and I assure you I'm perceptive enough to realize that at first blush.

"So you want to repeal free speech or what?"

(bold emphasis added)

A straw man doesn't leave room for the opponent to describe his position. The key to the technique is to make that position for the opponent.

"Jail time for the "significant percentage" you think?"

(bold emphasis added)

To be understood with the preceding sentence, an obvious challenge for Paul to express his feelings in more detail about the "significant percentage" that troubles him.

"Or do they need shock treatment as mandated by the federal government (maybe you can convince the SCOTUS to find that as a government responsibility in light of the elastic clause combined with "promote the general welfare")"

And more of the same, using the last question as a vehicle to spring to a lampoon of the manner in which lawyers turn the Constitution on its head.

One cannot define an opponent's position through the asking of questions where there is no fallacy of the complex question, and mine were not complex questions.

You and Paul are simply wrong, and you're compounding your error by accusing me of the type of hardheadedness that you're exhibiting on the subject.

Just as you lied to me about your ridiculous grammar argument not being about grammar, when it so obviously was.

You didn't answer the argument in that case, either.

You just prance away declaring that you're obviously right.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47985

Your argument was crushed with this:

I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast grammatical rules on what can be placed within quotation marks and what cannot. When a person is misquoted, it is typically an issue of accuracy, not an issue of bad grammar.

Maybe you were using "grammar" as a stand-in for semantics or syntax (as part of the unavoidably semiotic nature of symbolic communication), but since all arguments rely on semantics in that sense your criticism would be utterly vacuous.

I'd have gotten around to pointing that out if you hadn't pranced away.

And then you defend your fallacies and lies by insinuating that your detractors only think they're fallacies and lies only because they're too stupid to comprehend your superior logic.

Hmmm. Again no mention of the fact that I go into detail in pointing out the errors in the false accusations.

You are a dishonest debater, Bryan.

No, I am not. But you left out a huge part of my responses to the accusations that I committed fallacies. Why did you do that?

A liar. A hypocrite. A belligerent and arrogant jerk. Smart, yes. But you abuse your intelligence to rationalize away your own error, to justify your arrogance and demeaning behavior towards others, to deceive others that you are right, and most of all, to deceive yourself.

Still waiting for one example in favor of any of the charges.

Perhaps you should consider taking the high road a bit more often. You know, admit when you've misunderstood what someone said, or when you didn't think something through completely, or when you were a bit pricklier than was called for, or when you just plain goofed up.

I do all of that. But I haven't seen any reason for any of it here at KOTW. And you're not exactly a fount of legitimate examples.

Maybe concede a point when you've clearly been bested,

Great; show me where I was clearly bested.

or just agree to disagree, instead of falling back to denial and derision.

It is simply an observable fact that you and Paul are having trouble understanding the straw man fallacy.

As for the use of derision, I cannot take a back seat to you.

You are well spoken and correct often enough that you will not be thought an idiot for your occasional mistakes. But you will be thought a dishonest jerk for weaseling and demeaning those who call you on it. And rightly so.

Could you take your own advice?

And one last gripe. Your incessant nit picking and fallacy hunting is getting very tiresome and obnoxious. Calling out a fallacy here and there when the debate gets serious is fine. But it has gone way beyond that, into the ridiculous. This is an informal discussion board. People don't just "debate" here. They express opinions. They "vent" (as I've done some of in this post). Not every nit needs picked.

But it's an informal discussion board, right? So it can be okay to pick every nit if one wishes. Or no?

If only you knew how many errors by my opponents I consciously let slide in order to stay generally on-topic.

That said, I think the discussion board serves the community better when people become more aware of fallacious reasoning.

People who rely on fallacious reasoning won't like that, I suppose; I can't imagine why others would seriously object.

Oh, and one last bit of counterproductive name calling, just because it makes me feel better.

And your advice to me is to take the high road more often.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if we will more closely scrutinize, monitor, document, and comment on the workings of the Santos Government. So many less important matters seem to overshadow the heart of what goes on around us daily, particularly the decisions, legislation and overall influence of the Sheriff himself, aka Mr. Clean, (the Mayor), the seemingly alarming wicked and decadent actions of his henchman and crony, Sir Guy of Gisborne (his faithful servant and Business Administrator), and of course, the “rubber stamp” approach of his merry band of Molly Maids.

We live in a town devoid of checks and balances, and controlled by one man whose machine controls the School District, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, the Economic Development Board, this Environmental Committee, and every other “Town” appointed group in Kearny. His appointments, that became anointments, then becomes the prestige and honor of serving on one of his boards, and results in a loyalty that means he goes unchallenged. Don’t tell me that someone would jeopardize his or her appointment on one of the Sheriff’s Boards by challenging his authority?

They talk about pay-to-play, what about anointed-to-vote on behalf of a demigod? Or was that appointed-to-vote on behalf of the demigod?

So drop this whole Mr. P, Matt, and Paul circus, and focus on regaining control of your destinies, your government, in Kearny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that there is no way to do education minus some type of worldview indoctrination.

Fine. But what's wrong with using the American worldview, rather than any religious sect's? You know, the worldview that's well-described in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law?

That seems to be Paul's goal.

 

LaClair's side (consciously or not) is playing the game of passing its own religious beliefs off as okay while categorizing certain other beliefs as not okay.

Paul doesn't seem to be promulgating any particular religion. If he were, surely we would be able to define what his religion actually is.

As far as I can tell, he's advocating that schools teach, and more importantly, PRACTICE American values.

It's probably not deliberate hypocrisy.  More likely it's the hypocrisy that goes along with sloppy thinking.

Or maybe not hypocrisy at all. It seems to me he's being consistent in insisting that public institutions be religiously neutral, a philosophy that is enshrined in that most American of documents, the Constitution of the United States.

