I apologize for my posts if they razzed you a little too much. Neither that, nor trolling, was my intent. The all caps thing was because I could not figure out the <> stuff.

I GREatly (sorry, I couldn’t resist) enjoyed eavesdropping on the philosophical discussion that went about… it took me a while follow when it went to “SSM”! Maybe just Sault and I should continue??? (OK, maybe that last sentence was a little more trollish.)
_

Tom, I tried a bunch of variations of the above tags, and I found nothing that could reproduce the easy-to-read quotes and such. I found that either the rest of the post was blue, bolded, struck through and the like. Another link (like right beside the “discussion policy”) with a more complete list of ‘tricks of the trade’ would have helped out this newbie tremendously!

_

I am frustrated with the slant of the agenda, push on our children, and the apparent apathy resulting from people (not just Christians) who don’t really realize what is at stake. I found myself STRONGLY agreeing with Sault a few times! … but I could not help but feel a clear double standard exists. Another quote in point…

“I justified them by saying that an effective society needs adults and the ability to consent. ”

He is SO right! But when the gay-agenda-machine is ‘outclassed,’ they resort to school-yard name calling and bulling tactics rather than truly attempting that needed adult discussion. … And *they* deny the parent’s “ability to consent!” That gets me as there are both Christian students & teachers! And now the teachers are similarly being bullied with said agenda (and the NEA)!

_

To all,
If my understanding/quotes are indeed off, please do let me know as I do not want to pass along misinformation!
thx guys!
kirk

Atheism, on the other hand, eliminates objective moral standards outright in favor of force/power… with millions of bodies to prove it.

I’m wondering if you can expand on this statement. How exactly do you connect “millions of bodies” to atheism? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. Being an Atheist does not mean that you are a murderer, thief, rapist, devil worshiper, or anything else. It simply means that you don’t believe in God.

BTW, I hope you are not simply going to point to a person who is atheist who did something horrible and claim it is BECAUSE they are atheist without further evidence. Plenty of horrible things have been done by Christians, it does not follow from that that Christianity is the reason they did it.

Are you saying that there should not be a separation between church and state?

Do *I* think there should be a separation? Yes. Does Christianity think there should be a separation? I don’t think Christianity has anything to say about it specifically although I could be wrong.

I’m going to assume that is what you are basically saying – that our country’s laws should be informed by Christian religious beliefs.

While some are sure to object, I would tend to agree because I think Christianity provides the best explanation for the moral source that ought to inform our lives. Naturalism has no moral source other than it’s own natural desires. Atheism is the same. Other worldviews are on the table for possible moral sources – at least until you examine their view of reality. That narrows down the list quite a bit.

Does that mean I want a Theocracy? Heavens no! Does that mean we pass every law possible informed by Christianity just because we want to promote virtue and morally good ideas at every turn? No again! The less laws the better, I say. Stick to the important things. Individual freedoms are a virtue and some things are best left to individuals and communities without the law intruding on that.

Some laws are purely utilitarian and specific to the society. Christianity would have nothing to say about those laws. But what we MUST NOT do is pass laws that promote evil and encourage immoral ideas.

What happens when Christians disagree?

When Christian’s disagree, it is within the context of like minded people seeking a common understanding of the same reality, rather than people with conflicting worldviews seeking common ground of conflicting realities. The latter is logically impossible.

I fear we may be getting off topic??

What do you suggest as a grounding source, Sault, and why?

Over the past few days I’ve come to the realization that I can’t provide much more than moral intuition as a reasoning for my ethical standards. I thought that I had a more rigorous definition than that – I’m not sure that I do now. That’s partly why I’m asking questions instead of boldly making statements, as has been my wont.

On the other hand, if virtue is grounded in something other than human law or human desire, then humanity should defer to that grounding source on all matters of morality and virtue. Legislative practices would also defer to that same source.

Are you saying that there should not be a separation between church and state?

I’m going to assume that is what you are basically saying – that our country’s laws should be informed by Christian religious beliefs.

What happens when Christians disagree? Again, to take the case of traditional Christian marriage being one man-one woman, and the other of the Mormon plural marriage. Who wins?

It’s not about a religion asking to force their morals on other people… it’s about asking to be exempt from government legislation. Is that a correct statement?

Both come about through legislation so I don’t see any difference. They both are morally virtuous – or maybe they are not – how can you tell?

Does human law determine what is virtuous? If so, then anything human law can accomplish must be virtuous. Are you prepared to accept that in light of government endorsed slavery, aggression, abortion, etc?

On the other hand, if virtue is grounded in something other than human law or human desire, then humanity should defer to that grounding source on all matters of morality and virtue. Legislative practices would also defer to that same source.

What do you suggest as a grounding source, Sault, and why?

So…when you speak of “should” what moral rule are you referring to? Let’s start there.

That’s the thing… I’m not entirely sure.

It’s not about a religion asking to force their morals on other people… it’s about asking to be exempt from government legislation. Is that a correct statement?

