The budget battles

[Bbradley62]

a complete overhaul of the tax system is needed, one that cannot be criticized as being "unfair" while at the same time increasing revenues

As was previously pointed out (I think in a different thread), different people have different views as to what is "fair"; therefore, no system or change is immune from being called "unfair".

[Winstonm]

I probably should have made it clear ages ago that when I point an accusing finger at Christianity it is not the moderate or liberal I admonish - I am most pointedly singling out the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson crowd of inerrant bible evangelicals who can be dominion-like but may not be totally dominionist in thinking. Basically, this is the far right conservative Christian movement whose politics appear to be based on establishing a Christian theocracy.

 

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

 

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

 

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

[phil_20686]

 

...to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

 

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

 

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

 

lol.

[kenberg]

A few thoughts on war, abortion, the budget.

 

War: More or less everyone agrees that it would be good to keep Quadaffi from wiping out his people, it would be great to have democracy take hold in Syria, and similar worthy goals. The questions are whether we can be effective, what it would cost, how many Americans would get killed or maimed, what the long term effect would be and so on. God may or may not be omnipotent, we here in the U.S. definitely are not.

 

Abortion: This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments. One might acknowledge a woman's right to an abortion, maybe circumscribed somewhat by Supreme Court rules, and still object to public funding, or one might say we have no more right to intrude on abortion decisions than we have to intrude on decisions in other medical procedures. Myself, I try hard to stay out of other people's personal decisions, but however one comes down here, it's really a moral discussion.

 

The Budget: We have to decide what we can afford and what we cannot afford. I think that this has to be part of our decision making process in military intervention in Libya or anywhere. Of course it also has to be part of our health care debate, but I don't think it should play much of a role in the abortion debate. I think advocates of abortion rights, and the critics as well, would both be opposed to making the decision on a cost/benefit analysis. If I am right about this, and I think that I am, then things such as the funding of Planned Parenthood really should not be part of the budget debate. The people who bring that up are people who would be opposed to funding Planned Parenthood even if it were shown that such funding was a net economic plus. Which it well may be.

[Winstonm]

(The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments.)

 

This sounds as if you are saying that morals cannot be a secular decision, that morality is somehow intrinsically connected to something else - religion?

 

I cannot accept that position. Although I agree that the decision is a decision about morality, the decision of morality has nothing to do with religious belief. Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

[kenberg]

Winston, I begin

 

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular"

 

That sounds to you that I am saying "morals cannot be a secular decision"?

 

It's true I left off what comes after "secular" but you left off what comes at the beginning.

 

So a fuller quotation is

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments."

 

I offer two choices for a moral basis, secular (with an example) and religious (we all have seen many examples). If I offer two choices, one of which is secular, how can you read this as saying that moral arguments cannot be secular?

 

At any rate, my larger point is that the objections to funding abortion are, for many, not at all based on the cost. The people who object on moral grounds (and this I think means almost everyone who objects) will continue to do so no matter how economically feasible it turns out to be, and therefore an item such as support for Planned parenthood is not properly regarded as part of a budget debate.

[luke warm]

As was previously pointed out (I think in a different thread), different people have different views as to what is "fair"; therefore, no system or change is immune from being called "unfair".

good point

 

~~Basically, this is the far right conservative Christian movement whose politics appear to be based on establishing a Christian theocracy.

a theocracy governed by men can never succeed... on that we agree

 

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

what exactly does this mean?

 

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

you seem to be saying that moral arguments, if made by other than theists, are relevant to the argument... what exactly is a "secular moral argument" and how would it differ from a theistic moral argument?

 

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

since when?

 

Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

i thought you'd agreed in another thread that the rape and torture of small children was immoral, regardless of the society's "standard"

[Winstonm]

Winston, I begin

 

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular"

 

That sounds to you that I am saying "morals cannot be a secular decision"?

 

It's true I left off what comes after "secular" but you left off what comes at the beginning.

 

So a fuller quotation is

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments."

 

I offer two choices for a moral basis, secular (with an example) and religious (we all have seen many examples). If I offer two choices, one of which is secular, how can you read this as saying that moral arguments cannot be secular?

 

At any rate, my larger point is that the objections to funding abortion are, for many, not at all based on the cost. The people who object on moral grounds (and this I think means almost everyone who objects) will continue to do so no matter how economically feasible it turns out to be, and therefore an item such as support for Planned parenthood is not properly regarded as part of a budget debate.

