BTW, what do you think protects a Catholic hospital against being forced to provide abortions? (Hint, read about the law how it protects medical conscientious objectors).
Pharmacists (like other medical personnel) are regulated by the government for the safety and welfare of all citizens. Medical personnel are not permitted to withhold treatment to anyone based on race, sex, or religious beliefs. Nor should they be able to.
Ever heard of Health Care Conscientious Objector laws? I've got news for you, in some states medical personnel are permitted to withold treatment on the basis of the personnel's beliefs so long as the treatment is not life threatening and there are alternatives. For example, a doctor may refuse to perform circumcision if it goes against the doctor's beliefs. The distinction is "bona fide", a need that cannot be fulfilled any other way does not fall into the ubrella of protection. The pharmacist case does not fit this description since the need was not life-threatening, and since other pharmacies, or another clerk at the same store could supply the pill.
Religious people have the right to express their beliefs. They do not have the right to force those beliefs on others.
Agreed. By that same token, neither do others have the right to force others to act against their religious beliefs if there are alternatives. In this case, there were alternatives, but the government is forcing people to act against their own beliefs.
All of your other points about muslims and the FDA are non-sequiturs. We are not dealing with life or death, we are not dealing with cases where there were no alternatives, and we are not dealing with FDA mandate that the "cure" for pregnancy has to be the "morning after" pill.
Where to begin indeed. Discussion on these matters can be unending.
The philosophy of Objectivism relies upon Reason for its epistemology, and the origin of objective reasoning is the empirical evidence of the human senses.
Yet generally, rationalist and even pragmatist theories do not necessarily contradict religion: They merely offer no claim against it and in some cases they offer indirect support for it. I am not intimately familiar with ojectivism so I won't comment on its points either way, but it sounds as if it's an offshoot of empiricism. While some empiricist theories reject religion, others are ambivalent. Still, in general because there are epistemological theories that rely on reason and reject religion does not mean that all epistemological theories that rely on reason are automatically against religion. Don't laugh, but my "Frankenstein" epistemology subscribes to parts of Kant, Descartes, Plato, and even Aquinas, all of whom relied on reason and whose theories weren't necessarily anthitetic to religion.
You are making two claims here that would seem to indicate that you believe you do, indeed, "know the mind of God". Firstly, you claim to possess knowledge of "the principles that God has given us". By what direct proof can you claim that any such principles were in fact given to anyone by your deity? Secondly, you claim to possess knowledge of "what would please him". From God's mouth to your ears, apparently.
Well, that again depends on what theory of epistemology you subscribe to. To Aquinas, "natural law" is composed of self-evident rules that emanate from God. To Plato, the "forms" were pure principles (pure good, pure evil, pure "math", etc), that exist independent of us and that we can sometimes gain insight into. The principles that I am referring to are somewhat similar: God-created, and self-evident. No need to "read" anyone's mind, merely to seek these principles through reason and intellectual honesty. Religion is sort of a short-cut to some of these principles, but you still need reason to comprehend them.
So it seems that our disagreement goes deep to each of our philosophies of life. I enjoy your point of view and I appreciate the respect that is so often lacking from a slashdot discussion. I apologize if I implied that you were a fanatic in any way. To me however, it's more illogical to believe in nothing than to believe in God, but I'm sure that you've read logical proofs that can make that case better than I could in a lowly slashdot post.
Funny that you mention fear of God, as it's what ultimately turned Blaise Pascal to religion. However, if you do well unto others I have a feeling that you'll still be alright.
In summary, it was thought by some opponents of the "Bill of Rights" that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution would give the government cause to deny or disparage other natural rights not so enumerated. For this reason, Amendment IX was agreed upon as a compromise. Clearly, you do not understand the concept of "natural law".
As a matter of fact, I am a Catholic, so I am quite familiar with the concept of "natural law." Funny that you bring up a concept that has it's roots in religion to attack my point. Still, the concepts of natural law and the IX ammendment are irrelevant in this case. Just because all of our rights are not ennumerated in the constitution does not mean that there exists a right to "ban all but secular discussion" in the public square, which brings me to your next point.
You also need to abandon the starw man argument that you have been repeatedly using that the insistence on a separation of church and state is equivalent to a ban on free speech.
So, I guess that you'll take my "straw man" and raise me a red herring, huh? I have specifically said that I agree that no laws regarding the establishment of religion should be passed. You, by characterizing my arguments as equating separation of church and state with a ban of free speech are committing nearly the same fallacy of logic that you accuse me of. "The emperor has no clothes" idea somehow comes to mind.
The question is about political discussion. The orginal question was about the leader of the free world commenting on the issue of intelligent design. Though intelligent design can be argued on largely "secular" terms, I'm sure that's not what Bush has in mind. My point, is that the constitution guarantees that he can raise his point, even if it's religious (a point that I disagree upon, BTW). My logic goes further and establishes that Bush can raise his religious idea, but he ultimately has to defend it on it's own merit. Ultimately, religious ideas have to be distilled by reason into its secular components for them to become law. Above all, law has to be secular. However, discussion of religious ideas in the political arena does not mean that religious laws will automatically get passed. Still, it is the job of the President to suggest a course of action, and the job of congress to decide on whether or not (and how, if applicable) it should be followed. That's why the "establishment of religion" clause mentions congress specifically, because it's congress job to ensure that reason (regardless of an idea's origin) leads to law. If you're so well-read, I'm sure that you've come accross something called the "separation of powers." The president does not establish any laws.
I disagree with Bush's stance on education, but I also recognize that he can make his points, and then the country (congress, and ultimately the people) can then reject them if those points are not sound. While I understand your concern that there is always a slight danger of religious motivation affecting law (Shiavo comes to mind, though because of the systems of checks and balances the judicial rightly kept the legislative in check), the alternative of banning religion altogether from the country's political discussions is far worse. I'm sure that you don't think yourself as bigotted against religion, but can you think of any other natural right that we "wish to ban" (or as you say, "separate") from political discussion?
But even Bush understands this. From TFA:
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.
