Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Bikeemikey]

Does this mean you are not supportive of the designation of "hate crime," which compounds the seriousness of the crime as it pertains to offended rights?

I am on the fence regarding hate crimes... Probably more in the against camp right now.

No sure how m comments got you to there though. Please explain the connection.

[Bikeemikey]

If I understand Bikeemikey correctly, he seems to be suggesting that while the Constitution and our system of rights and laws may have been somewhat morally based or inspired by morals, the system is sufficiently developed at this point to no longer require morals, and thus morals, particularly religious morals, have no place in legislation.

To me, not only is this naive, but it strikes me as analogous to suggesting that since we have built an elaborate ship of state, we no longer have need of a compass or other guidance, calibrating, and orienting devices.

It also ignores the fact that the ship of state--i.e. the Constitution and the system of rights and laws, expressly and implicitly grants people of faith their right to expressly vote according to the dictates of their moral/religious conscience--not just in terms of who they elect, but also in terms of what is legislated.

Granted, this constitutional right, like most other rights, is not unlimited. But, it is a right, whether people like Bikeemikey or the sometimesaint like it or not. And, thankfully, there is a Constitution and a system of rights and laws that prevent these misguided, though well intending souls, from deny people of faith their right to vote their conscience. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of that kind of secular religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey Wade... welcome aboard, i was wondering when you would throw a comment in the mix.

I think that your paraphrasing of my position is not very accurate... that is certainly not the argument I have been trying to make.

My position is that the constitution is a document concerned with "rights" and "rights" are a narrow spectrum of the broader continuum. The framework of the constitution will always be relying on the moral principles central to considerations of "rights". It is not the case however, that because govt. has the responsibility to monitor certain morals (rights) that govt. is responsible for concerning itself with all possible moral concerns.

Govt is tasked as maintaining freedom of rights so we have the broader freedom to our own moral conscience.

I agree that we all have the right to vote what ever we want... this is a right. The US system of govt has a safe guard against the will of the people when such a will is contrary to the principles of the constitution. That is one of my favorite aspects of US govt. It is not majority rule. "We the people" may not, by majority, force the govt to violate the rights of others... that is the great protection ensured by the constitution. There has always, and will likely always, be examples of where we have failed to live up to the ideals and standards espoused in the document... that does not mean that our failure to live these standards should be used as arguments against the standard.

[go_utes01]

Would you please be able to provide an example. I do watch the news and I do not see this happening much at all. Post some links so I can understand more about the examples you are citing.

What about the HHS mandate on organizations, even religious-based organizations, requiring such organizations to provide healthcare that they believe is immoral and explicitly contrary to their religious beliefs?

[Bikeemikey]

What about the HHS mandate on organizations, even religious-based organizations, requiring such organizations to provide healthcare that they believe is immoral and explicitly contrary to their religious beliefs?

That is a good example. I actually didn't follow that case very closely.

My first response is think that is govt. over reach and a rights violation that takes the govt. beyond their appropriate jurisdiction.

I will look into it and think about that a little more to see if i can consider a legitimate rights based argument as to why the govt. ought to be allowed pass this example of legislation.

Do you know what the govts. argument for it was?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[TAO]

My reply to Wade:

Modern democratic govt, and general political liberalism (not to be confused with the idea of being a liberal or conflated with allegiance to the Democratic party), champions a key success of modern Western govt as the limitation of govt action to a specific sub-set of the "moral continuum". That is govts are concerned with legal rights, not moral rights.

Legal rights are moral rights though (that is, they are a subsection of morality). Let me give you an example. The North Korean dictator probably doesn't think freedom of speech is a good thing, where as you think it is definitely a good thing. In other words, while you view it as inherently right (aka, morality), he doesn't view it that way. There is no difference between legal and moral rights, they are the same thing. There is a slight difference (in my opinion) between physical and social rights, but even then, they are very intertwined, so it becomes hard to judge one without judging the other.

I am not claiming that there is no moral concept behind "rights" or the Constitution.

Well then you can't create a dichotomy between 'legal rights' and 'moral rights'. After all, 'legal rights' would be a subset of 'moral rights'.

What I am stating is that since the formation of modern democracy (the US constitution being a key and important part of that) the notion of legal and moral rights has been dramatically advanced and now legal rights specifically are discussed as distinct from morality in general.

That doesn't make that view correct though. As I have pointed out, there is no dichotomy I can find, even if other people think it is there. Thus, I am not required to adhere to their dichotomy, right?