 

Ken,

 

Probably my poor comprehension but thanks for the clarification. I agree with your larger point, too. These are ideological-based complaints that have nothing to do with cost or savings.

[Winstonm]

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

 

what exactly does this mean?

 

What I mean by this is that the spiritual is outside the realm of known realities - it is in the realm of possible realities. No court, president, congressman or senator can know if there is indeed a spiritual reality, and thus for government to make a determination on that type argument is crossing the line into belief system. An affirmation may well conflict with another religion (Hindu?) that believes differently.

 

This (a dualistic) argument would be based on a spirit inhabiting a newly fertilized egg - morally wrong only if one accepts the dulaistic premise.

 

what exactly is a "secular moral argument" and how would it differ from a theistic moral argument?

 

It may not - they can and do coincide often. This was meant as particular to that brand of religious fervor who argues from authority only - because your pastor syas that the bible says it is so does not qualify as a valid reason.

 

Obviously, by definition, a secular morality would be morality that is not based solely on religious beliefs. That doesn't meant that religious beliefs or influence cannot be part of the secular morality - ideed, they are.

 

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

 

since when?

 

See above - theology arguments are of no concern to a secular government.

 

Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

 

i thought you'd agreed in another thread that the rape and torture of small children was immoral, regardless of the society's "standard"

 

There is nothing inconsistent between the two unless you propose a spiritual morality. My contention has always been that morality is determined by the consequences of actions, and that positive results are passed along generationally until they become ingrained.

 

Morality is an abstract concept - it requires a mind or it is nothing. Therefore, there either had to be an eternal mind (god) or morality began when mankind gave the word a definition.

 

I personally think there is stronger evidence for the latter position.

[phil_20686]

(The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments.)

 

This sounds as if you are saying that morals cannot be a secular decision, that morality is somehow intrinsically connected to something else - religion?

 

I cannot accept that position. Although I agree that the decision is a decision about morality, the decision of morality has nothing to do with religious belief. Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

 

You are positing a strange duality yourself, in that you seem to you seem to believe that the essence of a secular state is one that rejects the views of religious citizens purely because they are religious. In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

 

Its worth going over this again more precisely. A good working definition of secularism is the following:

A secular society is one which believes primarily in treating persons as individuals free to make their own choices and decisions. Further a secular state find its legitimacy in the will of the people as expressed through democracy. As such, it affords no privileged position to any interest group, religious or otherwise, except in so far as those interest groups represent the will of their supporters.

 

This then means that in moral or religious debate, a religious leader is to afforded the same respect by a democracy as a Trade union leader might be in an economic/working practices debate, as in each case they are representing the views of sizeable groups of voters.

 

{PS: The fact that the morality of the state is relative, is not meant to support the position that morality is necessaries relative. I believe morality to be absolute, even if, in some cases, it is difficult to know what the "right" choice is. I also believe that in anything sufficiently complicated men of goodwill might disagree, and the best solution for the formation of a stable society is to settle ones difference at the ballot box, and know what if I can convince enough people by the next election, I can get my way then. }

[Winstonm]

You are positing a strange duality yourself, in that you seem to you seem to believe that the essence of a secular state is one that rejects the views of religious citizens purely because they are religious. In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

 

Its worth going over this again more precisely. A good working definition of secularism is the following:

A secular society is one which believes primarily in treating persons as individuals free to make their own choices and decisions. Further a secular state find its legitimacy in the will of the people as expressed through democracy. As such, it affords no privileged position to any interest group, religious or otherwise, except in so far as those interest groups represent the will of their supporters.

 

This then means that in moral or religious debate, a religious leader is to afforded the same respect by a democracy as a Trade union leader might be in an economic/working practices debate, as in each case they are representing the views of sizeable groups of voters.

 

{PS: The fact that the morality of the state is relative, is not meant to support the position that morality is necessaries relative. I believe morality to be absolute, even if, in some cases, it is difficult to know what the "right" choice is. I also believe that in anything sufficiently complicated men of goodwill might disagree, and the best solution for the formation of a stable society is to settle ones difference at the ballot box, and know what if I can convince enough people by the next election, I can get my way then. }

 

I think you are using a definition that fits your views. My understanding is that secular means specifically without overtly religious views. I have already acknowledged that secular views on morality can mirror religious views, but the reason is not based on the belief in god.

 

For example, the state viewpoint that women should not show their faces in public because it is forbidden by god is strictly a religious point of view. A secular government has no business deciding whether or not there is a god or whether the order truly came from god - the secular government simply makes a decision on whether or not there is objective evidence that women should not show their faces.