Bush is not suggesting that any laws regarding religion get established or any of the sort. He is merely expressing his religious opinion in the public square.
But yet you seem to imply that the mere mention (let alone discussion) of ideas with religious origins will necessarily lead to the establishment of religion by law. That is a non-sequitur.
The clerk would get fired and so should the pharmacist.
I agree completely. However, that move should still have rightly left up to the discretion of a private party (the store owner) and not the government.
It absolutely is a prescription. That's the whole point. Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions.
Is the morning after pill a prescription in the city where this incident occured? The morning after pill can be bought over the counter or with prescription depending on the state.
... and in some cases refusing to return the prescription so the person can get it filled somewhere else.
I've yet to hear of this happening. Can you provide some supporting evidence, or is this a rumor? The case in question did not involve refusal to give back the prescription (that is, assuming that there was a prescription in the first place).
And it absolutely is medicine. First of all, an unwanted pregnancy is an ailment.
No, an unwanted pregancy is not an ailment. It's a consequence. The natural state of the human body tends towards reproduction. The term "ailment" is defined by dictionary.com as "A physical or mental disorder, especially a mild illness." Pregnancy cannot be a disorder because a woman's body is naturally predisposed to child bearing, and sex is the natural means for pregnancy. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex, in other words, it's primary biological purpose. By definition, pregnancy cannot be a disorder but it is indeed a very real consequence of sex.
Secondly, in some cases the prescription is for birth control which is preventative. Are you saying that there's no such thing as preventative medicine?
When did I ever argue against preventative birth control? Please re-read my post and don't put words in my mouth. Anyway, the issue at hand is not about preventative birth control. The "morning after" pill has nothing to do with prevention, that's why it's called "the morning after" pill. Hell, my argument is not even against the "morning after" pill (though to be honest I do find the rationale behind the pill a little bit upsetting). More than anything, the issue is really about government overstepping its boundaries and forcing private businesses to act a certain way, and about passing a law that puts people's made-up rights (the constitution does not guarantee a right to the "morning after" pill) over the first ammendment rights of a certain individual and business.
The question at the heart of this issue is: Should the government have the power to force mandatory access to non-vital pills over people's rights of freedom of religion and of
self-determination?
I find it odd that the Slashdot mind-hive goes ballistic at the suggestion of government action that may interfere with freedom of expression or rights to privacy, but at the same time gingerly supports stripping rights away from those that are religious and from business owners.
The "wall" as you put it, was designed not so much to protect religious freedom, as it was designed to protect civil government from the influence of religion.
First of all, the "separation" issue does not exist anywhere but Jefferson's writings. While important, those writings hardly official documents and voice Jefferson's concerns with the compromises that had been made at the onset of the new nation. However, even Jefferson's interpretation can be taken to mean that Jefferson was concerned about the spread of religion through government channels (i.e. official sponsorship, just what the constitution addresses). Though Jefferson had reservations on the matter, such a view is not inconsistent with what I've already discussed in the previous post.
Religious ideas in civil discussions are actually protected by the first ammendment, spelled out in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". How can something be banned from influencing civil discussion while at the same time remaining protected free exercise?
If you ask the President not to let his religion influence his thinking, you are infringing with the president's free exercise of religion. How can such a ban be consistent with the constitution in any way? You seem to be extrapolating your conclusion from indirect sources which are being interpreted in one of several possible ways. I base my conclusion on the only official document about the matter.
Do you think that the founding fathers were too stupid to have the constitution mean what they wanted it to mean, and that their private correspondence, which can be interpreted several ways, is somewhat more valuable than the official document that they all agreed upon? Ever heard of the term of strict constitutionalism? Funny that you've mentioned the 19th ammendment (AKA the insert-any-right-that-you-want-to-make-up-in-here- catch-all-ammendment). We've seen what happens when people think that they are smarter than the constitution itself and begin to "interpret" things that are not there. The recent debacle regarding eminent domain is but the latest example of the extremely loose interpretation that you suggest.
But more to the point, atheist's rights are already protected. What you are suggesting is eroding the rights of those that are religious, not protecting the rights of those that are atheist. In a world where only secular discussions are permitted, the atheist's rights do not suffer, but the religiou's rights do. In a world where religious discussions are permitted, the religiou's rights do not suffer, and neither do the atheist's so long as the government does not "establish" religion upon anyone. Hence, that's why the first ammendment was written the way it is. There's wisdom in the constitution but you seem to imply you're wiser than that. The wisdom that you fail to grasp in this case is that in the real world ideas are not the same thing as their origin and can be discussed on their own merit, so that both religious and atheist ideas can ultimately be evaluated in a purely rational basis (or "secular basis" if you prefer). Within a society that enjoys true freedom, the possible religious origin of such a discussion is ultimately moot.
Perhaps it is more complex, but that doesn't mean that it's primarily about government control vs. retailer discretion. I've heard my share of very complex debates about the issue (I often listen to Air America, NPR, and conservative radio throughout the week). Still, I'll give your link a try. Thanks.
Why do people think that a person has a right to take a job that they know their religious beliefs won't let them perform? Contraceptives are legal and people have a right to have them, other people's religious beliefs be damned.
Cigarettes are also legal but a typical store owner can decide whether to sell them or not. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to sell it by law. Otherwise, we can sue Budweiser because it doesn't sell sake.
Your buddhist example is a non-sequitur, because a pharmacist's primary job is to dispense prescriptions and medicines. The morning after pill is not a prescription nor it can be considered medicine because what it's designed to treat is not an ailment.
Like I said, I don't think that the pharmacist in this particular example is the brightest, but at the same time I don't think he should be punished for following his beliefs. After all, last I heard this is supposed to be a free country, right?
Example 1 is religous freedom at its finest. The government shouldn't force you to go anything that's against your religion provided it doesn't threaten someone else's life. The pharmacist is not threatening the life of anyone by refusing to dispense emergency "contraceptives." Ethics are about possible damage to the parties involved. It is unethical to force someone to act against their beliefs, and there are plenty of pharmacies that don't have the problem of dispensing the drug, so no ethical violations where commited by the refusal. While I would question the wisdom of this person choosing that particular career, this issue is a lot less about religion, and a lot more about libertarian/communist leanings. The libertarian will want the government to stay out of the way and the communist wants government everywhere. Unless we live in a communist dicatorship, your first example is a bad one.
