paranoid yet?

[allthumbs]

You're a hotheaded prick - admit it. A shameless hewhore too.

[Greg_W]

Rob, on a totally unrelated topic, is your avatar a boxing platypus?

 

DFA would you STFU!!! We're having a discussion here. I swear, you're like my 3-year-old sometimes.

 

Greg W

[Greg_W]

Fuck you, dickhead. I am not.

[RobBob]

I don't agree with him on any of his abortion stances, first off, but as you point out it is his right to hold them, and it's also his right to use use his views within the boundary of law, to work towards them. Wether or not they are extreme, as even I believe they are, does not make his appointment innapropriate in my eyes, because thats the nature of politics.

Goat, you just seem too intelligent to honestly believe this "bend-over" philosophy. You support him, and this is your word-game to defend his appointment.

I wish I had the time and energy to do this paragraph-by-paragraph with you. But I must save some time to work, fuck, eat, and live. Let's rest up, and go again over Israel.

[Jim]

Always interesting that the righties want the gv-ment out of our lives except regarding morality. I like the seperation of church and state idea, maybe we should try it.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Hey, it was a legitimate question. Doesn't it look like a boxing platypus to you?

 

And anyway, DFA never spills Cheerios on the carpet, and always picks up his Barbies when he's done, uh, playing with them. Yeah.

[j_b]

when ashcroft takes positions on abortion, contraception, etc .. (as outlined by Ian) it is based on his system of belief which is fundamentalist religion. Rational people don't refer to god to make policy decision.

 

Rational/analytical people don't have to prove faith-based types wrong because the onus is on faith-based people to prove belief in the supernatural is a possible basis for a rational decision (basic scientific method). Anyhow we'd first need a premise (i.e. suggestive experimental data) to make the question of a faith-based morality worth considering. Is this clear enough?

[allthumbs]

Jesus j_b, what a crock of shit. Next time, only take 1/2 of that windowpane.

[RobBob]

Mtngoat,

I just read your "red is blue" post, and I do not understand how you get off challenging others to name and defend their religions, saying that you have done so. other than the recent post about how you stand on abortion, I have no idea what your religion and belief system is....it's not a part of this debate. Neither is mine. The issue that I have focused on, since I started posting, is how our Attorney General performs based on what the framers of the constitution had in mind. I think that matters, but you think only the last 15 minutes of history are important when it comes to government. You have, among other things, tried to sully the reputation of Jefferson and others by bringing up slavery. Others may think that you are a keen debater, but verbosity doesn't mean shit if it's not backed up by clear thinking.

 

Cheers, Greg

[Greg_W]

Rational people don't refer to god to make policy decision.

Really? A number of the Founding Fathers relied on Biblical morality in establishing their positions on government. I believe Abraham Lincoln talked about Biblical morality in his policy decision to free the slaves. And best of all, Bill Clinton admitted that he, too, consulted the Bible and prayed as preparation to making major policy decisions. You see, many people believe in the Bible and see it as a source for their morality. Not all these people are bad, or "extreme".

[allthumbs]

I don't think goat is a keen debater, more like an overzealous masterbater.

[RobBob]

Yes, Dr. Flash, it IS a platypus.

[MtnGoat]

"Goat, you just seem too intelligent to honestly believe this "bend-over" philosophy. "

 

So now you're telling me people are not appointed to office to bring their ideology and views with them? Am I reading this correctly?

 

"You support him, and this is your word-game to defend his appointment."

 

I am defending his appointment, yup, I'm glad it's finally become clear. I've never said anything different, I can't for the life of me figure out why me defending his appointment or his right to hold views, or be appointed for them, is a "word game".

 

Wether I agree with everything he believes, is another issue, just like I would defend the appointment of Janet Reno on a procedural basis, while opposing her on an ideological one.

 

[j_b]

Jesus j_b, what a crock of shit.

 

sorry dude, your or ashcroft's 'beliefs' are not a valid basis for an argument.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Thank you, sir. Back to the spray at hand!

[Greg_W]

Jim - I don't want the government dictating what morality should be. Each individual must do that for himself. However, there are certain absolutes that correlate to personal freedom and natural rights that are necessary for the government to create laws to protect.

 

We have a separation of church and state in this country. Just because an individual is elected, or appointed, who believes in God and/or actively attends a church doesn't mean that that individual is attempting to "create a state-sponsored church." This is what the 1st Amendment protects: the creation of a National Church. The Founding Fathers came from England, where the Anglican Church (established by Henry VIII) had far-reaching authority. The 1st Amendment says nothing about banning anything remotely religious from the halls of government.

[MtnGoat]

"Rational/analytical people don't have to prove faith-based types wrong because the onus is on faith-based people to prove belief in the supernatural is a possible basis for a rational decision (basic scientific method). "

 

If you're talking about an objective material decision, surely. When you're making moral distinctions, I challenge you to prove *one* moral issue is deterministic using scientific method. That's the problem.