It is the theocratic government that converts religious laws into societal laws.

 

The distinction between a nation of laws and a nation of men is the basis for a constitutional republic that most do not understand. The constitution protects the rights of the minority from the whims of a majority. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population wants Christian prayer in schools - the establishment clause of the constitution prevents rampant democracy from establishing those prayers via mob rule, as long as the rule of law is in place. Without that rule of law, you can end up with a country like Iran and its theocracy.

 

For these reasons, my thinking is that the religious argument that stem cell research should be banned because of the human soul established at the point of inception is not something a government has any business making a decision concerning - this is like the recent gathering of cardinals to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without baptism: an impossible question to answer with anything other that religious opinion.

 

Just as "a woman can't show her face because god forbids it", the mirror argument that "you can't kill stem cells because god forbids it" is one that a secular government has no reason to address.

 

If faithful want that law, they have to make a secular argument and not simply claim, "god says no!"

[PassedOut]

In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

I agree with Phil on this. Subject (in the US) only to the limitations of the constitution, the laws reflect the morality of the state, which is certainly influenced by the religious views of its citizens. An honest judge or politician acts in accordance with his or her understanding of the morality of the state, regardless of his or her personal beliefs. If he or she fails in that regard, the recourse is to vote them out.

 

And a judge or politician certainly has the right to try to convince others of the need to move the morality of the state in the direction of his or her beliefs. It's important, though, that this be done in such a way that folks can see that one's official actions reflect the state morality, if a conflict exists with one's personal beliefs.

 

Over the years, the government has spent huge sums on programs and wars that I, as a conservative businessman, did not agree with at all. Nevertheless, I've paid my taxes without much complaint because I understand that I and voters of like mind simply have not convinced enough folks of our positions to eliminate those expenditures.

 

In the budget battles, it is not acceptable to push the taxes onto future generations because one has failed to convince the voters to cut expenditures that one disagrees with.

 

I take this as an absolute moral position myself, and I personally believe that anyone who says that tax cuts can precede spending cuts is either a despicably immoral person or a fool. But I do recognize that the free lunchers I despise have influenced the thinking of lots of voters against my absolute moral position.

 

Of course I also recognize the human temptation to take the easy way out, and I do understand that the free-lunch politicians are simply pandering to voters with weak character to advance their own careers. The only answer is to call attention to what is happening in the hopes that enough folks have the stiffness of spine to put a stop to it.

[Winstonm]

(If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work.)

 

Sorry, but I had to address this assertion specifically.

 

Again, you are using a democratic model as an example when a constitutional republic is the correct model. Our present reality refutes your claims. Gambling casinos are rampant in states that have moral objections to gambling. There is a reason for this: states cannot willy-nilly create religious moral laws because of voter turnout - the law has to be constitutionally based, and that means it cannot violate the rights of the minority that is protected. Many times the commerce clause is invoked to override a simply state majority. The establishment clause prevents a government from allowing any specific religious-based voter mandates. (See Kitzmiller versus Dover Board of Education).

 

Of course societal mores reflect to a large degree the religious moralities of its populace - but at the same time there is variation within species, and a strict no-makeup, no-lipstick Nazarene majority can only enforce that religious bias with the aid of a theocracy: in our constitutional republic, it would be considered a violation of the commerce clause, I am confident, as well as a violation of the establishment clause.

 

We are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than a nation of men. The reason is to prevent mob rule.

[phil_20686]

I think you are using a definition that fits your views. My understanding is that secular means specifically without overtly religious views. I have already acknowledged that secular views on morality can mirror religious views, but the reason is not based on the belief in god.

 

For example, the state viewpoint that women should not show their faces in public because it is forbidden by god is strictly a religious point of view. A secular government has no business deciding whether or not there is a god or whether the order truly came from god - the secular government simply makes a decision on whether or not there is objective evidence that women should not show their faces.

It is the theocratic government that converts religious laws into societal laws.

 

The distinction between a nation of laws and a nation of men is the basis for a constitutional republic that most do not understand. The constitution protects the rights of the minority from the whims of a majority. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population wants Christian prayer in schools - the establishment clause of the constitution prevents rampant democracy from establishing those prayers via mob rule, as long as the rule of law is in place. Without that rule of law, you can end up with a country like Iran and its theocracy.