However, you are right on when it comes to example 2. I agree that such a judge has no business being on the bench and abused his position terribly. This case however, involves a conflict of ethics and erroneous religious beliefs. In general, it isn't religion's fault. It is the judge's.
Example 3 is also right on. Though I have my reservations about this particular case, in general the federal government shouldn't second-guess a court decision without just cause. Actually, the Shiavo case received so little support even from religious people that I don't see this as the fault of religion as much as the fault of some members of congress trying to pander to a religious demographic.
But 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Still, I fail to see how a "religous climate" proves anything on your position. Obviously, you are going to have bad religously-motivated decisions just as you are going to have bad secularly-motivated decisions. However, if you think that the climate has somehow changed all of a sudden, then you probably haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years. America has always been deeply religious. Look up some old famous speeches by the likes of Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Truman, etc., and you'll be surprised.
I'm not going to say that this is all the Bush and Republican admistration but it's just the climate of the masses in this nation that sadly are out of sync with the times...Really, power in this nation doesn't even come down to the religious righteousness of one person over another (though it has been vocalized more and more through minority views of these such people), its by votes and public opinion.
I don't want to step on your toes but I think I can't avoid it in this case. I suggest that you read a little bit more history. In particular, may I recommend an excellent book by the famous economist Max Weber called "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" Unlike what you may think, this book is more about economics than about religion, but it explains how the US is a world superpower because it has always had healthy religious discussion in the public square (and no, I'm not even a protestant). In fact, Weber's theories predict how a country is likely to perform economically based on its religious make-up and it's religous attitudes. I also recommend Blaise Pascal's "Thoughts", and a bit of classical philosophy (Kant, Descartes and Plato are good starts).
In general, you seem to have a very erroneous idea of what religion is and what it's good for. I suggest that you open your mind and research. Give research a good, honest shot for a couple of years.
In my own search for answers I did research for quite a while. I was a rabid atheist most of my life until I grew the balls to actually read about religion with an open mind.
Just becuase religion is in fashion right now doesn't mean it should have a say or push for agenda that infringe upon the civil liberties of others.
Again, part of your argument has merit, and part of it doesn't.
The part that doesn't have any merit is that religion has to "be in fashion" for discussion or for anything else. If religious ideas are taken off the table just because of their origin, then we cannot claim to have studied all alternatives to a situation. Ideas stemming from religion may or may not be valid, but refusing to cosidering them in the scheme of political debate amounts to bigotry.
The "separation of church and state" argument does not apply to this stage of the political debate. The separation has an intended purpose, and that purpose is not to quell debate just because it includes religion.
The part of your argument that has merit is whether or not those ideas infringe in the civil liberties of others. In essence, if the idea (whether it stems from religion or not) has any validity. I am all for discussing Bush's "religious" ideas in this context. Are his ideas good? Well, then let the grandparent make an argument. Are his ideas bullshit? Well, I'm all ears and let the grandparent make that argument as well (for the record, I disagree with much of Bush's concept of "intelligent
design" but I also disagree with religious bigotry). Above all, ideas should stand or fall on their own merit: That is what the bill of rights seeks to assure by protecting freedom of speech and religion. Calling the originator the idea names because the ideas came from a religious background does nothing to establish validity.
Validity is what I'm after, not this "oh my God! Religion is going to destroy the country!" schizophrenic paranoia.
On another note, citizens have a duty to participate on political life for the sake of the country. Similarly, christians have a duty to participate in the life of the country. It's funny how you ask a christian to "deal with it" and shut up, but you'd probably have a fit if a christian told you to "deal with it" when it comes to your agnosticism and to shut up when it comes to decisions made by a religious majority.
I am not asking anyone to suck it up or shut up. I am asking for discussion on the merits of the issues. I am not interesting in paranoid pronouncements. In the US, debate is at the heart of the political process. If all you care about is quick decision-making, then by all means try to install an authoritarian dictatorship just like in Korea. I assure you that decisions will be made a lot faster. Of course, you'll also get shot if you disagree with those decisions, but hey, c'est la vie!
As the President of the United States where we claim to seperate Church and State that's not an option.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I suggest that you do some research concerning the separation of church and state. This "separation" applies to congress and it's ability to make laws. In other words, it's there to prevent the establishment of a state religion (like the Anglican Church in England). "The wall" was designed to protect religious freedom in all of its forms, not to squash religion. Bush's comments do not amount to a law passed by congress. What part of "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion." is so hard to understand?
Just because the religious conservatives have reared their heads under this President and seem to have a louder voice than anyone else doesn't mean that it is acceptable.
The religous freedom of the majority that elected president Bush is protected by the first ammendment of the bill of rights. What you are suggesting is to discriminate against religion in the public square. Banning public religious discussion is exactly the sort of thing the bill of rights is meant to prevent. Funny that you cite "separation of church and state" when it suits you but forget about the freedom of religion clause when it doesn't suit you. I'm trying to have an intellectually honest discussion here. Please prove to me that you are capable of more than making illogical ad-hominems and give me a valid argument that I can sink my teeth into, so to speak.
It is also my belief, though I'm sure there are many who would disagree with me, possibly including yourself, that advanced intelligence is entirely incompatible with religious belief, at least at current understanding levels of the two concepts. I am greatly distressed by the assumption of many that the scientific method cannot be applied to questions of ethics and morality, the the idea that these questions are solely the province of "religious" or "spiritual" contemplation
Welcome to the realm of questions that tormented and ultimately defined St. Thomas Aquinas' life. Aquinas was of the opinion that reason and God are indeed compatible, a position that many sensible christians (and jews) agree on. Don't forget that the very first pioneering excursions into the realm of science where funded and supported by religion (Mendel et al).