You can arbitrarily define that as a "religion" if you want, but if so, it's one that all patriotic Americans should subscribe to.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine.  But what's wrong with using the American  worldview, rather than any religious sect's?  You know, the worldview that's well-described in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law?

The Declaration of Independence? Are you kidding me? It grounds the rights of man in the existence of god.

I'll tell you what's wrong with it: It's unconstitutional according to case law. Self-contradictory.

And even if it weren't contradictory it would be arbitrary, ultimately no different from doing what Paul professes to despise: coercing the conscience of citizens.

That seems to be Paul's goal.

So you're saying he's a big, fat, hypocrite?

;)

Paul doesn't seem to be promulgating any particular religion.  If he were, surely we would be able to define what his religion actually is.

Didn't I already do that?

He's a Secularist.

Paul had no problem finding a distinctly religious view in the teaching that the Bible manuscripts are very reliable in terms of having preserved in late copies what early copies show.

But you don't think Paul's ideas have a religious slant? Maybe you should try LaClair's techniques on LaClair.

As far as I can tell, he's advocating that schools teach, and more importantly, PRACTICE  American values.

Thus coercing the conscience of people who do not agree with so-called "American" values.

Hypocritical?

Or maybe not hypocrisy at all.  It seems to me he's being consistent in insisting that public institutions be religiously neutral, a philosophy that is enshrined in that most American of documents, the Constitution of the United States.

Religious neutrality is a religious position, isn't it?

You can arbitrarily define that as a "religion" if you want, but if so, it's one that all patriotic Americans should subscribe to.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

Do I hear an "Amen!"?

Preach it, sistah Leigh! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

So, which of the sources cited on that page are "crackpot," in your not-so-humble opinion?

Gerald Massey, amateur Egyptologist in an age when professional Egyptologists weren't worth much.

Tom Harpur, educated for the clergy, after that a journalist who wrote about religion.

http://www.tomharpur.com/biography.asp

"Harpur's arguments, themselves a rehash of earlier scholarship, are unlikely to convince readers who are not already inclined to his views."

(Publisher's Weekly)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=080...arioconsultanA/

"Earlier" means "outdated" I believe. In fact one of the citations of Harpur refers to explicitly to Massey's highly dubious research.

The third reference is for the image of Horus.

I don't have any problem with that one.

The fourth reference has nothing to do with Jesus/Horus parallels.

The fifth reference pertains again to the image used at ReligousTolerance.org.

All the rest until the last are Harpur ibids.

So the whole thing parallel thing is referenced to one amateur Egyptologist from the 19th century and a journalist who happens to have good credentials in the Greek and Hebrew languages as part of his study for the ministry.

Last I checked, those languages were not considered an extraordinary asset in Egyptology.

Plus there's this:

Author and theologian Tom Harpur studied the works of three authors who have written about ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). Harpur incorporated some of their findings into his book "Pagan Christ."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

Wow! Kuhn was as recent as 1963! Better than I thought!

The final reference is to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and I've already challenged the other chap to find the parallels in that work.

I won't wait up. There won't be anything significant even with Strife helping.

And, once again Strife expertly demonstrated his penchant for careless reading.

If he had looked more carefully at the ReligiousTolerance.org site, he would have noticed this:

Reactions of Egyptologists:

Ward Gasque, a volunteer book reviewer for Amazon.com surveyed twenty contemporary Egyptologists. He asked them about the origins of Jesus' name, the relationship between Horus and Jesus, whether both experienced a virgin birth, and whether the Egyptian religion considered Hourus to be an incarnation of God.

Ten responded, They agreed:

* Jesus' name is a Greek form of a very common Semitic name Jeshu'a, which is normally translated into English as Joshua.

* There is no evidence that Horus was born of a virgin, that he had twelve disciples, or that he was considered incarnation of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no "maybe." The 'argument' was that Paul imposes his religious views CONSTANTLY.

Kind of hard to tell with the entire context shorn away without even so much as the post redirect left. I don't remember "constantly" being a part of it.

So if he does that, there should be no uncertainty.

Why not? It isn't only Christians who use the Bible as a holy work, is it?

After all, how could he be imposing religious views if you don't even know for sure WHAT religion he follows?

So, if I were a Taoist and you didn't know it, I would be able to teach a religious doctrine such as the Mormon notion of blood atonement to students?

Your argument is nonsensical.

One need not have an identifiable religion to teach religious notions. All that needs to be identified is the religious notion in play--and that will put your side right back into the process of making sure "religion" has a definition that permits your dogmas while prohibiting others--but hopefully nobody looks too closely.

If the best one can do is take guesses, then one must concede that argument.

That doesn't follow. See above where your argument is reduced to absurdity.

Suppose you didn't know Paszkiewicz's religious affiliation. Could he teach as fact Annihilationism in his public school classroom?

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the first point, the schools are obligated to teach facts and science, not nonsense and superstit[]ion that conflicts with what we know about the world. The remedy for common misperceptions is not jail time, but education: teach students about the First Amendment, then maybe they'll understand it; teach them about the scientific fact that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago (65 million years if I remember correctly), and then they'll realize that dinosaurs couldn't have been alive on a comparatively small boat less than 6,000 years ago, as the biblical literalists like Mr. Paszkiewicz would have it. That's the remedy, and we've made it clear over and over.

So Paul says it's okay to teach things that discourage particular religious doctrines. Is that religiously neutral?

If Bryan had attended law school, he might understand (if he was actually listening for a change) that a general statement in a judicial opinion is not the same as a holding.

I called it a holding?

It is called dictum, and it has less weight than the holding of the case, which is based on the particular facts of the case; in the Tinker case the party was a student, not a teacher.

Justice Fortas must have forgotten all about that when he mentioned the term "teacher," I suppose.

So while it is true that teachers have first amendment rights within the course of their employment, those rights do not extend so far as to allow them to violate the students' rights to an education free from state-sponsored intrusions on their or their parents' religious beliefs.