If that is correct, it seems reasonable to ask what the difference might be between exemption from requiring the Catholics to supply contraceptives and an exemption from requiring the LDS to limit their marriages to two people… they’re both Christian, they’re both legitimate churches (no “Flying Spaghetti Monster”), they both base their values upon the same sacred text, etc.

My next question is what differentiates a Christian exemption from an Islamic exemption (different religions, different sacred texts, but both are at least legitimate institutions)… just so you see it coming.

What actions, informed by religious beliefs, should be exempt from government regulation and which ones shouldn’t?

If you use the US Constitution as the standard, then nothing is off limits. The US Constitution itself can be done away with entirely by way of the current legislative and judicial process.

So…when you speak of “should” what moral rule are you referring to? Let’s start there.

What Sault has stealthily inserted into the discussion (given his track record here, I’d say it’s largely based on self-serving ignorance) is a fallacy: he isn’t well-formed enough morally (i.e., a moral relativist) to distinguish right and wrong in the first place. He then transfers his own weakness upon society, implying that since it’s difficult (or, per moral relativism, impossible) to draw distinctions, everything should be permitted under legislation… with, of course, the usual bone thrown in (“as long as it hurts no one”… yeah, right: ask an aborted baby or Terri Schiavo) to cover his extremist tracks. And then, to top it off, this moral relativist becomes a cry-baby when he himself is unjustly hurt or if it suits his personal agenda.

Religious beliefs should absolutely never be legislated. Not for, not against, and not otherwise. Period.

I didn’t phrase that very well. Let me try again -

What actions, informed by religious beliefs, should be exempt from government regulation and which ones shouldn’t?

For instance – peyote is an illegal substance, yet at least one religious group receives an exemption to use it in their religious ceremonies. Is this exemption valid?

A second – the LDS faith (Mormons) were required to stop the practice of polygamy before Utah was allowed to join the Union. It is not only a part of their belief system, however, it is intrinsic to their faith – the current revelation is that it will be practiced and that it must be practiced in the afterlife, even though it is currently not practiced in the here-and-now. Should Mormons be allowed to practice polygamy as their faith dictates?

I am signer #25,207

Obama asserted the following in 2009: speaking specifically about his planned health reforms at Notre Dame, he said: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause.” Yeah, right. Liar.

BTW, did anyone catch O’Reilly last night when he implied “Million Moms” was un-American for asking JC Penny to remove homosexuality cause-celeb Ellen Degenerate as their spokesman? (He said, “that’s not American…”) Then, Bernie Goldberg called a “certain strain” of conservatives “bigots” about the same thing. Both these guys earned the PINHEAD++ award last night.

One more note: on the “legislate beliefs” issue, indeed they should never be legislated… but if a religious “faith” precepts include sex with children or human sacrifice or necrophilia, then the state does have an obligation to protect citizens. The problem is, secularists, who have disordered formations, will then conveniently extend that to other issues, e.g., homosexuality is a “safe choice,” Christians are bigoted and dangerous for opposing homosexuality. Even the efforts of Christian programs that help homosexuals overcome that very difficult disorder are viewed as “dangerous.”

Isn’t it far, far more true (even if one ONLY considers the body count) that atheism and its associated animating -isms–like philosophical naturalism–the true, objective dangers? Didn’t you sum that up in a nice post about the denigration of humanness by means of naturalism a short while ago?

(Think about it.)

Now, here’s the kicker: religion is not a private matter. It is not to be relegated to private spaces, it is not irrelevant to public discussion.

How does one decide what religious beliefs should be exempt from government legislation and which ones shouldn’t?

I am not opening up a general forum here, however, on the current Administration or any of its members. Feel free to discuss the policy I’ve mentioned here, or especially feel free to discuss the spurious fact-value distinction I’ve focused on here, but keep political personalities out of it, please. That’s how I have run this blog, and how I will continue to run it.

Utilitarian morals denigrate *all* citizens, since they become the means to an end, which in your view is the survival of the species.

I am not convinced that this is the case… although it depends upon the means to the end, doesn’t it? As you have tried to explain to me, my view of utilitarianism doesn’t *allow* for an adjunct philosophy, it *requires* one.

So now, you are back at the equality thingy and have dropped the utilitarian angle?

I am undecided. If utilitarianism requires an adjunct philosophy, then under what philosophical system is equality compatible with utilitarianism? I suppose that is the question that I am trying to work through now.

So what you are saying is that there are rational arguments that compel you to accept SSM but that somehow exclude things you personally dislike, like bestiality or paedophilia, but that you have been unable to present them accurately, is that it?

I made it as far as voicing that the requirements of being an adult and the ability to consent would rule out these other things. I justified them by saying that an effective society needs adults and the ability to consent. I think that argument could be supported better, but I have been unable to do so. Its a valid point, I just need to work out how to get there a little better than I have.

Would they pile abuse on him for being “irrational”, a “faith-head” or whatever insults are in vogue today?