For some they prefer to see legal rights (rights) as a limited subset of the general moral continuum. Legal rights are the sphere of responsibility of Govt and moral rights are not. Almost all would agree that legal rights are informed at some level by an appeal to some moral principle.

Who decides where the dividing line is though? Society is a very fickle thing; the truth is that there is no defined line, people disagree on the subject.

What does this have to do with Religion? Religions are extremely important in western democracies as there is now a vacuum; govt used to be in charge of morality, kings created morality etc (and religions used to be in charge of kings), but now are not. In my opinion religions should stop whining to the govt, effectively asking them to do religions job for them, and realize that if they want to impact the moral decision making of people they need to do a better job teaching and presenting their message. Not replacing a poor job at proselytizing with legislative activism.

If this was true, then we'd have to say the same thing about all organizations, religious or otherwise. After all, there is no significant difference between a group advocating for legislation of it's ideas for the morality of welfare then a group advocating for legislation of it's ideas for the morality of religion.

Part of the original purpose of the Constitution was to allow competing interests. To remove one side or the other destroys the system that was intended from the beginning. Of course, some may not want that system, but I am fine with it.

Rather than seeing the govt unwilling to legislate around moral rights as a bad thing, religions should see it as an opportunity.

The government IS willing to legislate moral rights. As I pointed out, welfare. A moral right. The idea of taking care of the poor isn't unquestionably correct, it's a moral concept. And the government acts on it. There is no prohibition on the government acting on the moral ideas of one group or another (currently).

This is a clear statement by govt. that they will not interfere with moral rights and will yield that realm to religions (or what ever social group or individual wishes to take up the topic).

The government makes no such clear statement. Let me give you an example. There are some very rare people out there who do not wish to serve African Americans at their restaurants. They view it as immoral and wrong. The government nonetheless requires them to do it, because they see the opposite as immoral and wrong. The government interferes with moral rights all of the time, and I don't see this changing really.

Never have religions had more freedom to believe as they see fit than they do now

Perhaps in the United States. In other places, it's been getting a bit worse.

granted, religious believers (myself included) are forced to live in a society that does not always share, support, respect or appreciate my beliefs, but I am allowed to have them.

And sometimes forced to live with a government which creates laws against your beliefs as well. As I pointed out, morality is a very broad subject.

This is a new phenomenon that is itself an out-growth of modern democratic govts decision to move out of the moral right business.

The government has NOT decided to move out of the moral rights business, as I just demonstrated. They have just changed which individual precepts they are focused on.

The fact that we can believe what ever we want and not need the govt to take steps to enforce out beliefs in legislation is the victory and crowning achievement of constitutional govt.

Again, this is not the case. There are groups out there whose morality we (or our government) step on all the time.

When those around us violate our moral rights (for mormons that may be someone smoking in front of us, that may be someones homosexuality being flouted in front of us) we have the right and freedom to express objections that behavior. We have the right to use persuasion to change that persons actions. For some people religions are considered the ultimate authority/tool in exerting such moral persuasion.

As granted by law, yes. But law is always subject to change. That's the strength and weakness of government.

When those around us seek to violate our rights (legal rights) - that may be assaulting us, stealing our goods, causing physical harm - we have the right to use force to deter or mitigate those actions. The govt as the ultimate holder of the right to use force engages those who act against our legal rights as criminals.

Rights as established by whom? The government. The government could establish that all restaurants have to serve free Spaghetti on Tuesday and it would become a right. And things which are considered 'our rights' are not always 'morally right' from our perspective.

Religion may not infringe people's legal rights. (Where "legal rights" are semantically considered distinct from "moral rights").

Again, what is the difference?

Continued in next post (feel free to cut out stuff that is repetitive).

Edited March 10, 2013 by TAO

[TAO]

Govt may not infringe people's moral action. (Where "moral rights" are semantically considered distinct from "legal rights").

Again, what is the difference.

When someone violates our moral rights we may to ask them to leave or leave ourselves... No more.

Not so. Consider taxes. If a person thinks taxes are immoral, they are still obligated to pay it. And because nearly every country has taxes (probably every country), it's pretty much unavoidable.

When someone violates our legal rights we have legitimate cause to use force... Hence govt is a tool of force.

Not precisely. We don't have legitimate cause in and of itself. The government determines that we have legitimate force. It isn't inherent. For example, gun laws.

When someone violates morals rights we have legitimate cause to use persuasion... Hence religion is about teaching and education.