In Catholicism at least, ethical decisions follow a well-structured set of rational guidelines designed to cause the least damage to those involved. The scientific method can indeed be applied to questions of ethics, but since the scientific method is, at it's core, not incompatible with the existance of a higher power, what makes you think that ethics are also incompatible with either?
The issue is not about knowing the mind of God. I've yet to meet anyone that claims to know the mind of God. The issue for those of us that are religious is merely to follow the principles that God has given us, and use those principles in conjuction with everything else we've been given (faith, logic, conscience) to do what would please him.
If your believe that intelligence and religion are incompatible, you misunderstand either religion, logic, or both. That goes for both sides of the aisle (atheist fanaticism and religious fanaticism).
What I was referring to was the fact that the President holds his religious beliefs above all else even when it might not be in the best interests of the country he presides over
As far as the first part of your argument related to holding religious beliefs above all else, any sincerely religious person will hold his/her religious believes above all else since that is what religion is. To christians as well as jews, "Love thy God" is the greatest commandment. I hold God above all else, and I believe in evolution second. To me evolution is merely a part of a greater intelligent design.
Mainly, it sounds as if you're displeased because the president is religious, yet he was elected as-is. His religiousness should be no surprise to anybody. Religion is part of what he is, of how he understands the world, and how he operates within it. His beliefs may or may not be inaccurate, but believing in them is what makes him religious. You can criticize his beliefs, but saying that having a "supreme" set of religious beliefs is ipso facto wrong amounts to saying nothing of value.
Yet the second part of your point does have some merit. The question of whether the president holds religous beliefs in the highest regard is pointless. The question of whether or not the president's position (stemming from his beliefs) is in the best interest to the country is a valid one. I suggest that you focus on that. Give us coherent and valid arguments for or against the president's position, not pointless presidential ad-hominems.
Read Meno by Plato. The text is well over two millenia old but if you meditate on it's implications you may find an answer to your question (hint: think in terms of knowlede and how, if at all, it relates to time and space).
I know is poor etiquette to answer twice to a post, but you may want to consider the possibility that the accepted notion that Pilate was a ruthless and vicious ruler with absolute power over Judea does not mean that the narration in the gospels did not occur as written.
Consider this. Pilate may have been ruthless, but he, like most Romans, was probably very superstitious and mindful of omens. Pilate, having been warned by his wife not to sentence Jesus to death because of a dream, could have shyed away from his ruthlessness out of a sense of self-preservation.
My point is that the historical, ruthless Pilate and the gospel accounts of a reluctant, look-after-number-one Pilate are not necessarily at odds with each other. If you are intellectually honest about your inquiries you have to see this as a posibility, yet your mind is made up. That does not speak well of the sincerity of your arguments.
I suggest that you do a little bit more in-depth thinking before mindlessly throwing the word anti-semitism around. Otherwise, you cheapen the meaning of the word, and close your mind to honest thought.
BTW, nice ad-homenim at the end. Who is the brick wall, the one that refuses to argue and throws out ad-homenims as excuses, or the one that poses questions?
Hence the big elaborate play (laugable by anyone who knows anything about the historical Pontius Pilate) where the undeniable reality of Jesus's cruxifiction is explained away by the Sanhedrin "forcing" Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus.
First of all, if you believe that Jesus' crucifixion is "explained away" by the sanhedring forcing anyone to do anything then it's clear that you have no authority to speak on the matter because no sane christian on earth would take that position (funny considering that you seem to fancy yourself an "expert" on the matter, yet you don't show the most basic understanding of Christianity).
Jesus explains in all four gospels that he lays his life willingly for all of us. This was written by the apostles, which were Jewish, and accepted by modern christians, which are as good to the Jews as they are to anyone else. The statements attributed by these Jewish writers to the sanhedrin could possibly have historical significance (blasphemy was the worst of sins to the Jewish authorities). By claiming that such passage is "clearly antisemitic" (i.e.- implying there is absolutely truth to it and was put there merely to incite hate) you don't allow for this posiblity. Such certainty implies that either you know more than the scholars that have dedicated their life to studying the new testament in its historical context (in which case, I want to see your full research notes and supporting information), or you are pulling stuff out of your ass, perhaps motivated by anti-christian hate not unlike the very anti-semitism that you claim to speak against.
Anti-semitism is in essence hate of the Jewish race. Here's a good, balanced writeup which you may want to look at:
In a nutshell, it speaks of those who wrote the gospels as Christians that were also ethnic Jews who desired to coax religious Jews away from Judaism. Such a move cannot be anti-semitic since by definition, it rests on a difference of opinion about religion, not about race.
Mexico has very significant oil reserves around the Yucatan peninsula and the Gulf of Mexico. It's of a slightly lower grade than the mideastern oil, but it's quite a bit of oil nonetheless.
Sure, genius. I guess that's why the US is still fighting the Japanese and the Germans since the 1940's, right? As well all know, those countries are still killing each other.
I wouldn't vote Republican if my life depended on it. Nor would I vote Democrat. In the last three elections I've voted Libertarian and will continue to do so because I know the process that the candidates have to go through.
A whole lot of good that has done. Your idealism and irrational aversion to republican has partially contributed, through inaction, to Ginsburg and Breyers sitting on the bench.
Bitch somewhere else. You've done nothing at all to prevent this.
Frankly, I'm surprised that so many liberals are surprised. This ruling was all about "government knows best", just like the reasoning behind most of the current government social programs and the reason why liberal judges keep finding "rights" that aren't spelled out in the constituion at all. From "Roe vs. Wade" on to today, the typical conservative decisions on the supreme court have been based on a strict interpretation of the constitution, while the "progressive" decisions have been based on the "living, evolving document" view of the constitution. Ergo, that's why one camp is called "conservative", and the other one "liberal" or "progressive".
Either many liberals don't understand what conservatism is all about, or don't understand what the very liberalism that they support is all about.
I have plenty of democrat friends that think just like conservatives do, but will never get caught dead voting for a conservative because they believe that conservatives are EVIL!!! Such are politics nowadays. We should make a genuine, open mind attempt to learn as much as we can form both parties before making a decision as important as voting.