Even though you’ve offered an apples-to-oranges example, any sufficiently hostile audience will hurl insults, sure. It sounds like you understand that I’m not “hostile”, and while you have been scathing (I offer that as a compliment), you are not hostile.

I for one, understood him perfectly, his arguments were cogent and to the point and his tone was always civil.

Really? I’m surprised. The caps-lock and misquotes led me to believe that he was just trolling.

*epiphany*

Maybe Christians are used to seeing caps-lock on, so they don’t automatically register it as trolling? That actually sounds plausible… What a weird world we live in…

By what you have said in your post, you will probably not read this response but I just cannot allow some things to go unchecked.

I have attempted to offer a personal vision of what marriage means to me, in a way that supports society without denigrating many of its citizens.

Utilitarian morals denigrate *all* citizens, since they become the means to an end, which in your view is the survival of the species.

At this point, I can’t make a solid rational argument for it, partly because my audience has become so bitterly convinced that I am disposed to mindlessly hate them

Oh for heaven’s sake will you grow up and cut the childish pout? First, the only one that pointed out the hatred was me, so if you have any complaints, direct them at me, second, I have already explained why I brought the subject up, twice, do I need to do it again?

Thankfully, equality does not depend upon my ability to argue for it (or quite frankly, we’d all be screwed). Instead, we have a society that is willing to take one of the best concepts that Christianity has given us (even using the phrase “sanctity of marriage” admits to its theistic roots), and broaden it to benefit all of its citizens in a way that it hasn’t before, at least not in this country.

So now, you are back at the equality thingy and have dropped the utilitarian angle?

There are rational arguments that support the idea that a society can recognize and value the union of same-sex and hetero couples, while excluding those that do not include consenting adults (pedophilia, bestiality, etc). Again, I have lacked the ability to present them in the way that they deserve. Thankfully, they don’t depend upon my ability to do so.

So what you are saying is that there are rational arguments that compel you to accept SSM but that somehow exclude things you personally dislike, like bestiality or paedophilia, but that you have been unable to present them accurately, is that it?

I would like to ask you a question: suppose a Christian addressing a skeptic, aggressively atheist audience said something like “I know there are rationally compelling arguments for Christianity I am just unable to present them adequately” what do you think would be the reaction of said audience? Would they pile abuse on him for being “irrational”, a “faith-head” or whatever insults are in vogue today?

In many ways here I am outclassed… not by kirk, of course, but I do count the rest of you to be valuable in helping me understand my lackings…

I confess I really do not understand these personal digs at Kirk. He may not be a C. S. Lewis (and then again, none of us is, so…), but I for one, understood him perfectly, his arguments were cogent and to the point and his tone was always civil.

I don’t think this should be necessary, but I’m just trying to see if there is a way around the issue.

Over the next few weeks (or possibly sooner), Washington state will be the 7th state in the nation to embrace equality. There will be a legal fight against it, with many bitter words, much mud-slinging, and endless sermons I am sure about how SSM would bring about the end of society. They are groundless, of course, and as George Takei noted, we are going to watch the s*** out of gay divorce court.

I have attempted to offer a personal vision of what marriage means to me, in a way that supports society without denigrating many of its citizens. At this point, I can’t make a solid rational argument for it, partly because my audience has become so bitterly convinced that I am disposed to mindlessly hate them, partly because I lack the intellectual rigor to do so properly. I acknowledge my failings in both these areas.

Thankfully, equality does not depend upon my ability to argue for it (or quite frankly, we’d all be screwed). Instead, we have a society that is willing to take one of the best concepts that Christianity has given us (even using the phrase “sanctity of marriage” admits to its theistic roots), and broaden it to benefit all of its citizens in a way that it hasn’t before, at least not in this country.

There are rational arguments that support the idea that a society can recognize and value the union of same-sex and hetero couples, while excluding those that do not include consenting adults (pedophilia, bestiality, etc). Again, I have lacked the ability to present them in the way that they deserve. Thankfully, they don’t depend upon my ability to do so.

Still, at the very least I can admit my failings. A step in the right direction, perhaps, and maybe one day I’ll be able to give these arguments their proper due.

I react so strongly to anti-homosexual sentiments that what critical thinking that I do have may be overwhelmed. I don’t entirely understand this aspect of me, but I have been deeply affected by how the anti-homosexual community within the larger Christian society has impacted my loved ones. In many ways here I am outclassed… not by kirk, of course, but I do count the rest of you to be valuable in helping me understand my lackings… even Holo (I heard someone else use the phrase “dumb as a bag of hammers” yesterday, I couldn’t help but give a chuckle!).

I can’t continue on with this debate.

In the meantime, I’m still pretty stoked, because worship went really well yesterday. The guitar player couldn’t show, so they asked me to step out from behind the soundboard and stand in. I don’t play often these days, so it was a real treat to help out, and after all, it’s funny sometimes what we do for love.