Isn't that a complete reversal of what you said just above, where you made out like it was perfectly okay for the state to teach that the belief that dinosaurs on the ark is just flat-out wrong?

Seriously, Paul, how can you be a lawyer and then so monumentally contradict yourself in the space of a couple of paragraphs?

Teachers do not shed all their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door,

Bingo.

Let's get in the WayBack machine and review what "God Save Us From Christians" wrote:

"But inside a classroom, where he is the authority figure, he has no right to free speech, especially when it concerns his religious views."

Paul, would you say that GSUFC was correct that the teacher has no right to free speech, or was the Fortas citation appropriate in arguing against his position?

but they are subject to restrictions based on competing Constitutional and other rights, and also based on the voluntary nature of their empoyment.

Sounds like you're lifting my argument from several weeks ago. ;)

Even far-right legal scholars acknowledge that what Mr. Paszkiewicz did in this matter was so far over the line as to be beyond dispute among those who know and understand the law, which Bryan obviously does not.

And what would induce Paul to name those nebulous "far-right legal scholars"?

Or one of them, anyway?

Paul appears to overlook the fact that the law can (and has) reverse itself. Precedent, in principle, should be no more solid than the Constitution itself in the hands of the judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not any kind of hypocrisy.

Then why did you apparently contradict yourself while trying to explain it recently?

It's a recognition that words are imperfect means of communicating concepts and ideas. When the Framers adopted the First Amendment, they used the word "religion," but what they were referring to were the religions of the time, which framed their concept of "religion". As many on the more modern right have pointed out, the Framers were adopting a secular religion for a nation, at least for legal purposes. This is entirely correct, and lo and behold --- it worked!

Okay, so we've got a secular government based on a religion and that's not contradictory.

It sounds contradictory, though. Can you explain it in words without falling on your face again?

The reason it worked is that the concerns that affect our lives in demonstrable ways are all secular (in the sense that they are natural as opposed to supernatural).

Your statement seems tantamount to claiming that the supernatural does not affect reality. Do I understand you correctly?

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

Since adoption of the First Amendment, we have come to realize that secular philosophies (for lack of a better term) are religions after all, but in a more classic and more basic sense than the Framers had in mind. So in fact, Bryan is actually right about something, but on the other hand the fact still remains that the Framers understood the dangers inherent in a marriage between government and theistic religions (their inclination to divide people being among the worst of them), and drew the First Amendment to guard against division of the nation along those particular religious lines.

And this appears to be yet another contradiction.

On the one hand, Paul excuses re-interpreting the Constitution because of the imprecision of words. Thus, the Framers, Paul would apparently say, did not want theistic religions entangled with the government. And rather than allowing for the imprecision of words to include secular philosophies in the separation clause, Paul seems to turn into a creative originalist to find that the Framers actually just wanted theistic religions separated from the operations of the (federal) government.

That doesn't mean that we could ever put our secular concerns on the same plane, because if we did, there'd be no purpose for having a government, since it wouldn't have any foundation for laws or any other kind of action.

Which seems tantamount to saying that the contradiction is okay on pragmatic grounds.

One of my favorite law school professors was Richard Lempert, who taught me Evidence. He was great at pointing out the absurdities in law, even in laws that work. Bottom line: no, the Constitution isn't perfect, and it isn't even philosophically defensible if one is going to insist on that degree of perfection. That is one of several reasons why members of the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, disagree so vehemently, sometimes on relatively basic legal principles.

Perhaps including some that Paul has cited as very basic to his side of the argument?

However, when we look honestly at the history of our country and the world, we see that the First Amendment was intended to keep the state separate from the churches, and in particular to keep it from endorsing or promoting non-secular belief systems, precisely for the reason that there is no secular and rational basis for resolving disputes over things like whether there is a god and if so what are his, her or its properties, characteristics, etc.

Sounds pretty much like anti-non-secular-religious bigotry.

The Soviet Union and Red China avoided allowing theistic religious ideologies t dominate their regimes. Their experiments turned out poorly, if the resulting millions of deaths and loss of freedom were any indication.

Every country with a religiously diverse population that has mixed government and religion in the sense in which the Framers meant "religion" has paid a heavy price for it.

Like 20th century England? The one with the state-sponsored church? Or Denmark? Or are they not diverse enough to count?

Today we have a broader understanding of what "religion" is, but that doesn't mean that we can engraft that new definition onto the Framers' intent.

Heh! Why not? The courts have considered the argument that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" as a Constitutional prohibition on the death penalty. Certainly the Framers didn't have that intent.

They were operating under another definition, so that applying a new definition to the word as they used it would produce a result they did not intend and would not have intended if they could see what has happened since --- and in fact in this case, a result that would be completely untenable.

I'm glad that Paul has seen fit to base his reading of the law on the intent of the Framers. That puts him in a pickle when it comes to explaining the modern application of the separation clause on state and local governments.

Paul, perhaps rightly feeling that his previous reply left something to be desired, later continued:

So to expand a little further: Bryan is absolutely right, and so was Jerry Falwell, there is a culture war going on. Government must operate from a set of values, which must inform the laws. The question is whether a government truly dedicated to "liberty and justice for all" can endorse one parochial religion over another. It cannot.

What it can do, however, and has been doing with great success, is require laws to be founded on a rational secular purpose. If that makes Humanism the de facto state religion, so be it.

Huh. What happened to Paul's zeal for the Constitution? Would he contend that the Framers' intent was to install Humanism as the de facto state religion?

I'm eager to see Paul's argument for that.

It seems that Paul's zeal for the Constitution now closely resembles a zeal for seeing a secular religion as the de facto state religion in the United States.

You've got to love his plainspokenness. ;)

That doesn't mean that formal or organizational Humanism can be endorsed as the official state religion, but in fact there is no way to have liberty and justice for all people without legally requiring laws to have an objective foundation, and that means a secular foundation.