In any case, your point is well taken. That's precisely why the "we saved your asses" attitude is so stupid. The Russians can say the exact same thing to us ("we saved your asses by decimating Hitler's land forces").
I think that you are confusing accuracy with precision. In any case, both the US and Russia "saved your asses," even if it's to a different degree. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's a Russian or an American saying it since even by your own admission it's still true, and so it's accurate. The satement may not be precise enough (since the statement doesn't elaborate that both USA and Russia "saved your asses"), but it is accurate nonetheless so long as either one or both (Russia, US) say it. It's stupid and lacking in precision, but accurate.
Last time I checked Catholics were still using the same book with the same unchanged creation story. And the version of evolution espoused by Catholics is hardly evolution.
Then I suggest that you do more than checking. Go to the Vatican's website and read the entire cannon in detail. I am a very active Catholic, and I believe in evolution in its entirety as the God-created mechanism by which life on Earth, including humans, came into being. As a matter of fact, my favorite past time is amateur paleontology and I keep a relatively modest but very educational collection of fossils. Excuse me for saying this, but your view of religion in general, and of Catholicism in particular is very dim and ignorant.
Er...maybe you've never read the Bible but if you take a look at it you'll see it's jam packed solid full of supernatural phenomena. I don't think I need to specifically point these out.
You didn't answer my question. If the Bible is so full of "discredited phenomena" it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me a single example that has been proven erroneous. You are implying that you're the smart one so go ahead and educate me.
Slashdot Mirror
So what are you suggesting? That Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions? What constitutional basis can you possibly have for that?
BTW, what do you think protects a Catholic hospital against being forced to provide abortions? (Hint, read about the law how it protects medical conscientious objectors).
Ever heard of Health Care Conscientious Objector laws? I've got news for you, in some states medical personnel are permitted to withold treatment on the basis of the personnel's beliefs so long as the treatment is not life threatening and there are alternatives. For example, a doctor may refuse to perform circumcision if it goes against the doctor's beliefs. The distinction is "bona fide", a need that cannot be fulfilled any other way does not fall into the ubrella of protection. The pharmacist case does not fit this description since the need was not life-threatening, and since other pharmacies, or another clerk at the same store could supply the pill.
Religious people have the right to express their beliefs. They do not have the right to force those beliefs on others.
Agreed. By that same token, neither do others have the right to force others to act against their religious beliefs if there are alternatives. In this case, there were alternatives, but the government is forcing people to act against their own beliefs.
All of your other points about muslims and the FDA are non-sequiturs. We are not dealing with life or death, we are not dealing with cases where there were no alternatives, and we are not dealing with FDA mandate that the "cure" for pregnancy has to be the "morning after" pill.
I suggest you read a little bit about ethics before knee-jerking like that. Here's a link to start: http://www.consciencelaws.org/Examining-Conscience -Issues/Ethical/Articles/Ethical23.html.
The philosophy of Objectivism relies upon Reason for its epistemology, and the origin of objective reasoning is the empirical evidence of the human senses.
Yet generally, rationalist and even pragmatist theories do not necessarily contradict religion: They merely offer no claim against it and in some cases they offer indirect support for it. I am not intimately familiar with ojectivism so I won't comment on its points either way, but it sounds as if it's an offshoot of empiricism. While some empiricist theories reject religion, others are ambivalent. Still, in general because there are epistemological theories that rely on reason and reject religion does not mean that all epistemological theories that rely on reason are automatically against religion. Don't laugh, but my "Frankenstein" epistemology subscribes to parts of Kant, Descartes, Plato, and even Aquinas, all of whom relied on reason and whose theories weren't necessarily anthitetic to religion.
You are making two claims here that would seem to indicate that you believe you do, indeed, "know the mind of God". Firstly, you claim to possess knowledge of "the principles that God has given us". By what direct proof can you claim that any such principles were in fact given to anyone by your deity? Secondly, you claim to possess knowledge of "what would please him". From God's mouth to your ears, apparently.
Well, that again depends on what theory of epistemology you subscribe to. To Aquinas, "natural law" is composed of self-evident rules that emanate from God. To Plato, the "forms" were pure principles (pure good, pure evil, pure "math", etc), that exist independent of us and that we can sometimes gain insight into. The principles that I am referring to are somewhat similar: God-created, and self-evident. No need to "read" anyone's mind, merely to seek these principles through reason and intellectual honesty. Religion is sort of a short-cut to some of these principles, but you still need reason to comprehend them.
So it seems that our disagreement goes deep to each of our philosophies of life. I enjoy your point of view and I appreciate the respect that is so often lacking from a slashdot discussion. I apologize if I implied that you were a fanatic in any way. To me however, it's more illogical to believe in nothing than to believe in God, but I'm sure that you've read logical proofs that can make that case better than I could in a lowly slashdot post.
Funny that you mention fear of God, as it's what ultimately turned Blaise Pascal to religion. However, if you do well unto others I have a feeling that you'll still be alright.
As a matter of fact, I am a Catholic, so I am quite familiar with the concept of "natural law." Funny that you bring up a concept that has it's roots in religion to attack my point. Still, the concepts of natural law and the IX ammendment are irrelevant in this case. Just because all of our rights are not ennumerated in the constitution does not mean that there exists a right to "ban all but secular discussion" in the public square, which brings me to your next point.
You also need to abandon the starw man argument that you have been repeatedly using that the insistence on a separation of church and state is equivalent to a ban on free speech.
So, I guess that you'll take my "straw man" and raise me a red herring, huh? I have specifically said that I agree that no laws regarding the establishment of religion should be passed. You, by characterizing my arguments as equating separation of church and state with a ban of free speech are committing nearly the same fallacy of logic that you accuse me of. "The emperor has no clothes" idea somehow comes to mind.