Again, not precisely. The government determines that our persuasion is legitimate. It isn't inherent. For example, hate speech.

As for the issue with voting. Of course you can vote you religious conscience. But when a voting majority exert a religious/moral conscience that violates principles of legal rights such a vote will be rendered void by the Supreme Court, their job is to protect rights (narrow morality), not morality (general morality).

Except there isn't a conscious difference between legal rights and moral rights. As I mentioned, it's a dichotomy that's been created to support their point of view. It doesn't necessarily exist. Furthermore, the supreme court is under no obligation to protect legal rights over moral rights. Else laws banning public nudity wouldn't exist. But they do. What falls under 'justified social laws' is largely a matter of opinion.

This will be the case with the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case before the supreme court. The danger to the fabric of constitutional democracy in the USA is if the court protects the moral rights of specific citizens of the legal rights of other citizens... the constitution will hang by a thread.

I don't think it'll be that problematic. But the philosophy, if taken to the extreme, would be problematic either way.

1) if libertarian rights are always greater than social opinion, it jeopardizes other laws which say the opposite (public nudity laws, public trash laws, homeowners associations, etc.)

2) If social opinion is always greater than libertarian rights, it jeopardizes other laws which say the opposite (civil rights laws of various sorts)

Either way, we are screwed if things get taken to the extreme.

Really, this is just a discussion of that; are libertarian rights, or social opinions, more important. Most people can't say one way or the other.

[Bikeemikey]

Again, what is the difference.

Not so. Consider taxes. If a person thinks taxes are immoral, they are still obligated to pay it. And because nearly every country has taxes (probably every country), it's pretty much unavoidable.

Not precisely. We don't have legitimate cause in and of itself. The government determines that we have legitimate force. It isn't inherent. For example, gun laws.

Again, not precisely. The government determines that our persuasion is legitimate. It isn't inherent. For example, hate speech.

Except there isn't a conscious difference between legal rights and moral rights. As I mentioned, it's a dichotomy that's been created to support their point of view. It doesn't necessarily exist. Furthermore, the supreme court is under no obligation to protect legal rights over moral rights. Else laws banning public nudity wouldn't exist. But they do. What falls under 'justified social laws' is largely a matter of opinion.

I don't think it'll be that problematic. But the philosophy, if taken to the extreme, would be problematic either way.

1) if libertarian rights are always greater than social opinion, it jeopardizes other laws which say the opposite (public nudity laws, public trash laws, homeowners associations, etc.)

2) If social opinion is always greater than libertarian rights, it jeopardizes other laws which say the opposite (civil rights laws of various sorts)

Either way, we are screwed if things get taken to the extreme.

Really, this is just a discussion of that; are libertarian rights, or social opinions, more important. Most people can't say one way or the other.

I think that I can agree with what you have stated. It is a case of balance. I also share concerns that full blown libertarian governance seems impractical, though I consider it theoretically better suited to understanding the role and limitations of govt.

As for the difference. The difference between "rights" and "moral rights" (though not necessarily always discussed specifically via those terms is extremely well established in political philosophy (though again not always 100% agreed upon).

As for taxes... any use of force by the govt should be subject to extreme rigorous review. Taxes are an interesting phenomenon as it is hard to arrive at a solid fully coherent argument for there legitimacy regardless of the political paradigm you endorse. That said, they are however necessary.

[Bikeemikey]

Legal rights are moral rights though (that is, they are a subsection of morality). Let me give you an example. The North Korean dictator probably doesn't think freedom of speech is a good thing, where as you think it is definitely a good thing. In other words, while you view it as inherently right (aka, morality), he doesn't view it that way. There is no difference between legal and moral rights, they are the same thing. There is a slight difference (in my opinion) between physical and social rights, but even then, they are very intertwined, so it becomes hard to judge one without judging the other.

Well then you can't create a dichotomy between 'legal rights' and 'moral rights'. After all, 'legal rights' would be a subset of 'moral rights'.

That doesn't make that view correct though. As I have pointed out, there is no dichotomy I can find, even if other people think it is there. Thus, I am not required to adhere to their dichotomy, right?

Who decides where the dividing line is though? Society is a very fickle thing; the truth is that there is no defined line, people disagree on the subject.

If this was true, then we'd have to say the same thing about all organizations, religious or otherwise. After all, there is no significant difference between a group advocating for legislation of it's ideas for the morality of welfare then a group advocating for legislation of it's ideas for the morality of religion.