"Anyhow we'd first need a premise (i.e. suggestive experimental data) to make the question of a faith-based morality worth considering. Is this clear enough?"

 

Crystal clear. An experimental premise for you.. prove that the morality that slavery is wrong is not faith based, wether or not it contains any reference whatsoever to supernatural beings.

 

The problem here to me is the fixation people have with deciding others morals are illegitimate due to supernatural means, when supernatural or not, your morals are in *precisely* the same boat, which boils down to you say so. Well, so do they say so, and so do I, and I don't need to look to far to see that *none* of us has a corner on morality, supernatural or not. All it takes to get past this is the self realization we need not serve their god and they need not serve ours, wether it's society or science.

 

[freeclimb9]

Respecting and enforcing law isn't a faith-based choice, IMO. Ashcroft needs to reconsider his stance on the Freedom of Information Act.

[iain]

Greg, even though "separation of church and state" does not literally appear in the first amendment, I think "no law respectiing an establishment of religion" is close enough to get the meaning across. Jefferson and Madison seemed quite clear on this. Should we also throw out the idea of a "fair trial" because it is not literally in the constitution as well? Secondly, there may well have been a religious background to the founders but the case is pretty strong that they made every effort to prevent official recognition of any religion, namely, Christianity.

[RobBob]

freeclimb, I'm with you, but we both know that there's no reasoning with a zealot with a big badge...

[j_b]

If you're talking about an objective material decision, surely. When you're making moral distinctions, I challenge you to prove *one* moral issue is deterministic using scientific method. That's the problem

 

No. First you'd have to show how abortion, for example, is not first and foremost an 'objective material decision'.

 

prove that the morality that slavery is wrong is not faith based

 

you'd first have to prove that slavery being wrong is based on faith and not experimental evidence.

[MtnGoat]

"I just read your "red is blue" post, and I do not understand how you get off challenging others to name and defend their religions, saying that you have done so. "

 

When you critique others based in their unprovable moral beliefs, that opens you to precisely the same critique, it's that simple. It doesn't take any brazen affrontery, only realization that we're each in the same boat when it comes to morality, instead of the persistent and convenient method of ignoring this for political advantage.

 

"other than the recent post about how you stand on abortion, I have no idea what your religion and belief system is....it's not a part of this debate.Neither is mine. "

 

The instant you brought in religion, you made it part of the argument. Using your unprovable morals to critique theirs on the basis *they* are arbitrary, leaves me wanting to see how your morals are not. That's all I'm asking.

 

"The issue that I have focused on, since I started posting, is how our Attorney General performs based on what the framers of the constitution had in mind. I think that matters, but you think only the last 15 minutes of history are important when it comes to government."

 

Anyone and everyone here most likely judges the constitution with yet another value system external to it. I do so with reference to the principles they held as well as their oversights, such as slavery. I don't find this radical.

 

 

"You have, among other things, tried to sully the reputation of Jefferson and others by bringing up slavery."

 

I respect the man and his achievements and thinking, but the fact remains they left out blacks. No human is a god, no human can think of everything, and the power of the intent and structure in the document they wrote was sufficient for it to eventually include what logic dictates should be included, since the very beginning states all are created equal. I can respect the man and his achievements while bringing up tragic oversights.

 

"Others may think that you are a keen debater, but verbosity doesn't mean shit if it's not backed up by clear thinking."

 

I don't care who thinks what, as I think I demonstrate. When bringing up history is "sullying" instead of recognition of history.... and religion is intolerable in govt because it is arbitrary and unprovable.....but your arbitraries and unprovables are not and you will neither admit them or discuss them..... an interesting view of "clear thinking".

 

 

[Greg_W]

I agree, Iain, that they avoided any specific religion while acknowledging a Creator as the source of our natural rights (see the Preamble). As far as the "establishment of religion" clause, that is what it specifically means - the government WILL NOT establish a state-sponsored religion. The supporting writings of the period support this.

[freeclimb9]

BTW, I think the labeling of criminals as "enemy combatants" is bogus and a cop-out. I'm looking forward to the ruling on Padilla's status.

[MtnGoat]

"you'd first have to prove that slavery being wrong is based on faith and not experimental evidence."

 

great! now we're getting somewhere. define "wrong" so we can procede on how to evaluate the experimental evidence.

 

you can tell me how many were slaves, you can tell me what happened to them and how hard they worked and why they died or lived, but I'm interested in the objective, non societally based "wrong" we'll use for the determination of the physical evidence showing it is.

 

Same goes for abortion. It can be done, it can be measured, every physical issue surrounding it can be quanitified and measured.... but give me the gold standard for wether it is right or wrong so we can evaluate what is seen in the experiments.