The question is about political discussion. The orginal question was about the leader of the free world commenting on the issue of intelligent design. Though intelligent design can be argued on largely "secular" terms, I'm sure that's not what Bush has in mind. My point, is that the constitution guarantees that he can raise his point, even if it's religious (a point that I disagree upon, BTW). My logic goes further and establishes that Bush can raise his religious idea, but he ultimately has to defend it on it's own merit. Ultimately, religious ideas have to be distilled by reason into its secular components for them to become law. Above all, law has to be secular. However, discussion of religious ideas in the political arena does not mean that religious laws will automatically get passed. Still, it is the job of the President to suggest a course of action, and the job of congress to decide on whether or not (and how, if applicable) it should be followed. That's why the "establishment of religion" clause mentions congress specifically, because it's congress job to ensure that reason (regardless of an idea's origin) leads to law. If you're so well-read, I'm sure that you've come accross something called the "separation of powers." The president does not establish any laws.
I disagree with Bush's stance on education, but I also recognize that he can make his points, and then the country (congress, and ultimately the people) can then reject them if those points are not sound. While I understand your concern that there is always a slight danger of religious motivation affecting law (Shiavo comes to mind, though because of the systems of checks and balances the judicial rightly kept the legislative in check), the alternative of banning religion altogether from the country's political discussions is far worse. I'm sure that you don't think yourself as bigotted against religion, but can you think of any other natural right that we "wish to ban" (or as you say, "separate") from political discussion?
But even Bush understands this. From TFA:
Bush is not suggesting that any laws regarding religion get established or any of the sort. He is merely expressing his religious opinion in the public square.
But yet you seem to imply that the mere mention (let alone discussion) of ideas with religious origins will necessarily lead to the establishment of religion by law. That is a non-sequitur.
I agree completely. However, that move should still have rightly left up to the discretion of a private party (the store owner) and not the government.
It absolutely is a prescription. That's the whole point. Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions.
Is the morning after pill a prescription in the city where this incident occured? The morning after pill can be bought over the counter or with prescription depending on the state.
I've yet to hear of this happening. Can you provide some supporting evidence, or is this a rumor? The case in question did not involve refusal to give back the prescription (that is, assuming that there was a prescription in the first place).
And it absolutely is medicine. First of all, an unwanted pregnancy is an ailment.
No, an unwanted pregancy is not an ailment. It's a consequence. The natural state of the human body tends towards reproduction. The term "ailment" is defined by dictionary.com as "A physical or mental disorder, especially a mild illness." Pregnancy cannot be a disorder because a woman's body is naturally predisposed to child bearing, and sex is the natural means for pregnancy. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex, in other words, it's primary biological purpose. By definition, pregnancy cannot be a disorder but it is indeed a very real consequence of sex.
Secondly, in some cases the prescription is for birth control which is preventative. Are you saying that there's no such thing as preventative medicine?
When did I ever argue against preventative birth control? Please re-read my post and don't put words in my mouth. Anyway, the issue at hand is not about preventative birth control. The "morning after" pill has nothing to do with prevention, that's why it's called "the morning after" pill. Hell, my argument is not even against the "morning after" pill (though to be honest I do find the rationale behind the pill a little bit upsetting). More than anything, the issue is really about government overstepping its boundaries and forcing private businesses to act a certain way, and about passing a law that puts people's made-up rights (the constitution does not guarantee a right to the "morning after" pill) over the first ammendment rights of a certain individual and business.
The question at the heart of this issue is: Should the government have the power to force mandatory access to non-vital pills over people's rights of freedom of religion and of self-determination?
I find it odd that the Slashdot mind-hive goes ballistic at the suggestion of government action that may interfere with freedom of expression or rights to privacy, but at the same time gingerly supports stripping rights away from those that are religious and from business owners.
but that doesn't mean that it isn't primarily about government control vs. retailer discretion.
Sorry about that.
First of all, the "separation" issue does not exist anywhere but Jefferson's writings. While important, those writings hardly official documents and voice Jefferson's concerns with the compromises that had been made at the onset of the new nation. However, even Jefferson's interpretation can be taken to mean that Jefferson was concerned about the spread of religion through government channels (i.e. official sponsorship, just what the constitution addresses). Though Jefferson had reservations on the matter, such a view is not inconsistent with what I've already discussed in the previous post.
Religious ideas in civil discussions are actually protected by the first ammendment, spelled out in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". How can something be banned from influencing civil discussion while at the same time remaining protected free exercise?
If you ask the President not to let his religion influence his thinking, you are infringing with the president's free exercise of religion. How can such a ban be consistent with the constitution in any way? You seem to be extrapolating your conclusion from indirect sources which are being interpreted in one of several possible ways. I base my conclusion on the only official document about the matter.
Do you think that the founding fathers were too stupid to have the constitution mean what they wanted it to mean, and that their private correspondence, which can be interpreted several ways, is somewhat more valuable than the official document that they all agreed upon? Ever heard of the term of strict constitutionalism? Funny that you've mentioned the 19th ammendment (AKA the insert-any-right-that-you-want-to-make-up-in-here- catch-all-ammendment). We've seen what happens when people think that they are smarter than the constitution itself and begin to "interpret" things that are not there. The recent debacle regarding eminent domain is but the latest example of the extremely loose interpretation that you suggest.
But more to the point, atheist's rights are already protected. What you are suggesting is eroding the rights of those that are religious, not protecting the rights of those that are atheist. In a world where only secular discussions are permitted, the atheist's rights do not suffer, but the religiou's rights do. In a world where religious discussions are permitted, the religiou's rights do not suffer, and neither do the atheist's so long as the government does not "establish" religion upon anyone. Hence, that's why the first ammendment was written the way it is. There's wisdom in the constitution but you seem to imply you're wiser than that. The wisdom that you fail to grasp in this case is that in the real world ideas are not the same thing as their origin and can be discussed on their own merit, so that both religious and atheist ideas can ultimately be evaluated in a purely rational basis (or "secular basis" if you prefer). Within a society that enjoys true freedom, the possible religious origin of such a discussion is ultimately moot.
Perhaps it is more complex, but that doesn't mean that it's primarily about government control vs. retailer discretion. I've heard my share of very complex debates about the issue (I often listen to Air America, NPR, and conservative radio throughout the week). Still, I'll give your link a try. Thanks.