Part of the original purpose of the Constitution was to allow competing interests. To remove one side or the other destroys the system that was intended from the beginning. Of course, some may not want that system, but I am fine with it.

The government IS willing to legislate moral rights. As I pointed out, welfare. A moral right. The idea of taking care of the poor isn't unquestionably correct, it's a moral concept. And the government acts on it. There is no prohibition on the government acting on the moral ideas of one group or another (currently).

The government makes no such clear statement. Let me give you an example. There are some very rare people out there who do not wish to serve African Americans at their restaurants. They view it as immoral and wrong. The government nonetheless requires them to do it, because they see the opposite as immoral and wrong. The government interferes with moral rights all of the time, and I don't see this changing really.

Perhaps in the United States. In other places, it's been getting a bit worse.

And sometimes forced to live with a government which creates laws against your beliefs as well. As I pointed out, morality is a very broad subject.

The government has NOT decided to move out of the moral rights business, as I just demonstrated. They have just changed which individual precepts they are focused on.

Again, this is not the case. There are groups out there whose morality we (or our government) step on all the time.

As granted by law, yes. But law is always subject to change. That's the strength and weakness of government.

Rights as established by whom? The government. The government could establish that all restaurants have to serve free Spaghetti on Tuesday and it would become a right. And things which are considered 'our rights' are not always 'morally right' from our perspective.

Again, what is the difference?

Continued in next post (feel free to cut out stuff that is repetitive).

Thanks for you thoughts.

In general I actually agree with the bulk of both of your posts. They are crafted to many of my posts that were using absolutist phrasing about how things are vs. how they ought to be. Thank said let me respond with a few thoughts.

I have stated repeatedly through out this thread that rights are a subset of broader morality.

I have also stated that practically the govt. is still in the business of morality management (and likely will always be) and that morality management goes beyond rights, though these actions by the govt are on the decline.

My consideration and questioning is more one of directionality:

Group A feel that every time the Govt decides not to renew, or proactively or create, legislation that is more moral than right based then we are departing the principles of the constitution and the nation (speaking of the USA) is becoming more evil.

Group B feel that every time the Govt decides not to renew, or proactively or create, legislation that is more moral than right based then we are moving closer to the principles of the constitution and the nation (speaking of the USA) is becoming more better, even if they personally disagree with the moral actions the govt is deciding to ignore.

This is an interested dichotomy and at the root of a lot of the miscommunication and conflict, especially in the USA.

It is not an easy tension to resolve as the same event produces fear of impending doom from one group and celebration of a modern utopia from the other (and vice versa). This will be played out when a Prop 8 and DOMA decisions by the supreme court finally occur.

As for the distinction being artificial between "legal rights" and "moral rights", i agree. But I also feel it is a good place to draw the line regarding what we are willing to give the govt power to perform. It is also, in my opinion, the distinction drawn in the founding documents of the USA. What is a right, that is still very much up for debate.

Thanks for you thoughts. They have helped me think about this topic a lot more.

[Stone holm]

Why is it wrong to make drunkenness illegal, but it is acceptable to make drunk driving illegal? It is insufficient to merely state that it is so. If you were into the "pro-active" mind-set , which I am not, you would argue that nipping the potential for tragedy in the bud is better than allowing the activity to get so far down the road in a literal sense. What is the "morality" that we speak of? The problem I see with the use of "religious morality" as it is commonly used to day is that it rests strictly on a "because God told me so basis" and tends not to be susceptible to further discussion, it is used as a trump card which halts further discussion. If in that sense you say, okay drinking is immoral because "God told me so", you halt any further discussion of whether or not for some it is possibly a form of self-medication and without it perhaps you wind up with over reliance on prescription drugs or you wind up discounting the fact that many writers and artists of genius seem to have used alcohol as their muse. In this sense religious morality like the over use of family values rhetoric is a form of trump card that cuts off discussion which is essential as the basis of the rule of law.

[Bikeemikey]

Why is it wrong to make drunkenness illegal, but it is acceptable to make drunk driving illegal? It is insufficient to merely state that it is so. If you were into the "pro-active" mind-set , which I am not, you would argue that nipping the potential for tragedy in the bud is better than allowing the activity to get so far down the road in a literal sense. What is the "morality" that we speak of? The problem I see with the use of "religious morality" as it is commonly used to day is that it rests strictly on a "because God told me so basis" and tends not to be susceptible to further discussion, it is used as a trump card which halts further discussion. If in that sense you say, okay drinking is immoral because "God told me so", you halt any further discussion of whether or not for some it is possibly a form of self-medication and without it perhaps you wind up with over reliance on prescription drugs or you wind up discounting the fact that many writers and artists of genius seem to have used alcohol as their muse. In this sense religious morality like the over use of family values rhetoric is a form of trump card that cuts off discussion which is essential as the basis of the rule of law.