Paul claims to have found an objective foundation for the law? And thus an objective platform for morality?

I'm eager to see that argument as well. Rand was a spectacular flop, in terms of logic, so I'd be interested to see if LaClair can offer an alternative.

Don't complain to me. I didn't make the world, and maybe no one did. But like it or not, that's how it is.

I'll just point out how you contradict yourself.

Does that count as a complaint? ;)

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Declaration of Independence?  Are you kidding me?  It grounds the rights of man in the existence of god.

I'll tell you what's wrong with it:  It's unconstitutional according to case law.  Self-contradictory.

Huh? First, we should all step back and recognize that the Framers very intentionally did NOT use the word God in the Constitution or Declaration. Jefferson used a term from Deism, "Creator", instead. Bryan seems to equate the two, but it's clear that the language was deliberately chosen to be as vague and nonsectarian as possible.

Bryan, is your argument that we Americans don't recognize the primacy of these documents? That we reject them? Do you really believe our nation's JUDGES reject them? Do you have one shred of PROOF (not just your fanciful extrapolation) of this ridiculous claim? You know, as in citing a case, quoting a judicial opinion, any of those real-world evidences . . .

I know that some on the religious right have a problem with "activist judges", but really, don't you think that's taking religious paranoia just a little far?

And let me hop down that promising side bunny trail just a minute. It's really outrageous when the majority religion uses the vocabulary of oppression to whine when they can't preach on the taxpayer's dime.

Ahem. But to resume the thread of my argument, it's disingeneous to claim that we don't have a shared worldview, which I suppose could even be called a "secular religion", that is distinctly American and grounded in the principles expressed in our Constitution and the Declaration.

If you DON'T understand that, Bryan, I recommend that you read the following books as a kind of remedial course in civics and American History:

The Americanization of Ben Franklin Gordon S. Wood

Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787 Catherine Drinker Bowen

Thomas Jefferson and the Foundations of American Freedom Saul K. Padover

Those would do to get started -- these are just some that are currently on my bookshelf and that I've read (or re-read) recently.

Leigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Paul says it's okay to teach things that discourage particular religious doctrines.  Is that religiously neutral?

I called it a holding?

Justice Fortas must have forgotten all about that when he mentioned the term "teacher," I suppose.

Isn't that a complete reversal of what you said just above, where you made out like it was perfectly okay for the state to teach that the belief that dinosaurs on the ark is just flat-out wrong?

Seriously, Paul, how can you be a lawyer and then so monumentally contradict yourself in the space of a couple of paragraphs?

Bingo.

Let's get in the WayBack machine and review what "God Save Us From Christians" wrote:

"But inside a classroom, where he is the authority figure, he has no right to free speech, especially when it concerns his religious views."

Paul, would you say that GSUFC was correct that the teacher has no right to free speech, or was the Fortas citation appropriate in arguing against his position?

Sounds like you're lifting my argument from several weeks ago.  ;)

And what would induce Paul to name those nebulous "far-right legal scholars"?

Or one of them, anyway?

Paul appears to overlook the fact that the law can (and has) reverse itself.  Precedent, in principle, should be no more solid than the Constitution itself in the hands of the judiciary.

Bryan, I know you think you're very clever, but viewing this as an attorney, your arguments have you standing naked in Macy's storefront window at noon on Thanksgiving. They're that transparent. You obviously don't understand the law. So, for example, the mere fact that Justice Fortas used the word "teacher" in an opinion doesn't mean that he used it as part of the holding in the case. No doubt he was aware of the distinction, but apparently you're not.

At the end of the day, governments have to make decisions. Systems of law are not perfect. We've made a decision, founded in the law, that our laws must have a secular basis. There are many Supreme Court cases that announce and apply that principle. So while you may not agree with it or like it, it is the law, and it is the basis for not allowing a history teacher to promote mythology in the place of science. Does it disfavor any particular religion? It does if you assume that we should live under a theocracy, i.e., that supernaturalism and theism should be the foundation for our laws. However, that is not the decision we have made as a people, and it is not the law. The law is just the opposite. We have struck a balance that respects the individual's right to worship (theist and non-theist alike), but limits the government to objective matters, and that means the government must be secular. You may not like the implications, but there's no escaping it, and historically it is the best and most stable system.

Your arguments would be more credible if they weren't all just transparent attempts to use government to promote your religious views. As a society, we've decided per our Constitution and our legal system that we're not going down that road. Argue, then, for an explicit change to theocracy if you like, but the incessant, one-sided parsing is tiring. (Why do I keep responding to it? Guess I must have missed KOTW these past couple of days.)

Tell you what, Bryan. You've asked me what law school I attended. It was the University of Michigan Law School, graduation date August 1977. At that time, it was ranked in the top five nationally. I finished the three-year program in two years and graduated cum laude.

Which law school did you attend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Your statement seems tantamount to claiming that the supernatural does not affect reality.  Do I understand you correctly?

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

. . .

(2) The Soviet Union and Red China avoided allowing theistic religious ideologies from dominating their regimes.  Their experiments turned out poorly, if the resulting millions of deaths and loss of freedom were any indication.

That doesn't mean that formal or organizational Humanism can be endorsed as the official state religion, but in fact there is no way to have liberty and justice for all people without legally requiring laws to have an objective foundation, and that means a secular foundation.

. . .

(3) Paul claims to have found an objective foundation for the law?  And thus an objective platform for morality?

I'm eager to see that argument as well.  Rand was a spectacular flop, in terms of logic, so I'd be interested to see if LaClair can offer an alternative.

Don't complain to me. I didn't make the world, and maybe no one did. But like it or not, that's how it is.

I'll just point out how you contradict yourself.

Does that count as a complaint?  ;)

(1) What objective basis have you for any claim that "the supernatural" exists?

