Rape, God and Republicans

[Grim Reaper]

[Sue U]

dgs49 wrote:(6) "...no such religious doctrine [prohibition of abortion?] can be properly imposed as a law of the purposefully secular government of this nation." Who told you that?

Tom Jefferson and Jimmy Madison. And the last 125 years of Constitutional jurisprudence.

Sue--I'm not sure what you mean here; yes, I agree that a secular state should not impose religious beiefs by law on a populace, but are you saying those beliefs should have no seat at the table discussing laws to be enacted?

People of faith can believe what they want. But their personal relgious beliefs are not properly part of any public policy that will be applied through law. It incenses me that certain people enter public life in order to make into law their personal beliefs in matters of conscience. It is anathema to American values and subverts the protections of the Constitution.

I can't agree with that; our secular state has always had laws which were (at least primarily) inspired by religious/moral belifs, from the ban on prostitution and gambling to the enactment of relgious holidays (christmas, e.g.) as national ones.

I believe there is such a thing as a secular public morality, although it is absolutely the weakest and most incoherent basis for making law (see, e.g., the various public nudity discussions that grace this BBS). And the fact that some have previously succeeded in making their personal religious convictions into law does not mean that such rules are good or reasonable (e.g., prohibitions on Sunday sales). BTW, Christmas is not a "national holiday," and was not even any kind of federal governmental holiday until 1870. (The Founders and their Protestant forebears and contemporaries considered a Christmas holiday to be a peculiarly Roman -- and therefore vile -- observance.) The closure of governmental offices on Christmas is an accommodation to workers and a recognition of its cultural significance, but there is no governmental mandate to observe Christmas.

Yes, the religious viewpoint must not dictate secular policy, but, e.g., my opposition to capital punishment is based primarily on moral grounds (which stem back to my religious education and understanding)--and please, let's not turn this thread into one debating capital punishment, start a new one if you really want to discuss it.

That is fine, but your religious views are not the only basis for opposition to capital punishment. My own opposition to capital punishment arises solely from secular considerations concerning its efficacy, the manner of its application, and the proper role of government. I believe there is a public morality issue involved, too (under the category of proper role of government), but I can't say it's based in any kind of religious doctrine -- as compared to, for example, the branch of Catholic teaching that opposes capital punishment on religious grounds.

Like it or not (and I have a significant problem with this position sometimes as well), laws cannot be enacted solely on a utilitarian basis, morality also comes into play, and this includes religious viewpoints. I'm certain that Jefferson, Madison, and most previous USSC majoritites would have no problem with permitting this.

I do not think Jefferson or Madison held this view at all. They were extremely vigilant concerning the least encroachment of religious doctrine into governmental functions. Note that as president, Jefferson refused even to issue proclamations of "Thanksgiving and Prayer," declining to even recommend such observances in his executive role. (Although Madison issued two such proclamations, he later regretted it and counseled future presidents against it in his Detached Memoranda.) Jefferson and Madison drew careful distinctions between the public role of government and the strictly private matters of religion.

[Big RR]

Sue--to the extent that you distinguish morality from religion, then I understand your position; however, I believe our morality has its basis in religious beliefs, more specifically western religious beliefs. Things are moral or immoral because they are, and not because of some utilitarian analysis (much as many try to use to justify it)--which sounds an awful lot like religion. yes, some positions are defensible on both moral and other positions, but others are primarily moral. So while I share your distaste re persons choosing to impose their particular religious beliefs on others, I also think discussion of those beliefs is proper in considering courses of action. We can make all the arguments we want about the cultural significance of christmas, but the plain fact is that this significance arises from its religious significance, and the government offices closing on the day is an accomodation to the religious beliefs of employees, nothing more (I'm not defending this or saying it is appropriate, but that's how I see it).

Further, some of our most significant laws stem from moral beliefs; we fought a war based, at least in part, on the beliefs that slavery was morally indefensible, and these cries arose from many religious sectors (while others sdtaunchly defended it as morally justiifiable).

As for Madion and Jefferson, I do agree that they eschewed (and rightly so) government endorsement of religious ceremonies and pronouncement, but one need only look to the Declaration of Independence to see how Jeffeson and those who endorsed it (including Madison) viewed fundmaental rights as coming from (endowed by) the creator of man, not any particular religious denominational view, but a basis to state that the king has exceeded his rightful authority over his subjects. Whether either believed in god or not, I don't really know, but they did believe that discussions of a significant level (including dissolving the political bonds to England) involved such a moral discussion.

So yes, I do agree that laws should not be enacted to extend religious beliefs, I still think that an inclusion of the discussion of the moral purposes of the law (which may include religious beliefs) is appropriate. And I think it is appropriate; even if every objectively based objection to slavery is dealt with, it is still morally intolerable. And IMHO, even if one could remove all of the objectively based arguments against capital punishment, it is till morally intolerable. And I don't think it appropriate to remove those arguments from consideration, and doubt jefferson or madison would do so either.