Are you asking the question about in public instances or in private instances?

If it is private then there are major problems with govt interfering with actions in your private home that are not violating the rights/consent of others.

If you are talking about drunkenness in public, then it may very well be illegal with a good solid rights based argument as to why.

It is already illegal in VT to serve alcohol to someone until they are intoxicated.

[Deborah]

Would you please be able to provide an example. I do watch the news and I do not see this happening much at all. Post some links so I can understand more about the examples you are citing.

Seriously? Attacks on the Second Amendment, attacks on free speech by banning speech in many venues or punishing people for "hate" speech, the whole discussion on whether the President has the right without proper procedure to kill a person in the U.S. who is not in the process of causing harm.

[Bikeemikey]

Seriously? Attacks on the Second Amendment, attacks on free speech by banning speech in many venues or punishing people for "hate" speech, the whole discussion on whether the President has the right without proper procedure to kill a person in the U.S. who is not in the process of causing harm.

Would you please provide links to news articles so I know what you are talking about specifically.

On the second amendment thing. All the news agencies are reporting that there is no hope in getting any of Obama's gun reform ideas into legislation. The fact that members of govt. are talking about doing things, or suggesting doing things, does not mean it will, should or can happen. That said, this discussion is not about whether govt always follows the rules they ought, it is about what are the rules they ought to follow.

As for the one about the president. I think Holder passed a note under his desk to the kid at the back to the room... it said no. As in, no the president does not have the right (with or without proper procedure), that is there is no procedure to allow the president to kill a US citizen (or person in the USA) who is not causing harm.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[TAO]

I think that I can agree with what you have stated. It is a case of balance. I also share concerns that full blown libertarian governance seems impractical, though I consider it theoretically better suited to understanding the role and limitations of govt.

Indeed, a full blow libertarian government (anarchy) would be as bad as a full blown authoritarian one (dictatorship).

As for the difference. The difference between "rights" and "moral rights" (though not necessarily always discussed specifically via those terms is extremely well established in political philosophy (though again not always 100% agreed upon).

Well then what is the difference then? If it's so well established, it should be easily explainable. So far, I've never seen anybody actually explain the significant difference between right and morality. Thus, I don't think a difference exists. As far as I'm concerned, rights are a subset of morality (the difference being that it is government advocated), and thus, don't get any special treatment.

As for taxes... any use of force by the govt should be subject to extreme rigorous review. Taxes are an interesting phenomenon as it is hard to arrive at a solid fully coherent argument for there legitimacy regardless of the political paradigm you endorse. That said, they are however necessary.

Mmm... let me tell you my perspective. For any political discussion, there is no fully coherent argument. There is merely the argument that sounds best to your audience. While one argument sounds excellent to one group, it sounds horrible to another. I doubt that there is a universally agreed upon good argument, tbh.

Edited March 10, 2013 by TAO

[Stone holm]

Are you asking the question about in public instances or in private instances?

If it is private then there are major problems with govt interfering with actions in your private home that are not violating the rights/consent of others.

If you are talking about drunkenness in public, then it may very well be illegal with a good solid rights based argument as to why.

It is already illegal in VT to serve alcohol to someone until they are intoxicated.

What are the major problems with govt interfering with actions in your private home that are not violating the rights/consent of others. (Let us assume that you live in your home alone without spouse or children -- the latter being the key trump card in most of these discussions). Many of the writers and artists of which I spoke were frequent bar flies in Europe where they mingled with others of like and differing ilk? Do we say then, okay certain activities must solely be indulged upon in isolation and seclusion. Leaving out the driving issue, why wouldn't it be fair to say -- well if you are going to be sober please stay to your anti-social self. In fact, it might well be argued that drinking in isolation and seclusion, as opposed to its being part of a social setting is in the long view more detrimental to society and the self than drinking in seclusion. I am not advocating drinking here, the point is that we sometimes state conclusions as if they were absolutes.

[TAO]

Thanks for you thoughts.

No prob. Thanks for bringing up the topic.

I have stated repeatedly through out this thread that rights are a subset of broader morality.