Cigarettes are also legal but a typical store owner can decide whether to sell them or not. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to sell it by law. Otherwise, we can sue Budweiser because it doesn't sell sake.
Your buddhist example is a non-sequitur, because a pharmacist's primary job is to dispense prescriptions and medicines. The morning after pill is not a prescription nor it can be considered medicine because what it's designed to treat is not an ailment.
Like I said, I don't think that the pharmacist in this particular example is the brightest, but at the same time I don't think he should be punished for following his beliefs. After all, last I heard this is supposed to be a free country, right?
However, you are right on when it comes to example 2. I agree that such a judge has no business being on the bench and abused his position terribly. This case however, involves a conflict of ethics and erroneous religious beliefs. In general, it isn't religion's fault. It is the judge's.
Example 3 is also right on. Though I have my reservations about this particular case, in general the federal government shouldn't second-guess a court decision without just cause. Actually, the Shiavo case received so little support even from religious people that I don't see this as the fault of religion as much as the fault of some members of congress trying to pander to a religious demographic.
But 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Still, I fail to see how a "religous climate" proves anything on your position. Obviously, you are going to have bad religously-motivated decisions just as you are going to have bad secularly-motivated decisions. However, if you think that the climate has somehow changed all of a sudden, then you probably haven't been paying attention to the last 30 years. America has always been deeply religious. Look up some old famous speeches by the likes of Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Truman, etc., and you'll be surprised.
I'm not going to say that this is all the Bush and Republican admistration but it's just the climate of the masses in this nation that sadly are out of sync with the times...Really, power in this nation doesn't even come down to the religious righteousness of one person over another (though it has been vocalized more and more through minority views of these such people), its by votes and public opinion.
I don't want to step on your toes but I think I can't avoid it in this case. I suggest that you read a little bit more history. In particular, may I recommend an excellent book by the famous economist Max Weber called "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" Unlike what you may think, this book is more about economics than about religion, but it explains how the US is a world superpower because it has always had healthy religious discussion in the public square (and no, I'm not even a protestant). In fact, Weber's theories predict how a country is likely to perform economically based on its religious make-up and it's religous attitudes. I also recommend Blaise Pascal's "Thoughts", and a bit of classical philosophy (Kant, Descartes and Plato are good starts).
In general, you seem to have a very erroneous idea of what religion is and what it's good for. I suggest that you open your mind and research. Give research a good, honest shot for a couple of years.
In my own search for answers I did research for quite a while. I was a rabid atheist most of my life until I grew the balls to actually read about religion with an open mind.
Again, part of your argument has merit, and part of it doesn't.
The part that doesn't have any merit is that religion has to "be in fashion" for discussion or for anything else. If religious ideas are taken off the table just because of their origin, then we cannot claim to have studied all alternatives to a situation. Ideas stemming from religion may or may not be valid, but refusing to cosidering them in the scheme of political debate amounts to bigotry.
The "separation of church and state" argument does not apply to this stage of the political debate. The separation has an intended purpose, and that purpose is not to quell debate just because it includes religion.
The part of your argument that has merit is whether or not those ideas infringe in the civil liberties of others. In essence, if the idea (whether it stems from religion or not) has any validity. I am all for discussing Bush's "religious" ideas in this context. Are his ideas good? Well, then let the grandparent make an argument. Are his ideas bullshit? Well, I'm all ears and let the grandparent make that argument as well (for the record, I disagree with much of Bush's concept of "intelligent design" but I also disagree with religious bigotry). Above all, ideas should stand or fall on their own merit: That is what the bill of rights seeks to assure by protecting freedom of speech and religion. Calling the originator the idea names because the ideas came from a religious background does nothing to establish validity.
Validity is what I'm after, not this "oh my God! Religion is going to destroy the country!" schizophrenic paranoia.
On another note, citizens have a duty to participate on political life for the sake of the country. Similarly, christians have a duty to participate in the life of the country. It's funny how you ask a christian to "deal with it" and shut up, but you'd probably have a fit if a christian told you to "deal with it" when it comes to your agnosticism and to shut up when it comes to decisions made by a religious majority.
I am not asking anyone to suck it up or shut up. I am asking for discussion on the merits of the issues. I am not interesting in paranoid pronouncements. In the US, debate is at the heart of the political process. If all you care about is quick decision-making, then by all means try to install an authoritarian dictatorship just like in Korea. I assure you that decisions will be made a lot faster. Of course, you'll also get shot if you disagree with those decisions, but hey, c'est la vie!
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
I suggest that you do some research concerning the separation of church and state. This "separation" applies to congress and it's ability to make laws. In other words, it's there to prevent the establishment of a state religion (like the Anglican Church in England). "The wall" was designed to protect religious freedom in all of its forms, not to squash religion. Bush's comments do not amount to a law passed by congress. What part of "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion." is so hard to understand?
Just because the religious conservatives have reared their heads under this President and seem to have a louder voice than anyone else doesn't mean that it is acceptable.
The religous freedom of the majority that elected president Bush is protected by the first ammendment of the bill of rights. What you are suggesting is to discriminate against religion in the public square. Banning public religious discussion is exactly the sort of thing the bill of rights is meant to prevent. Funny that you cite "separation of church and state" when it suits you but forget about the freedom of religion clause when it doesn't suit you. I'm trying to have an intellectually honest discussion here. Please prove to me that you are capable of more than making illogical ad-hominems and give me a valid argument that I can sink my teeth into, so to speak.
Welcome to the realm of questions that tormented and ultimately defined St. Thomas Aquinas' life. Aquinas was of the opinion that reason and God are indeed compatible, a position that many sensible christians (and jews) agree on. Don't forget that the very first pioneering excursions into the realm of science where funded and supported by religion (Mendel et al).
In Catholicism at least, ethical decisions follow a well-structured set of rational guidelines designed to cause the least damage to those involved. The scientific method can indeed be applied to questions of ethics, but since the scientific method is, at it's core, not incompatible with the existance of a higher power, what makes you think that ethics are also incompatible with either?