(2) The comparison to religious suppression under the Soviet and Chinese-Communist regimes is not well-taken.

(3) Then what alternative system do you propose? You're capable of seeing the imperfections in systems, as you've demonstrated, but to fashion a government you must have a complete system that not only looks good on paper, but that works. Instead of just taking potshots at the edges of systems (which anyone can do in any field: law, medicine, science, education, you name it), you must have a complete system that can be codified and applied. So put the shoe on the other foot and hold yourself to the same level of accountability that you demand of others: What is your system? Please be specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?  First, we should all step back and recognize that the Framers very intentionally did NOT use the word God in the Constitution or Declaration.

I used the word "god" in my post, IIRC. Why did you capitalize it in your reply? Did you assume a typo on my part?

Jefferson used a term from Deism, "Creator", instead.  Bryan seems to equate the two, but it's clear that the language was deliberately chosen to be as vague and nonsectarian as possible.

Do you think "Creator" could be seem as equivalent to "god"?

Bryan, is your argument that we Americans don't recognize the primacy of these documents?

No. What would give you that idea?

That we reject them?

No. What would give you that idea?

Do you really believe our nation's JUDGES reject them?

Yes, in part. Otherwise there should be no problem in recognizing that the nation is "under God" in terms of recognizing the state's stewardship of rights granted by an authority higher than the state.

Do you have one shred of PROOF (not just your fanciful extrapolation) of this ridiculous claim?

What ridiculous claim?

You know, as in citing a case, quoting a judicial opinion, any of those real-world evidences . . .

See the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion in the Newdow "Pledge" case.

I know that some on the religious right have a problem with "activist judges", but really, don't you think that's taking religious paranoia just a little far?

Not at all. The "American" worldview at the birth of the nation was theistic at the very least in the sense that rights were attributed to the "Creator" (just to keep Leigh from nitpicking).

Paul LaClair wants to change that "American" worldview to a different one that is indifferent to the existence (now or ever) of a Creator (he has admitted as much).

And let me hop down that promising side bunny trail just a minute.  It's really outrageous when the majority religion uses the vocabulary of oppression to whine when they can't preach on the taxpayer's dime.

Could you name a word or two from this supposed "vocabulary of oppression," please? You don't seem to be responding directly to something that I wrote (in fact you seem to have lifted out just a couple of sentences of my response).

Ahem.  But to resume the thread of my argument, it's disingeneous to claim that we don't have a shared worldview, which I suppose could even be called a "secular religion", that is distinctly American and grounded in the principles expressed in our Constitution and the Declaration.

Okay, let's say that it's disingenuous. Who claimed that we don't have a shared worldview?

If you DON'T understand that, Bryan, I recommend that you read the following books as a kind of remedial course in civics and American History:

The Americanization of Ben Franklin Gordon S. Wood

Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787 Catherine Drinker Bowen

Thomas Jefferson and the Foundations of American Freedom Saul K. Padover

Those would do to get started -- these are just some that are currently on my bookshelf and that I've read (or re-read) recently.

Leigh

I think you're arguing against a straw man. I think it's disingenuous to make an argument like yours without quoting the statement(s) of mine to the effect that there is no commonality of worldview on at least some points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, I know you think you're very clever, but viewing this as an attorney, your arguments have you standing naked in Macy's storefront window at noon on Thanksgiving.

Okay, we've got the bluster and insult out of the way. Let's see the meat of the argument.

They're that transparent. You obviously don't understand the law.

Okay, so the bluster and insult aren't completely out of the way, yet.

So, for example, the mere fact that Justice Fortas used the word "teacher" in an opinion doesn't mean that he used it as part of the holding in the case.

Really?

Why did you dodge my question to you as to whether I referred to it as a holding?

I'll tell you why you dodged it: because I didn't say it. I used "hold the opinion" in a non-technical sense, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with my use of English. It would take a real blowhard, IMHO, to try to make something of my statement in terms of failing to understand (or use) legal terminology.

No doubt he was aware of the distinction, but apparently you're not.

Yeah? Based on what evidence?

You don't have any.

At the end of the day, governments have to make decisions. Systems of law are not perfect. We've made a decision, founded in the law, that our laws must have a secular basis.

Based on what law (I can feel the circulus in demonstrando coming on already)?

There are many Supreme Court cases that announce and apply that principle. So while you may not agree with it or like it, it is the law, and it is the basis for not allowing a history teacher to promote mythology in the place of science.

So, other than that's the way it is, nyah, nyah, what is the lawyerly objection to the position I have expressed?

Does it disfavor any particular religion? It does if you assume that we should live under a theocracy, i.e., that supernaturalism and theism should be the foundation for our laws.

Baloney. It disfavors particular religions logically according to the framework you suggested.

Unless you're admitting that you think we should live under a theocracy?

However, that is not the decision we have made as a people, and it is not the law. The law is just the opposite. We have struck a balance that respects the individual's right to worship (theist and non-theist alike), but limits the government to objective matters, and that means the government must be secular. You may not like the implications, but there's no escaping it, and historically it is the best and most stable system.

Come on, Paul. You know (or should) as well as I do that the local governments were free to establish laws touching religion prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment and its later application beyond the apparent intent of the amendment by the courts.

So for half the nation's history, at least, the nation didn't subscribe to the system you laud.

Your arguments would be more credible if they weren't all just transparent attempts to use government to promote your religious views.

lol

In a different post, you as much as admitted that you wanted to see (secular) Humanism as the default religion of the United States.

Tell me again how you're not hypocritical.

I want the Constitution without the extrapolation of the 14th Amendment. You want the Constitution with the extrapolation of the 14th Amendment. My motives are really no more religious than yours.

As a society, we've decided per our Constitution and our legal system that we're not going down that road.

Is it against the law for us to change our minds?