But you still imply that 'rights' should get a special treatment (or perhaps you are saying other people imply, I can't tell). I don't think 'rights' inherently should get special treatment. I believe they are considered rights because they are getting special treatment which they may or may not deserve. In other words, they aren't inherently better from a moral standpoint than things which aren't 'rights'. So I'm wondering why there is the preference they get special treatment simply for being called 'rights'.

Group A feel that every time the Govt decides not to renew, or proactively or create, legislation that is more moral than right based then we are departing the principles of the constitution and the nation (speaking of the USA) is becoming more evil.

Group B feel that every time the Govt decides not to renew, or proactively or create, legislation that is more moral than right based then we are moving closer to the principles of the constitution and the nation (speaking of the USA) is becoming more better, even if they personally disagree with the moral actions the govt is deciding to ignore.

This is an interested dichotomy and at the root of a lot of the miscommunication and conflict, especially in the USA.

I agree. It's one of the reasons we have large political disagreements here in the US.

It is not an easy tension to resolve as the same event produces fear of impending doom from one group and celebration of a modern utopia from the other (and vice versa). This will be played out when a Prop 8 and DOMA decisions by the supreme court finally occur.

I also agree here. Unfortunately, there isn't likely to be a solution. Both sides are pretty much past compromise.

As for the distinction being artificial between "legal rights" and "moral rights", i agree. But I also feel it is a good place to draw the line regarding what we are willing to give the govt power to perform. It is also, in my opinion, the distinction drawn in the founding documents of the USA. What is a right, that is still very much up for debate.

It is indeed up for debate. And it will be for many years to come XD.

Thanks for you thoughts. They have helped me think about this topic a lot more.

No problem. Thanks for posting the topic.

[CV75]

Does this mean you are not supportive of the designation of "hate crime," which compounds the seriousness of the crime as it pertains to offended rights?

You said: "In such a society the only thing that could result would be people not being very nice to religious people. The second such "second class treatment" became physical it would be a rights violation. The second it impacts my personal property it would be a rights violation. The second it impacted to rights to representation it would be a rights violation. In all instances the govt. would be on my side, not societies side, even though those in society may also not like me for being religious, the govt. has a civic and constitutional duty to protect my rights."

Hate is an extension of not being nice, and so can fuel and flavor rights violations just as nastiness can. It seems that you place "not being nice" under the purview of morals / religion (which hate would be also), and if this is so, hate should have nothing to do with the evaluation of the severity of a crime (rights violation).

But you also indicate that you are on the fence on whether hate is an appropriate factor in protecting rights and punishing their infringement. This seems to be an acknowledgement that laws should indeed recognize the role that personal moral and religious attitudes play in society, and that focusing soley on rights and legality actually can do society a disfavor.

[Deborah]

Would you please provide links to news articles so I know what you are talking about specifically.

I listen to and watch the news. You can do your own research on the Internet. Here is one article: http://www.poe.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7876&Itemid=

[Stone holm]

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. As we speak there are those seeking to infringe on our rights guaranteed under this. Do you watch the news?

Which specific rights would those be? There have been threatened infringements of Constitutional rights since nearly the very beginning, for example the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams. Are we talking about the infringements which pertain to the Patriot Act or are we talking about whether a State or Municipality can regulate the use and ownership of weapons? Normally when people use such assertions they are talking about their particular ox being gored. In addition, it is often difficult to understand a particular discussion in isolation. For example right now one of the biggest issues currently being deliberated upon by the Supremes is the Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Now it is very clear that Congress has the right to adopt this law, but the question is whether certain States which have historically been bad players can have certain additional requirements placed upon them -- in essence is this a form of discrimination against the citizens of an entire State as opposed to the citizens of some other State. Rarely do civil rights come packaged in nice neat packages for the Court to consider. So to make blanket assertions, doesn't get us very far. Its like saying the Constitution is Divinely Inspired, well yes, I believe it was -- does not mean that slavery was Divinely Inspired given it was clearly built into the Constitution? Does that mean that the States should have been allowed to continue to ignore our civil rights because the Bill of Rights only restrained the Federal Constitution until the passage of the 14th? No the Constitution, in a sense like God, is a living thing -- the beauty of the Constitution and our approach to it, is that we have been able to look at it and adapt it to our present day. Like the Scriptures, it is often read or misread because of cultural contexts that are in flux. Cultural change tends to precede in most instances both religious change and legal change.