The issue is not about knowing the mind of God. I've yet to meet anyone that claims to know the mind of God. The issue for those of us that are religious is merely to follow the principles that God has given us, and use those principles in conjuction with everything else we've been given (faith, logic, conscience) to do what would please him.
If your believe that intelligence and religion are incompatible, you misunderstand either religion, logic, or both. That goes for both sides of the aisle (atheist fanaticism and religious fanaticism).
As far as the first part of your argument related to holding religious beliefs above all else, any sincerely religious person will hold his/her religious believes above all else since that is what religion is. To christians as well as jews, "Love thy God" is the greatest commandment. I hold God above all else, and I believe in evolution second. To me evolution is merely a part of a greater intelligent design.
Mainly, it sounds as if you're displeased because the president is religious, yet he was elected as-is. His religiousness should be no surprise to anybody. Religion is part of what he is, of how he understands the world, and how he operates within it. His beliefs may or may not be inaccurate, but believing in them is what makes him religious. You can criticize his beliefs, but saying that having a "supreme" set of religious beliefs is ipso facto wrong amounts to saying nothing of value.
Yet the second part of your point does have some merit. The question of whether the president holds religous beliefs in the highest regard is pointless. The question of whether or not the president's position (stemming from his beliefs) is in the best interest to the country is a valid one. I suggest that you focus on that. Give us coherent and valid arguments for or against the president's position, not pointless presidential ad-hominems.
Read Meno by Plato. The text is well over two millenia old but if you meditate on it's implications you may find an answer to your question (hint: think in terms of knowlede and how, if at all, it relates to time and space).
Consider this. Pilate may have been ruthless, but he, like most Romans, was probably very superstitious and mindful of omens. Pilate, having been warned by his wife not to sentence Jesus to death because of a dream, could have shyed away from his ruthlessness out of a sense of self-preservation.
My point is that the historical, ruthless Pilate and the gospel accounts of a reluctant, look-after-number-one Pilate are not necessarily at odds with each other. If you are intellectually honest about your inquiries you have to see this as a posibility, yet your mind is made up. That does not speak well of the sincerity of your arguments.
I suggest that you do a little bit more in-depth thinking before mindlessly throwing the word anti-semitism around. Otherwise, you cheapen the meaning of the word, and close your mind to honest thought.
BTW, nice ad-homenim at the end. Who is the brick wall, the one that refuses to argue and throws out ad-homenims as excuses, or the one that poses questions?
First of all, if you believe that Jesus' crucifixion is "explained away" by the sanhedring forcing anyone to do anything then it's clear that you have no authority to speak on the matter because no sane christian on earth would take that position (funny considering that you seem to fancy yourself an "expert" on the matter, yet you don't show the most basic understanding of Christianity).
Jesus explains in all four gospels that he lays his life willingly for all of us. This was written by the apostles, which were Jewish, and accepted by modern christians, which are as good to the Jews as they are to anyone else. The statements attributed by these Jewish writers to the sanhedrin could possibly have historical significance (blasphemy was the worst of sins to the Jewish authorities). By claiming that such passage is "clearly antisemitic" (i.e.- implying there is absolutely truth to it and was put there merely to incite hate) you don't allow for this posiblity. Such certainty implies that either you know more than the scholars that have dedicated their life to studying the new testament in its historical context (in which case, I want to see your full research notes and supporting information), or you are pulling stuff out of your ass, perhaps motivated by anti-christian hate not unlike the very anti-semitism that you claim to speak against.
Anti-semitism is in essence hate of the Jewish race. Here's a good, balanced writeup which you may want to look at:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/J/ Je/Jews_in_the_New_Testament.htm
In a nutshell, it speaks of those who wrote the gospels as Christians that were also ethnic Jews who desired to coax religious Jews away from Judaism. Such a move cannot be anti-semitic since by definition, it rests on a difference of opinion about religion, not about race.
Mexico has very significant oil reserves around the Yucatan peninsula and the Gulf of Mexico. It's of a slightly lower grade than the mideastern oil, but it's quite a bit of oil nonetheless.
"anti-semiticism" in the new testament? Where specifically? (It's anti-semitism BTW).
Sure, genius. I guess that's why the US is still fighting the Japanese and the Germans since the 1940's, right? As well all know, those countries are still killing each other.
A whole lot of good that has done. Your idealism and irrational aversion to republican has partially contributed, through inaction, to Ginsburg and Breyers sitting on the bench.
Bitch somewhere else. You've done nothing at all to prevent this.
Either many liberals don't understand what conservatism is all about, or don't understand what the very liberalism that they support is all about.
I have plenty of democrat friends that think just like conservatives do, but will never get caught dead voting for a conservative because they believe that conservatives are EVIL!!! Such are politics nowadays. We should make a genuine, open mind attempt to learn as much as we can form both parties before making a decision as important as voting.
I think that you are confusing accuracy with precision. In any case, both the US and Russia "saved your asses," even if it's to a different degree. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's a Russian or an American saying it since even by your own admission it's still true, and so it's accurate. The satement may not be precise enough (since the statement doesn't elaborate that both USA and Russia "saved your asses"), but it is accurate nonetheless so long as either one or both (Russia, US) say it. It's stupid and lacking in precision, but accurate.
Then I suggest that you do more than checking. Go to the Vatican's website and read the entire cannon in detail. I am a very active Catholic, and I believe in evolution in its entirety as the God-created mechanism by which life on Earth, including humans, came into being. As a matter of fact, my favorite past time is amateur paleontology and I keep a relatively modest but very educational collection of fossils. Excuse me for saying this, but your view of religion in general, and of Catholicism in particular is very dim and ignorant.
Er...maybe you've never read the Bible but if you take a look at it you'll see it's jam packed solid full of supernatural phenomena. I don't think I need to specifically point these out.
You didn't answer my question. If the Bible is so full of "discredited phenomena" it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me a single example that has been proven erroneous. You are implying that you're the smart one so go ahead and educate me.