 

For these reasons, my thinking is that the religious argument that stem cell research should be banned because of the human soul established at the point of inception is not something a government has any business making a decision concerning - this is like the recent gathering of cardinals to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without baptism: an impossible question to answer with anything other that religious opinion.

 

Just as "a woman can't show her face because god forbids it", the mirror argument that "you can't kill stem cells because god forbids it" is one that a secular government has no reason to address.

 

If faithful want that law, they have to make a secular argument and not simply claim, "god says no!"

 

Secular has been used to mean a wide range of things. The working definition I gave above is based on that of the National Secular Society in the UK. You can read it here.

 

What you say above about the "whims of the majority" is partly true, but very disingenuous. Every democracy since Athens has avoid pure forms of democracy, for precisely this reason. There are a great many rules and regulation in place in attempts to prevent knee jerk reactions to events. Nevertheless, a key concept in the idea of whim's is that they are transient. By making it difficult to change the constitution you insure that "whims" are never enacted. However, equating "whims" with broad public consensus is disingenuous. It remains the case that there is no law, or constitutional right, that cannot be overturned if you can get enough votes, and this is as it should be, for living citizens should not be forever constrained by the wishes of previous generations. From Wikipedia:

"Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. (However, in cases where newer text clearly contradicts older text, the newer text is given precedence. For instance, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.) Technically, nothing prevents a future amendment from actually changing the older text, rather than simply appending text to the end."

 

Ultimately, in all forms of democracy, the state acts because it is "the will of the people". The point of a secular state is that it does not concern itself with the motivations of the citizens. They vote, and that is what the state is obligated to do. Your example of the face covering is enlightening. Do you imagine that the law banning the hijab in France would have been passed if there was widespread public opposition? You are right that the state does not wonder about whether or not God commanded it. They looked at opinion polls to decided whether the majority thought about people being anonymous in public places, and when they found that the ban enjoyed wide public support, they passed it. The motivations were not important, only the votes.

 

If the faithful want a law, they need to get the required number of votes as are needed in your political system. In practice it normally means that if you can get 50% of people to support something you can get it passed, but the line is somewhat arbitary, even if it was 66% as it is for constitutional amendments you can still get the votes.

[Winstonm]

If the faithful want a law, they need to get the required number of votes as are needed in your political system. In practice it normally means that if you can get 50% of people to support something you can get it passed, but the line is somewhat arbitary, even if it was 66% as it is for constitutional amendments you can still get the votes.

 

This is precisely what I have been saying. But note, that if the required majority always can enact its will, the republic then becomes a de facto theocracy. It is the difficulty in changing constitutional amendments that offers protection from that occurence, though not total protection as evidenced by prohibition.

 

If the religious right really want their way, they need to write a document that begins, When in the course of human events...

[phil_20686]

 

Again, you are using a democratic model as an example when a constitutional republic is the correct model. Our present reality refutes your claims. Gambling casinos are rampant in states that have moral objections to gambling. There is a reason for this: states cannot willy-nilly create religious moral laws because of voter turnout - the law has to be constitutionally based, and that means it cannot violate the rights of the minority that is protected. Many times the commerce clause is invoked to override a simply state majority. The establishment clause prevents a government from allowing any specific religious-based voter mandates. (See Kitzmiller versus Dover Board of Education).

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. The gambling example is only to say that sometime you take moral decisions at the federal level. If *every* state was against gambling then it would surely be banned. You may or may not need to pass a constitutional amendment, depending on what the supreme court thought. My (sketchy) reading of supreme court history is that often they have made bizarre justifications in order to produce the judgements that the public wanted/would accept. See, for example, "Dred Scott v. Sandford" where the court ruled that "all men created equal" did not apply to black men. "Roe vs Wade" is another example where the legal justification given did not seem to make any sense, essentially the court thought legalising slavery/abortion were good things, and they did it on the flimsiest of grounds.

[Winstonm]

I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. The gambling example is only to say that sometime you take moral decisions at the federal level. If *every* state was against gambling then it would surely be banned. You may or may not need to pass a constitutional amendment, depending on what the supreme court thought. My (sketchy) reading of supreme court history is that often they have made bizarre justifications in order to produce the judgements that the public wanted/would accept. See, for example, "Dred Scott v. Sandford" where the court ruled that "all men created equal" did not apply to black men. "Roe vs Wade" is another example where the legal justification given did not seem to make any sense, essentially the court thought legalising slavery/abortion were good things, and they did it on the flimsiest of grounds.

 

Phil,

 

You keep changing your tune. When it fits your concerns, you want to argue the theoretical, unless practical applications better fit your argument.