[Stone holm]

I listen to and watch the news. You can do your own research on the Internet. Here is one article: http://www.poe.house...id=7876&Itemid=

Okay read the article. Interesting comment which completely fails to understand the Janus like face of the First Amendment religion clauses. The question is whether in a military funeral where honor guards are required to attend, which clause trumps. Does the Free Exercise Clause trump with regards to the free exercise of religion by the family of the veteran (we will leave the guards out of this for now), or does the anti-Establishment Clause trump which says that the government shouldn't be establishing religion by its governmental functions. To complicate the matter we could throw in what rights the guards might have to not be required to participate in a religious ceremony. Now which rights were those you were concerned about the rights of the family? or the dangers inherent in government establishment of religion -- as both are embedded in the Constitution? Personally, my feeling is that the person making the rules probably over-reached as funerals, other than State funerals, are very private intimate family affairs where the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of the decedent should trump. Is it as absolute and clear cut a question as the Texan politicians rhetoric suggests? No definitely not. The government probably should adopt some kind of sliding rule like the Boy Scouts have where the prayer language is modified according to the situation in which it is uttered. I will give you an example. I once attended a Scout Camping Outing sponsored by the Church at a Scout Camp where we basically took over the camp for a week. At the first meal, an LDS Scout went up to offer the prayer -- he was given an instruction by the Chaplain that he was not to use either Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ in the prayer. Instead of offering the prayer he went and sat down. That caused considerable commotion. What had happened was that the Chaplain at the Camp that year, who happened to be Jewish, was applying the general rule for general Scout Camp which was you did not reference God or Christ in the prayer. But in this instance, the entire congregation was LDS except for the staff. Fortunately, we had several Stake Presidents there who realized the problem presented and quickly worked out a deal with the staff. The Church leadership took control of the prayer said in the dining hall, and the Staff said their prayer separately outside the dining hall. It would be helpful, if people like the belligerent Texan perhaps paused to understand the issues involved.

[Stone holm]

Seriously? Attacks on the Second Amendment, attacks on free speech by banning speech in many venues or punishing people for "hate" speech, the whole discussion on whether the President has the right without proper procedure to kill a person in the U.S. who is not in the process of causing harm.

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue, this is a due process issue under the Constitution. Such actions have the same Constitutional questions as do many of the provisions of the so-called and misnamed "Patriot Act". Unfortunately, by the maintenance of Gitmo the United States has tarnished its reputation throughout the world. Perhaps the better question is at what point is the government allowed to be "pro-active" in eliminating a potential threat. It is relatively clear that the Seal Team had no intention of bringing Osama bin Laden back alive, was there a problem with that? Is the "war on terror" a real "war" under international law or merely a vigorous law enforcement issue?

[wenglund]

Hey Wade... welcome aboard, i was wondering when you would throw a comment in the mix.

I think that your paraphrasing of my position is not very accurate... that is certainly not the argument I have been trying to make.

My position is that the constitution is a document concerned with "rights" and "rights" are a narrow spectrum of the broader continuum. The framework of the constitution will always be relying on the moral principles central to considerations of "rights". It is not the case however, that because govt. has the responsibility to monitor certain morals (rights) that govt. is responsible for concerning itself with all possible moral concerns.

Govt is tasked as maintaining freedom of rights so we have the broader freedom to our own moral conscience.

My apologize for mis stating your position, it was not intentional. And, I am glad you clarified, and I am quite willing to let you speak for yourself.

However, I am more confused now than before. In your OP you said: "I do not think that it is ever legitimate for the govt to be engaged in considerations of moral judgment" and "Legal rights are the sphere of responsibility of Govt and moral rights are not."

Now you are saying: "It is not the case however, that because govt. has the responsibility to monitor certain morals (rights) that govt. is responsible for concerning itself with all possible moral concerns."

In terms of governmental responsibility for morals, this seems to be a shift in your position from "not ever" to "not always."

I don't know that I disagree with your current position. I believe that to some degree and in some respects religion may be better suited than secular government to address certain moral issues, particularly on an individual and more specific basis. and particularly the more pluralistic and amoral or immoral the society. I have no problem with religion taking on those issues as long as government doesn't entirely divest itself of all moral responsibility. What exactly may be the best balance in moral responsibility between going the religious route and/or the government route, is for each of us to decide. My only objection would be to those who may presume to deny me and other individuals our right to decide that balance for ourselves and to vote accordingly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sleeper Cell]

There are no absolute rights. You have a right to your own religion. You don't have a right to impose your religion on others without their permission, and in some cases not even that. IE; You can't claim a religious right to have someone murder you.

Same with the right to speech. You have no right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, unless there really is a fire. Even then it isn't a good idea.

