Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

NFUN posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law.

I'm not saying it does or can, I'm saying that in the past, people used it that way. Frankly, I think the second you try to justify a law using religion that law should be unconstitutional.

ten commandments says murder is bad

alright off to off my neighbor see y'all in a bit

Murdering someone is illegal because it violates a person's rights, not because it's in the bible. If someone decided to challenge the right to murder and the only defense the government could come up with is "it's in the bible" then we're fucked as a nation.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law.

I'm not saying it does or can, I'm saying that in the past, people used it that way. Frankly, I think the second you try to justify a law using religion that law should be unconstitutional.

ten commandments says murder is bad

alright off to off my neighbor see y'all in a bit

Murdering someone is illegal because it violates a person's rights, not because it's in the bible. If someone decided to challenge the right to murder and the only defense the government could come up with is "it's in the bible" then we're fucked as a nation.

fallacy fallacy
---

How is it a fallacy in the slightest? Rights are not preordained by religions and even when society was more religious there sure was a whole lot of murdering.

Therefore any law that's only defense is "because religion" is inheritly flawed.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

How is it a fallacy in the slightest? Rights are not preordained by religions and even when society was more religious there sure was a whole lot of murdering.

Therefore any law that's only defense is "because religion" is inheritly flawed.

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

And man the argument in that post is even more fallacious and nonsensical.
---

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.
---

NFUN posted...

And man the argument in that post is even more fallacious and nonsensical.

Don't know how you can honestly believe this when "cause religion" has been used to both justify and contradict law.
---

And, the Bible is full of examples of people righteously resisting unjust laws and unjust rulers being punished for the evil deeds. Lawful neutral is an easy and popular position to take, unfortunately.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.
---

Nfun talking out of his ass on a high ass, neat
---

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Congress from enacting a law based on religion. They simply cannot establish a religion or prohibit free exercise thereof. So, if their new law forced people to practice a religion, or conferred special rights on practitioners of a religion, that wouldn't be allowed. But if they wanted to pass a law that required employers to give employees at least one day off per week? That's probably going to be allowed even if the entirety of the speeches in Congress supporting the bill are that the Bible says that humans need a day of rest.
---

Similarly, if I created a "religion of climate change," which asserts as an article of faith that humans are causing global warming and this is a sin, and Congress listened to me and ratified the Paris Climate Accords, that would likely be fine. It wouldn't matter if I told Congress that I didn't believe any of the scientific research regarding this topic and came to my conclusions because I had a dream of Florida sinking into the ocean, and every single Congressperson stated on the record that they didn't believe any of the scientific research but found my dream convincing.
---

SgtSphynx posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law.

I'm not saying it does or can, I'm saying that in the past, people used it that way. Frankly, I think the second you try to justify a law using religion that law should be unconstitutional.

Two very key words in my post
---

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.

If you can only cite morals for why obamacare should be a law then is it any different?
---

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/392612-americans-favor-trudeau-over-trump-on-trade-policy-poll

Trump: Make Americans Love Canada More Since 2016.
---

The fact he's even getting the average American to know more and more world leaders and their positions is actually quite a problem for him.
---

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.

If you can only cite morals for why obamacare should be a law then is it any different?

Good thing there are more reasons, then.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.

That's not what you said though, and that's what NFUN was talking about.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That's not what you said though, and that's what NFUN was talking about.

No, that's exactly what I said. NFUN presented a hypothetical where just invoking biblical law should strike down common law and I pointed how common law is protected by non-religious rights. The whole point is that if your only defense for law is "religion" then it's not a law worth having.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That's not what you said though, and that's what NFUN was talking about.

No, that's exactly what I said. NFUN presented a hypothetical where just invoking biblical law should strike down common law and I pointed how common law is protected by non-religious rights. The whole point is that if your only defense for law is "religion" then it's not a law worth having.

Your usage of "your" is vague and ambiguous. The original context seemed to refer to Jeff Sessions, so that's what NFUN and I thought you meant. In which case, it really doesn't matter what his defense for a law is. It also doesn't matter what any other particular person uses as their rationale for a law. If, by "your," you mean any conceivable person or any conceivable legislature, then yeah, that would make sense.
---

And on a broader level, I think people often misunderstand separation of church and state. It doesn't mean that one can't have influence on the other. No one ever has to give up their religion to take public office.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And on a broader level, I think people often misunderstand separation of church and state. It doesn't mean that one can't have influence on the other. No one ever has to give up their religion to take public office.

pretty hard to miss this, given that every president of the US makes it a point to make clear how super hardcore christian they are.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.

If you can only cite morals for why obamacare should be a law then is it any different?

Good thing there are more reasons, then.

List them
---

Same reason we don't demand that people pay the cops when they call them. Same reason why we did away with private fire fighters. It's in the public interest to have a healthy society.
---

It is United States law that a hospital ER cannot refuse service to someone just because they won't be able to pay. This provides an incentive for people to seek treatment at the worst possible time - and leave the hospital (and, through lowered wages or raised prices, the rest of society) to foot the bill. But if more people have health insurance, then more hospitals can get paid for the work they do.
---

Society should pay the bill. Through progressive taxes on wealth, or if that's not possible, at least on income.

But you are missing Corrik's point. None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.
---

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.
---

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

I can pay for my own treatment, but would prefer to pay less than more. If the hospital is forced to treat persons who cannot pay for their own care - which is the case - then they'll charge me more. Compelling those persons to get insurance is therefore to my benefit.

(Also, fewer sick people with contagious diseases means less chance that I personally will get sick.)
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.