[Sue U]

Just a quick reply to a few points. I think you would agree with me that lying and marital infidelity would be immoral, regardless of whether there is any religious proscription attached. Likewise, murder and theft. But while all four may be "sins," only two are crimes. While there may be utilitarian justifications for outlawing lying and infidelity, there are countervailing factors that prohibit a free society from doing so (at least until the point of fraud and bigamy, respectively). The fact that there may be some overlap between religious and secular morailty is sometimes convenient, but in itself it is insufficient as a basis for legislation.

Slavery is actually a good example of progress of secular public morality into religious thinking. I doubt there are any sects today that approve of slavery. Yet the Old Testament embraces it as a cultural feature and is replete with laws about how slaves must be treated; the Bible was widely used as a justification for American slavery. Although Quakers had opposed slavery, it really wasn't until the First Great Awakening, which fundamentally altered the nature of religious experience in most Protestant sects, that the abolitionist movement started to become intertwined with churches. It was perhaps the Christianizing of the slaves that most intensified the abolitionist argument.

As for the Declaration of Independence, the references to the God of Nature and the Creator were necessary argument for a document whose express purpose was to overthrow the divine right of kings; if you are declaring the reasons that justify your release from the Sovereign's rule, you need to set forth an understandable superseding power that authorizes it.

[TPFKA@W]

I wonder when we will see legislation to just go ahead and make rape legal.

It would fit the mindset.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I wonder when we will see legislation to just go ahead and make rape legal. It would fit the mindset.

Just as long as it's not compulsory.....


Sue re this:

And keep your dogma out of my government

No it is the government of all the people - not just yours and not just mine. You have reasons for believing certain things to be right and wrong; other people have different reasons for believing things to be right and wrong. Sometimes people don't agree about what is right and wrong.

According to some ways of thinking, a religious belief that abortion is wrong has no more and no less philosophical value than a non-religious belief that it is not wrong. Those who think it is wrong have an equal right to express that opinion, to promote general agreement and to secure legislation that conforms the law to that belief. Those who think it is right have the same.

All laws are imposed upon those who do not agree with them; all those who agree with the same laws do not feel imposed upon. So, 'keep your dogma out of my the government' is a statement that applies as well to whatever you believe as to what I may (or may not) believe. IMO

Meade

[rubato]

"...

No it is the government of all the people - not just yours and not just mine. You have reasons for believing certain things to be right and wrong; other people have different reasons for believing things to be right and wrong. Sometimes people don't agree about what is right and wrong.

According to some ways of thinking, a religious belief that abortion is wrong has no more and no less philosophical value than a non-religious belief that it is not wrong. Those who think it is wrong have an equal right to express that opinion, to promote general agreement and to secure legislation that conforms the law to that belief. Those who think it is right have the same.

All laws are imposed upon those who do not agree with them; all those who agree with the same laws do not feel imposed upon. So, 'keep your dogma out of my the government' is a statement that applies as well to whatever you believe as to what I may (or may not) believe. IMO

Meade

Complete moral relativism! You are suggesting that any majority has the right to impose its standards of conduct on society no matter how idiotic or based on superstition.

Liberals have a more cogent means of determining where the boundaries are between what the state might forbid and what it might not than just giving it all up to the 'invisible sky god' of the largest or most violent tribe in the valley.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html



As to the moral arguments it seems to me there are three sets. The first is; "is a fetus a 'person' in the moral sense and at what time". A part of this argument is to ask is there some clear empirical method of determining when this has occurred; when 'personhood' has been attained.

The second argument is whether or not abortion is moral.

If a conceptus is not a person then the second question is moot but even if a conceptus is a person is the second question remains.

The final argument is who is in a position of moral choice? Society? Or the individual? Is it possible for "society" to be in possession of the facts required to know what the moral stakes are? Or is it only the individual? If someone threatened me with slavery for 9 months (with some chance of death) am I not entitled to defend myself? Am I not also entitled to sacrifice my own freedom and risk death as an act of free choice to spare that person's life? If society compels me to do either one it is stripping from me the ability to be a moral person it is making me less than human, a slave in a different sense.

Now I have read a lot of different writings about both of the first two arguments and I concede that a reasonable person might decide either one either way (within a certain time frame, the third trimester probably, the second perhaps.) but I have never seen any argument which makes me think it is reasonable for the state to strip personhood from all pregnant women and take from them the dignity of choosing to carry the pregnancy to term as a moral act of self-sacrifice or to choose their own freedom also as a moral act (perhaps to fulfill their other obligations).


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I always thought of myself as more right of center on most political opinions. But now I don't know who these rabid, slobbering bastards are who call themselves conservative. I sure as heck don't want to be associated in any way with the likes of Murdock.