IOW You have the right to swing your arm until it meets my nose.

Do you believe that a “inalienable right” is the same thing as an “absolute right?”

My point is that rights are not something we are granted in exchange for anything.

In your first example, imposing your religion on others without their permission would deprive them of their inalienable rights. -- unless, of course, by “imposing” you mean merely exercising your free speech rights under circumstances where they are free to end the conversation, or in a public forum where one must expect to hear views you don‘t like. Quoting scriptures during a town hall meeting, for example, is not imposing religion on anyone -- as long as the scriptures are germane to the topic.

Re. yelling fire in a crowded theater: Free speech does not exempt one from being responsible for the logically foreseeable consequences of your speech. Nor does free speech entitle you to create a “clear and present danger” for others. Somehow, I doubt that quoting the “golden rule,” for example, would fall into that category.

[wenglund]

With the intent of moving the subject from theory to practice, may I suggest using as a case study the issue of open public nudity vs. indecent exposure.

On the one hand, there are a number of people (religious and otherwise) who believe that public nudity, including among strangers and adults and children alike, is perfectly moral and even healthy..

On the other hand, there are a number of people (mostly religious) who believe that public nudity is immoral and harmful, particularly where children are being exposed to adult strangers. In fact, they may go so far as to suggest that adult strangers exposing themselves to children is a form of child sexual abuse.

So, here we have a moral issue, and one that may reasonably be considered religious, where the government is a;ready currently involved.

With that in mind, let's examine the question of the thread: Should this specific religious moral issue have made its way into political discourse, and/or should it continue within political discourse?

(I pose the question realizing that discussion of the issue will, itself, be a matter of political discourse, thereby somewhat answering the question itself)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Do you believe that a “inalienable right” is the same thing as an “absolute right?”

My point is that rights are not something we are granted in exchange for anything.

In your first example, imposing your religion on others without their permission would deprive them of their inalienable rights. -- unless, of course, by “imposing” you mean merely exercising your free speech rights under circumstances where they are free to end the conversation, or in a public forum where one must expect to hear views you don‘t like. Quoting scriptures during a town hall meeting, for example, is not imposing religion on anyone -- as long as the scriptures are germane to the topic.

Re. yelling fire in a crowded theater: Free speech does not exempt one from being responsible for the logically foreseeable consequences of your speech. Nor does free speech entitle you to create a “clear and present danger” for others. Somehow, I doubt that quoting the “golden rule,” for example, would fall into that category.

It is wise to remember that the idea of "natural rights" or Inalienable rights is not necessarily embedded in the Constitution, although it was something dear to the Deists who helped inspire the "revolution", the Declaration of Independence was just that it is not a law and was certainly not considered such the or now. Rights exist because we have entered into a social contract which is binding so long as we choose to continue as a society to support and protect it. To say something exists in the abstract is fairly meaningless. If you say for example that men were endowed with certain rights by their Creator...I would respond, well then He didn't make them very self evident because it took thousands of years for them to be recognized and much blood was spilt to establish them and most would say they still really haven't been so established ... So let us not talk in such rhetorical flourishes, but in terms of reason and the possible that can be accomplished by men and women with the human intellect He has afforded them and with the compassion that he has admonished them.

[Stone holm]

With the intent of moving the subject from theory to practice, may I suggest using as a case study the issue of open public nudity vs. indecent exposure.

On the one hand, there are a number of people (religious and otherwise) who believe that public nudity, including among strangers and adults and children alike, is perfectly moral and even healthy..

On the other hand, there are a number of people (mostly religious) who believe that public nudity is immoral and harmful, particularly where children are being exposed to adult strangers. In fact, they may go so far as to suggest that adult strangers exposing themselves to children is a form of child sexual abuse.

So, here we have a moral issue, and one that may reasonably be considered religious, where the government is a;ready currently involved.

With that in mind, let's examine the question of the thread: Should this specific religious moral issue have made its way into political discourse, and/or should it continue within political discourse?

(I pose the question realizing that discussion of the issue will, itself, be a matter of political discourse, thereby somewhat answering the question itself)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It depends in part on the degree of "pro-active" philosophy you are willing to countenance if you take the view that people have little or no self-control then you would say that public nudity is bad because it leads to rape and molestation. We in America are considered especially lacking in self-control because of the Weastern nations we are the biggest prudes. Obviously, you can have civilization without such prudery -- Ancient Greece being one that comes to mind, apparently not all of Adam's children got the serpents memo