That's from the Declaration of Independence (and John Locke) not the Constitution! The funny thing is, there is a Supreme Court precedent saying that those things are not in the Constitution and the Declaration is not US law, which hasn't been overruled as to this proposition. The case is.....Dred Scott v. Sandford - yup, the case saying slaves had no rights to sue and effectively, that free states couldn't liberate slaves. A Republican attorney general actually cited it a few years ago for the proposition that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not protected by the Constitution, for which he caught a lot of flak.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

I can pay for my own treatment, but would prefer to pay less than more. If the hospital is forced to treat persons who cannot pay for their own care - which is the case - then they'll charge me more. Compelling those persons to get insurance is therefore to my benefit.

(Also, fewer sick people with contagious diseases means less chance that I personally will get sick.)

The idea that compelling others to get insurance is morally okay is a moral judgment.
---

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.

That's from the Declaration of Independence (and John Locke) not the Constitution! The funny thing is, there is a Supreme Court precedent saying that those things are not in the Constitution and the Declaration is not US law, which hasn't been overruled as to this proposition. The case is.....Dred Scott v. Sandford - yup, the case saying slaves had no rights to sue and effectively, that free states couldn't liberate slaves. A Republican attorney general actually cited it a few years ago for the proposition that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not protected by the Constitution, for which he caught a lot of flak.

"The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of 'life, liberty, or property' without due process of law."
---

For example, consider this statement:

I cannot afford to pay for my own treatment, and would prefer not to pay for it. If I am forced to pay the hospital to receive treatment, I will not be able to afford to buy food. Compelling you, who can afford to pay for healthcare, to pay for my healthcare, is therefore in my best interest.

When Congress hears your statement and mine, and it makes a decision regarding what to do, it is inescapably making a moral judgment.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.

That's from the Declaration of Independence (and John Locke) not the Constitution! The funny thing is, there is a Supreme Court precedent saying that those things are not in the Constitution and the Declaration is not US law, which hasn't been overruled as to this proposition. The case is.....Dred Scott v. Sandford - yup, the case saying slaves had no rights to sue and effectively, that free states couldn't liberate slaves. A Republican attorney general actually cited it a few years ago for the proposition that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not protected by the Constitution, for which he caught a lot of flak.

"The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of 'life, liberty, or property' without due process of law."

A hospital is not the government and refusing to help is not "denying" in common law unless you've started helping and then stop.
---

The idea that compelling others to get insurance is morally okay is a moral judgment.

And you don't need to make that judgment in order to support Obamacare. You can support it out of pure self interest, wanting cheaper bills and less risk of contagion, and never give a thought to whether the onus you place upon society is morally defensible.

If you're going to tell me that "refuse to judge" (or "never even occurred to me to judge") constitutes a judgment, then I don't think your definition of "judgment" is meaningful.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

The idea that compelling others to get insurance is morally okay is a moral judgment.

And you don't need to make that judgment in order to support Obamacare. You can support it out of pure self interest, wanting cheaper bills and less risk of contagion, and never give a thought to whether the onus you place upon society is morally defensible.

If you're going to tell me that "refuse to judge" (or "never even occurred to me to judge") constitutes a judgment, then I don't think your definition of "judgment" is meaningful.

If it doesn't, how is that different from Jeff Sessions wanting to separate children from their parents because it makes him feel good?
---

Im not reading this debate. Is this basically Red Sox trying to argue that morals are equivalent to religion? Thanks in advance
---

I don't doubt that there are many people who support Sessions' forced separation of families out of selfish reasons, without any concern whether it is good or evil. I don't think highly of those people, and I surely do not want any of them to be Attorney General of the United States, but I'm a cynic and I'm confident they exist.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Im not reading this debate. Is this basically Red Sox trying to argue that morals are equivalent to religion? Thanks in advance

If you can come up with a distinction between them, I'm all ears.
---

Take a philosophy class.

Morality can and does exist without the need for metaphysical guidance, which to my knowledge is a pre-requisite for religion.

Its the entire basis of the concept of the social contract.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

which to my knowledge is a pre-requisite for religion.

Not to mine. I mean, sure, you could define "religion" that way, but I don't think you have to.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you can come up with a distinction between them, I'm all ears.

Secular Humanism.
---

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

which to my knowledge is a pre-requisite for religion.

Not to mine. I mean, sure, you could define "religion" that way, but I don't think you have to.

Well then this conversation can go nowhere
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?

Of course. And it is fully protected by the First Amendment!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Of course.

So is one of your hobbies "not collecting stamps"?
---

Atheism in most cases is not a religion

It might qualify as one for r/atheism types who actually do seem to worship the idea of no god
---

Ashethan posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Of course.

So is one of your hobbies "not collecting stamps"?

No. A hobby involves some action. A religion involves some belief. In the case of atheism, that is a belief in the absence of God. If by "atheism" you mean a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in the absence of God, then that would not qualify as a religion in my book. Now, a belief that the answer to the question is unknowable is again an affirmative belief in something. A belief that the answer to the question is subjective is again an affirmative belief. A belief that God has some probability of existing is again an affirmative belief.

But if you totally lack affirmative belief on the topic - in the way a rock or a tree does, then yeah, you don't have a religious belief and thus don't have a religion.
---

red sox 777 posted...

In the case of atheism, that is a belief in the absence of God

this is not a thing
---

red sox 777 posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?

Of course. And it is fully protected by the First Amendment!

Then is it true that all persons are equally religious?
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777 posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?

Of course. And it is fully protected by the First Amendment!

Then is it true that all persons are equally religious?

All persons can claim to be religious. That they all have legitimate claims to being religious doesn't mean they are necessarily equally religious. If my stamp collection has 100 stamps and yours has 1000, you are probably more into stamp collecting than I am.
---