;)

Argue, then, for an explicit change to theocracy if you like, but the incessant, one-sided parsing is tiring. (Why do I keep responding to it? Guess I must have missed KOTW these past couple of days.)

Was the United States a theocracy prior to the judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment, IYO?

Tell you what, Bryan. You've asked me what law school I attended.

Not exactly. I asked what law school was willing to graduate somebody who used bad arguments and flawed logic so liberally.

It was the University of Michigan Law School, graduation date August 1977. At that time, it was ranked in the top five nationally. I finished the three-year program in two years and graduated cum laude.

Good school, but you give them a black eye with your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Your statement seems tantamount to claiming that the supernatural does not affect reality.  Do I understand you correctly?

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

(1) What objective basis have you for any claim that "the supernatural" exists?

Why bother to number your responses when you're just dodging the question?

You seem to implicitly answer "yes" with your response, I suppose, but the question suggests that your basis for your claim is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance (if there is no "objective basis" for the supernatural then it does not affect reality).

Apparently I understand you correctly. Try the other question, now:

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

(2) The Soviet Union and Red China avoided allowing theistic religious ideologies from dominating their regimes.  Their experiments turned out poorly, if the resulting millions of deaths and loss of freedom were any indication.

(2) The comparison to religious suppression under the Soviet and Chinese-Communist regimes is not well-taken.

Heh. Why not? Did they secretly allow theistic religions to control their governments behind the scenes?

Aren't the communist states rather poor models even apart from their tendency to suppress religion? Won't you acknowledge the secular nature of their governments?

You made the case that keeping theism out of government was some kind of key to success. Will you not acknowledge that something more is required, at least, while acknowledging that governments with state-sponsored churches appear to do a fairly decent job of having a free society (England, Denmark)?

(3) Paul claims to have found an objective foundation for the law?  And thus an objective platform for morality?

I'm eager to see that argument as well.  Rand was a spectacular flop, in terms of logic, so I'd be interested to see if LaClair can offer an alternative.

(3) Then what alternative system do you propose?

I ask for your argument and you ask me for mine in response? Is shifting the burden of proof second nature to you, or what?

You're capable of seeing the imperfections in systems, as you've demonstrated, but to fashion a government you must have a complete system that not only looks good on paper, but that works. Instead of just taking potshots at the edges of systems (which anyone can do in any field: law, medicine, science, education,  you name it), you must have a complete system that can be codified and applied. So put the shoe on the other foot and hold yourself to the same level of accountability that you demand of others: What is your system? Please be specific.

Every system "works," Paul. We just judge the results according to our own lights.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You've made an implicit claim (you seem to have dodged away from confirming it) that the system you'd like to see in place is based on an objective morality.

But when it comes time to back up your claim you run away and try to shift the burden of proof. You hope, I suppose, that by talking about something else you'll get yourself off the hook.

I wonder what your former professor would think of the debate tactics you've chosen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, we've got the bluster and insult out of the way.  Let's see the meat of the argument.

Okay, so the bluster and insult aren't completely out of the way, yet.

Really?

Why did you dodge my question to you as to whether I referred to it as a holding?

I'll tell you why you dodged it:  because I didn't say it.  I used "hold the opinion" in a non-technical sense, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with my use of English.  It would take a real blowhard, IMHO, to try to make something of my statement in terms of failing to understand (or use) legal terminology.

Yeah?  Based on what evidence?

You don't have any.

Based on what law (I can feel the circulus in demonstrando coming on already)?

So, other than that's the way it is, nyah, nyah, what is the lawyerly objection to the position I have expressed?

Baloney.  It disfavors particular religions logically according to the framework you suggested.

Unless you're admitting that you think we should live under a theocracy?

Come on, Paul.  You know (or should) as well as I do that the local governments were free to establish laws touching religion prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment and its later application beyond the apparent intent of the amendment by the courts.

So for half the nation's history, at least, the nation didn't subscribe to the system you laud.

lol

In a different post, you as much as admitted that you wanted to see (secular) Humanism as the default religion of the United States.

Tell me again how you're not hypocritical.

I want the Constitution without the extrapolation of the 14th Amendment.  You want the Constitution with the extrapolation of the 14th Amendment.  My motives are really no more religious than yours.

Is it against the law for us to change our minds?

:)

Argue, then, for an explicit change to theocracy if you like, but the incessant, one-sided parsing is tiring. (Why do I keep responding to it? Guess I must have missed KOTW these past couple of days.)

Was the United States a theocracy prior to the judicial expansion of the 14th Amendment, IYO?

Tell you what, Bryan. You've asked me what law school I attended.

Not exactly.  I asked what law school was willing to graduate somebody who used bad arguments and flawed logic so liberally.

It was the University of Michigan Law School, graduation date August 1977. At that time, it was ranked in the top five nationally. I finished the three-year program in two years and graduated cum laude.

Good school, but you give them a black eye with your arguments.

You omitted my final question, which was: what law school did you graduate from. That's not like you, Bryan, leaving an argument hanging. But that's OK, I understand the answer from your silence. Not that I didn't already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You omitted my final question, which was: what law school did you graduate from. That's not like you, Bryan, leaving an argument hanging.

There was no argument respecting our respective educational histories, so I'm not leaving an argument hanging.

I wouldn't have answered if you'd asked what medical (welding, dancing, etc.) school I had attended, either. None of the answers is relevant to argument at hand, which stands or falls on its own merits; since your position as a lawyer is just about all you've got, it's understandable that you would try to rely on a circumstantial ad hominem to bolster your position.

It's not fallacious, per se, but it's a very weak argument (as I'm sure your former professor would realize instantly). He might grant you points for persuasive effect (those already inclined to agree with your position might eat it up), but there's no substance behind it.

But that's OK, I understand the answer from your silence. Not that I didn't already know.