 

Which is it?

 

Certainly, the S.C. has made so horrific decisions and will do so again. That does not mean that the theory of the rule of law and a constitutional republic is invalid.

 

In theory, it is the secular nature of our government that prevents you from being forced to touch your head to the floor 6 times a day. But if that were to occur, regardless of the changes made to the amendments or Supreme Court rulings, you and I would not be living in a constitutional republic but in a de facto theocracy.

 

Concerning this present budget battle, the odd thing to me is the combination of atheististic Randian belief in man and market efficiency, the belief that any bomb that kills a non-Christian is a righteous bomb and that there is no such thing as an unjustified war, and the totally un-Jesus-like admonission to force the poor to pay their own way like everyone else, because, after all, we all know they are just a bunch of lazy louts who live off welfare, so don't give them healthcare and make them compete with Indonesian workers for jobs because free markets are god's markets, don't you know.

 

Oh. I almost forgot. Drill, baby, drill. (just not in the gulf)

 

There, that seems to account for the entirety of right wing morality. Let's hope the rule of a man does not supercede the rule of law.

[phil_20686]

Phil,

 

You keep changing your tune. When it fits your concerns, you want to argue the theoretical, unless practical applications better fit your argument.

 

Which is it?

 

Certainly, the S.C. has made so horrific decisions and will do so again. That does not mean that the theory of the rule of law and a constitutional republic is invalid.

 

In theory, it is the secular nature of our government that prevents you from being forced to touch your head to the floor 6 times a day. But if that were to occur, regardless of the changes made to the amendments or Supreme Court rulings, you and I would not be living in a constitutional republic but in a de facto theocracy.

 

 

Constitutional republics and Theocracies are not mutually exclusive. A secular state can be a de facto theocracy if the vast majority of the population belong to a given religion. Egypt and Turkey are both constitutional republics with secular constitutions.

 

I do not limit myself either to purely theoretical or purely pragmatic arguments. I think to do either would be dangerously short-sighted. In reality, all that separates USA and Egypt is the make up of you populations. It is the widespread belief in both your nation and mine (the UK) even among religious people, that theocracies are a Bad Thing. Majority Catholic Nations are fine with freedom of religion, because that is the position of the Catholic Church. Most mainstream protestants agree. Thus a theocracy (as you envisage it) is pretty unlikely in western countries.

 

Christians generally do believe that they have an obligation to make sure that our Laws conform to our (absolute) standards of justice. So that does lead is unto conflict with the Libertarian secularists like yourself on occasion.

[hrothgar]

Constitutional republics and Theocracies are not mutually exclusive. A secular state can be a de facto theocracy if the vast majority of the population belong to a given religion. Egypt and Turkey are both constitutional republics with secular constitutions.

 

Are you insinuating that Turkey is a de facto theocracy? (Or, for that matter, Egypt?)

 

You made some remarkably stupids posts, but this one really takes the cake.

 

Turkey has some of the strictest laws governing separation of church and state in the Western world.

Secularism is one of the six arrows (Altı Ok) handed down by Ataturk.

 

Over the past 20 years or so, religious political parties have flourished. One of them is in charge of the government right now.

However, its laughable to characterize the country as a theocracy.

[Winstonm]

Christians generally do believe that they have an obligation to make sure that our Laws conform to our (absolute) standards of justice.

 

It seems that it all boils down to an assumption over dualism. When we talk about words like morals, truth, justice, etc., we are talking about abstract concepts that have no meaning until these word-labels are given definition by a being.

 

In this sense, there could only be an eternal nature of truth, morals, justice, etc. if there were an eternal being to define these concepts. The other side of this coin is that these abstractions are the creations of sentient beings and thus are not eternal. And if they rely on definitions, they cannot be absolute in the sense that they would lack an eternal presence.

 

It appears to be mysticism versus pragmatism at its core.

[luke warm]

Ezra Klein: Boehner's debt-limit demands would increase the deficit

 

E. J. Dionne, Jr.: Health-care lawsuits: Delaying the inevitable

 

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is an American blogger and columnist for The Washington Post, a columnist for Newsweek, and a contributor to MSNBC. He was formerly an associate editor of The American Prospect political magazine and an American liberal political blogger at the same publication.

 

Eugene Joseph "E.J." Dionne, Jr. (pronounced /diːˈɒn/; born April 23, 1952) is an American journalist and political commentator, and a long-time op-ed columnist for The Washington Post. He is also a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a University Professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown Public Policy Institute, a Senior Research Fellow at Saint Anselm College, and an NPR Commentator.