And speaking of leaving arguments hanging--this is the extent of your reply to my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) What objective basis have you for any claim that "the supernatural" exists?

Why bother to number your responses when you're just dodging the question?

You seem to implicitly answer "yes" with your response, I suppose, but the question suggests that your basis for your claim is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance (if there is no "objective basis" for the supernatural then it does not affect reality).

Apparently I understand you correctly. Try the other question, now:

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

(2) The comparison to religious suppression under the Soviet and Chinese-Communist regimes is not well-taken.

Heh. Why not? Did they secretly allow theistic religions to control their governments behind the scenes?

Aren't the communist states rather poor models even apart from their tendency to suppress religion? Won't you acknowledge the secular nature of their governments?

You made the case that keeping theism out of government was some kind of key to success. Will you not acknowledge that something more is required, at least, while acknowledging that governments with state-sponsored churches appear to do a fairly decent job of having a free society (England, Denmark)?

(3) Then what alternative system do you propose?

I ask for your argument and you ask me for mine in response? Is shifting the burden of proof second nature to you, or what?

Every system "works," Paul. We just judge the results according to our own lights.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You've made an implicit claim (you seem to have dodged away from confirming it) that the system you'd like to see in place is based on an objective morality.

But when it comes time to back up your claim you run away and try to shift the burden of proof. You hope, I suppose, that by talking about something else you'll get yourself off the hook.

I wonder what your former professor would think of the debate tactics you've chosen here.

I admit it's an impression, but I think the Framers had in mind a system of laws that really worked for everyone, and gave everyone a place in the system. And whether they intended that or not, that universal ethic is what we claim to believe in and uphold: "liberty and justice for all" can mean no less. The Framers did not accomplish every piece of that universal ethic: they omitted blacks, Native Americans, women and probably quite a few other categories of people if we really look at the Constitution carefully. So you're absolutely right, I don't hold what they did as sacred, and in fact we have moved well beyond where the Framers were in their day --- I count that to the good, and so do most Americans, I think. But at the same time our Constitutional Framers set forth a principle --- to some extent explicitly, to some extent implicitly --- that many of us think ought not to be denied: a universal ethic in which all people are treated equally and valued. If you wish to call that my religion, then so be it.

There is no way to accomplish that by promoting a state religion (because people do not agree on religion, read "a theology"), unless you call a concern for every person's well-being a religion (now read religion as "re-ligare"). I do, but that doesn't mean that there's any better alternative. There isn't, IMO. So Bryan, you can have a party pointing out that there is no perfect and necessary philosophical underpinning for the Constitution; but the fact remains that if we are to live in a nation that truly values everyone, a secular government is the only way to do that. If you assume that every person's worth as a human being is paramount, then not only does the conclusion follow logically and inescapably, but history bears it out.

So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all? If you do, please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother to number your responses when you're just dodging the question?

You seem to implicitly answer "yes" with your response, I suppose, but the question suggests that your basis for your claim is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance (if there is no "objective basis" for the supernatural then it does not affect reality).

Apparently I understand you correctly.  Try the other question, now:

Do you really think the Framers had your idea in mind?

Heh.  Why not?  Did they secretly allow theistic religions to control their governments behind the scenes?

Aren't the communist states rather poor models even apart from their tendency to suppress religion?  Won't you acknowledge the secular nature of their governments?

You made the case that keeping theism out of government was some kind of key to success.  Will you not acknowledge that something more is required, at least, while acknowledging that governments with state-sponsored churches appear to do a fairly decent job of having a free society (England, Denmark)?

I ask for your argument and you ask me for mine in response?  Is shifting the burden of proof second nature to you, or what?

Every system "works," Paul.  We just judge the results according to our own lights.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.  You've made an implicit claim (you seem to have dodged away from confirming it) that the system you'd like to see in place is based on an objective morality.

But when it comes time to back up your claim you run away and try to shift the burden of proof.  You hope, I suppose, that by talking about something else you'll get yourself off the hook.

I wonder what your former professor would think of the debate tactics you've chosen here.

I admit it's an impression, but I think the Framers had in mind a system of laws that really worked for everyone, and gave everyone a place in the system. And whether they intended that or not, that universal ethic is what we claim to believe in and uphold: "liberty and justice for all" can mean no less.

The "liberty and justice for all" phrase came from that socialist guy who wrote the original version of the pledge of allegiance, didn't it?

The Framers did not accomplish every piece of that universal ethic: they omitted blacks, Native Americans, women and probably quite a few other categories of people if we really look at the Constitution carefully. So you're absolutely right, I don't hold what they did as sacred,

A twist here, a turn there ...

My point had nothing to do with sacredness, but with your attempt to identify the broad history of the United States with your worldview. That attempt on your part was incoherent.

Your attempt to rehabilitate your position via elaboration will be evaluated in its turn.

and in fact we have moved well beyond where the Framers were in their day --- I count that to the good, and so do most Americans, I think.

Relative peace and personal prosperity will tend to win majority support for views that have not received deep consideration.

But at the same time our Constitutional Framers set forth a principle --- to some extent explicitly, to some extent implicitly --- that many of us think ought not to be denied: a universal ethic in which all people are treated equally and valued. If you wish to call that my religion, then so be it.

That's only one tenet of your religion, and it happens to overlap the beliefs of the Framers who instituted our constitutional republic. The Framers did have a worldview that permitted them to rest their ethic on an objective foundation, that is, a Creator who had granted unalienable rights to all men equally.

You, Paul, have been evasive (or at least slow-of-foot) when it comes time for you to offer your claimed "objective" and "rational" substitute for the worldview that serves as the foundation for our government.

When you make man the measure of all things, what is the origin of the rights of man? Man himself? If man grants man his rights, then why can man not take them away again?

These types of questions tend to pose intractable philosophical problems for the worldview you would substitute for that of the Framers.

There is no way to accomplish that by promoting a state religion (because people do not agree on religion, read "a theology"), unless you call a concern for every person's well-being a religion (now read religion as "re-ligare"). I do, but that doesn't mean that there's any better alternative. There isn't, IMO. So Bryan, you can have a party pointing out that there is no perfect and necessary philosophical underpinning for the Constitution;

I think the Framers were closer on that point than you are; I think a government that regards itself as the custodian of rights granted by a higher power is better for human freedom than a government that sees itself as granting rights to its citizens on its whim.

Pending your explanation of your rational and objective foundation for law, I read your position close to the latter.

but the fact remains that if we are to live in a nation that truly values everyone, a secular government is the only way to do that.

You'll need to explain to me what you mean by "secular" now that you have admitted that no system of government is immune from imposing some manner of metaphysic on the population.

I'd like to see you acknowledge and address my point that secular governments in China and the USSR did a poor job of truly valuing everyone, for example. It seems that there must be some key to preserving human rights aside from ensuring "secular" government.

If you assume that every person's worth as a human being is paramount, then not only does the conclusion follow logically and inescapably, but history bears it out.

Again, what basis do you have for assuming that every person's worth as a human being is paramount? You were telling me how objective and rational your system is. Is this not a perfect test case for your claim?

So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all?

No, but "liberty and justice for all" as you seem to be using it is a bit of an anachronism, and I don't think you can offer any rational foundation (and, of course, "human-centered" cannot be understood to mean based on humans otherwise the idea becomes malleable and relative instead of universal) for a universal human-centered ethic from your worldview. How would you address arguments from a guy like Peter Singer (animal-rights crackpot, Princeton), for example?

You do tend to dodge my questions, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
There was no argument respecting our respective educational histories, so I'm not leaving an argument hanging.

I wouldn't have answered if you'd asked what medical (welding, dancing, etc.) school I had attended, either.  None of the answers is relevant to argument at hand, which stands or falls on its own merits; since your position as a lawyer is just about all you've got, it's understandable that you would try to rely on a circumstantial ad hominem to bolster your position.

It's not fallacious, per se, but it's a very weak argument (as I'm sure your former professor would realize instantly).  He might grant you points for persuasive effect (those already inclined to agree with your position might eat it up), but there's no substance behind it.

And speaking of leaving arguments hanging--this is the extent of your reply to my post?

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan......... What the f_ _ _ do you get from these endless, mindless bloviations with an obsessive, compulsive lunatic like Paul. Of course, I know nothing about you, but my guess is you desperately need a girlfriend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no argument respecting our respective educational histories, so I'm not leaving an argument hanging.

I wouldn't have answered if you'd asked what medical (welding, dancing, etc.) school I had attended, either.  None of the answers is relevant to argument at hand, which stands or falls on its own merits; since your position as a lawyer is just about all you've got, it's understandable that you would try to rely on a circumstantial ad hominem to bolster your position.

It's not fallacious, per se, but it's a very weak argument (as I'm sure your former professor would realize instantly).  He might grant you points for persuasive effect (those already inclined to agree with your position might eat it up), but there's no substance behind it.

And speaking of leaving arguments hanging--this is the extent of your reply to my post?

So if our respective educations are not relevant, why did you discuss mine? Bryan, you're utterly transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no argument respecting our respective educational histories, so I'm not leaving an argument hanging.

I wouldn't have answered if you'd asked what medical (welding, dancing, etc.) school I had attended, either.  None of the answers is relevant to argument at hand, which stands or falls on its own merits; since your position as a lawyer is just about all you've got, it's understandable that you would try to rely on a circumstantial ad hominem to bolster your position.

It's not fallacious, per se, but it's a very weak argument (as I'm sure your former professor would realize instantly).  He might grant you points for persuasive effect (those already inclined to agree with your position might eat it up), but there's no substance behind it.

And speaking of leaving arguments hanging--this is the extent of your reply to my post?

Bryan, this is fundamental question, so I'm posting it again. Anyone can play your game. What not just anyone can do, unless they support a system that actually works, is answer a question like the following. You ignored it last time, so I'm asking it again.

"So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all? If you do, please explain."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan, this is  fundamental question, so I'm posting it again. Anyone can play your game. What not just anyone can do, unless they support a system that actually works, is answer a question like the following. You ignored it last time, so I'm asking it again.

"So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all? If you do, please explain."

You're hilarious.

Paul:

So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all?

Bryan:

No, but "liberty and justice for all" as you seem to be using it is a bit of an anachronism, and I don't think you can offer any rational foundation (and, of course, "human-centered" cannot be understood to mean based on humans otherwise the idea becomes malleable and relative instead of universal) for a universal human-centered ethic from your worldview. How would you address arguments from a guy like Peter Singer (animal-rights crackpot, Princeton), for example?

You do tend to dodge my questions, don't you?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51598

How many times will I have to answer before you'll admit that I answered it?

And how many times will you make something of me not answering questions when you do it as a matter of course?

Heh. I "ignored it."

Great stroke for your credibility, there.

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if our respective educations are not relevant, why did you discuss mine? Bryan, you're utterly transparent.

lol

You think I discussed your education? How fanciful.

I brought up your education to jab you in the ribs over the fact of your lousy arguments. I do not consider your education to be part of the criticism of your arguments. I do that separately, and then refer to your education to help provide you with motive to reply.

If it's transparent, good. Whatever the case, you're posting in reply to me. And the more you reply to me, the more mistakes you'll put into print (probabilistically speaking).

I'm delighted with the progress so far, as you've both praised the Framers for the genius of our system of government while also implicitly claiming that it was comparatively worthless minus the 14th Amendment.

And there's far more than just that.

You were smart to dodge me, earlier, because it's easy to hide colossal errors in soundbites.

And now that you've opened your mouth, can you bring yourself to shut it?

Can you afford to go silent when your peeps are counting on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...