 

A frequent critic of the Bush Administration, Dionne writes from a liberal viewpoint.

 

i guess it depends on which bloggers you read and who you trust... bloggers from the other side have things to say about it (here's another view), but when you make statements like

 

These people are pitiful excuses for human beings. And so are the people who vote for them.

it's pretty obvious your mind is made up... presently, 47% of americans oppose raising the debt ceiling... of course this opposition is de facto proof they are "pitiful excuses for human beings"... the simple fact is, obama has added trillions to the deficit (oh yeah, i keep forgetting, he inherited this mess - it's not yet time to stop blaming bush)

 

btw, you use the phrase "free lunch crowd" quite a bit... exactly who is this? is it limited to politicians (i'd guess not from your "pitiful excuses" quote)? would you consider obama and his administration to be in "that crowd?" what do you consider to be a free lunch, from a spending standpoint?

 

There is nothing inconsistent between the two unless you propose a spiritual morality. My contention has always been that morality is determined by the consequences of actions' date=' and that positive results are passed along generationally until they become ingrained.[/quote']

when you make statements like "absolute morality is an illusion" and "the torture and murder of small children is immoral," then yes, there is inconsistency... i'm sure you can see this

[kenberg]

Jimmy,

 

First, thanks for getting back to the deficit. Now on to some points.

 

It may well be true that 47% of the population is opposed to raising the debt ceiling. Certainly going further into debt sounds like a bad thing to do. Often it depends on the exact question. If you asked "Do you believe that the United States should default on its financial obligations" the percentage of yes votes might change.

 

 

Not being an expert on global economics, i like to keep matters fairly simple: If Mr. Boehner , or some other national leader, thinks that it is actually a good idea to not raise the debt ceiling I think he should argue that point. I seriously doubt he has any such belief. Rather, he is playing a very dangerous game of chicken. When, in my youth, I played actual chicken with cars I might have killed myself. A limited loss, actually. If no one veers in the current version, we will, or so I am told, have a very substantial national calamity.

 

I think quite a bit of damage has been done already. Much of our financial strength is based on other nations trusting us to not act like complete fools. They may not think America is the great place we think it is, but they trust us not to destroy the economy through ideological posturing. Or they did trust us, but maybe not so much anymore.

 

Someone always calls the bluff of a bully, sooner or later. I blame Obama some for this, he has presented himself as a guy who will back down. The result is that the demands get more unreasonable, the threats get more irresponsible, and when the showdown comes, the crash is worse.

 

As mentioned earlier, this is not cool.

[hrothgar]

 

it's pretty obvious your mind is made up... presently, 47% of americans oppose raising the debt ceiling... of course this opposition is de facto proof they are "pitiful excuses for human beings"... the simple fact is, obama has added trillions to the deficit (oh yeah, i keep forgetting, he inherited this mess - it's not yet time to stop blaming bush)

 

 

If you look at the cross tabs, most of those are Southerners...

Why should anyone give a ***** what they - or for that matter what you - think.

 

Most of you idiot crackers think that Obama was born in Kenya and that mixing between the races should be banned.

 

You're too stupid for your opinions to matter.

 

So go off, pray to Jesus,

fondle your guns

***** your cousins

crawl into a bottle

or do whatever else it is gets you through another night...

 

I hope that your city doesn't flood again.

[Winstonm]

when you make statements like "absolute morality is an illusion" and "the torture and murder of small children is immoral," then yes, there is inconsistency... i'm sure you can see this

 

I can see how you would think that from your persepective.

[PassedOut]

btw, you use the phrase "free lunch crowd" quite a bit... exactly who is this? is it limited to politicians (i'd guess not from your "pitiful excuses" quote)? would you consider obama and his administration to be in "that crowd?" what do you consider to be a free lunch, from a spending standpoint?

The free lunch crowd comprises those who do not themselves want to pay for what they get. Folks who do not want to pay for health insurance, for example. People who do not want to pay enough taxes to cover the spending authorized by their representatives in congress, for example.

 

Obama does pander to the free lunch crowd by continuing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for those making less than 250K.

 

But he's not nearly so bad in that respect as are the droolers who oppose him. His health care reform, for example, is an important step toward restoring the fiscal responsibility that the US lost with the Bush administration. True to their principles, the free lunchers are attacking those reforms in court on the precise ground that it takes away a free lunch.