Oh man @W, I feel your pain....

On the other hand, I can't bring myself to support a party where they honestly believe that raising taxes stimulates economic growth, ( ) or that the key to getting us out of this economic mess is to hire more government workers, (because of their symbiotic kissy-fanny relationship with the public sector employee unions) or that the way to break our dependence on unsavory energy suppliers, (like the arab autocracies and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela) is to build more wind mills....(I frequently get the impression that they really don't care about the "foreign dependency" part; they just have some sort of elitist faux "moral" objection to oil and coal.)

We really should have a better choice than this....

If I lived in Indiana in this election cycle, I don't know what I'd do. In what universe does it make any sense at all to replace an intelligent,thoughtful, class act like Dick Lugar with a yammering mutton head like Richard Murdock? I don't believe I own a clothespin strong enough to vote for Murdock...(And I say this as a man who once voted fro Michael Huffington, so I've got some pretty strong clothespins...)

I'd probably do what I do here occasionally in congressional races, and just vote Libertarian as a protest....(I do that if the GOP candidate doesn't send me at least one mailer or email, or give me one phone call...I figure if the Republican candidate hasn't got his or her act together enough to even be able to contact registered Republicans one time....it's not like there are that many of us....they don't deserve my vote.)

Not that I'd ever want one of those Randian nimrods to actually win mind you....A party that wants to give the vote to nine year olds (among other things) doesn't have its butter firmly on it's noodles, in my opinion....

And this is another part of the problem and frustration. We have a ton of third parties in this country, (When I go to vote, their are frequently seven or eight candidates listed for every office, congressional and above) but we don't have a single viable, acceptable third party....

Rarely if ever does any of these parties nominate someone even remotely qualified for the position they seek; just a gaggle of left wing chuckle heads and right wing chuckle heads.....not worth the powder to blow them to hell, the lot of them....they belong in a clown car at the circus.....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; what we need in this country, (and what would be appealing to me personally) would be a third party that was like the way the Reform Party was originally envisioned, (before Pat Buchanan hijacked it and drove it off a cliff) A party that's strong on fiscal policy and national defense, but without all the kooky "social issue" baggage that the average American doesn't give one small damn about....

A party that draws it's supporters not from the the nutty fringe types that usually gravitate to third parties, but from the ranks of serious minded pragmatic Republicans and Democrats, who want to get something accomplished....

I think a party like that, if it could get off the ground, could have enormous appeal....

And while I'm on a roll here, let me tell you something else that fries my bacon....

So called "conservatives" who have decided that any one rational enough to understand that in a country split 50-50 politically, you're going to have to compromise with people you disagree with in order to get anything done, can't be called a conservative; they sneeringly dismiss them as "RINOs"...

They are attempting to redefine "conservative" in such a way as to mean "unwilling to compromise any where any time under any circumstances" I'm sorry but that isn't "conservatism"; it's "insanity"..... (I recall Dave on this board a while back asking the question, "Since when is Lindsey Graham considered a conservative?" Well I'll tell ya Dave, up until about two years ago, that's when. The guy was a House Manager at Bill Clinton's impeachment trial fercrisakes.... )

Jeb Bush has talked about this problem, and like him I categorically refuse to accept this, and am not going to let them get away with it. Who the hell appointed this lot to go around determining who is and who is not a conservative? From whence does their authority for this derive? Grover Norquist? Give me a fuckin' break. Who died and made him king?

They can go fuck themselves....


I feel much better now....(after getting in touch with my inner Tim....

[Lord Jim]

And oh yeah, one more thing...

Not too long ago, Dave referred to me as a "Nominal Republcan"....

I'll tell you just how "nominal" I am.....

I was active in the Republican Party for more than a decade, I was a delegate to state conventions, worked on numerous campaigns for GOP candidates, (first as a volunteer and then in a paid capacity) held elective office within the party, worked for a a very conservative Republican Congressman, and a number of GOP and Conservative organizations, (including Richard Vigurie's company, and The National Conservative Political Action Committee)

In more than 30 years of voting, the only time I have ever voted for Democrats are in local elections in San Francisco. (Because the choices frequently boil down to a mainstream liberal Democrat and a certifiable lunatic)

I have never once voted for a Democrat for Congress, or any statewide office, or of course the Presidency.....

But of course none that makes any difference to Dave. I would dare say I have probably been a helluva lot more involved in Republican and conservative politics than Dave ever has, but he somehow thinks he has the right to sneer and categorize me as a "nominal Republican" because I refuse to jump up and mindlessly defend four star buffoons like Todd Aikin and Richard Murdock.

Sorry Dave, but neither you nor any of the other self-appointed little Torquemadas who think they can go around enforcing some sort of orthodoxy and declare who is and isn't a Republican or a conservative have any legitimacy or authority whatsoever.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Complete moral relativism! You are suggesting that any majority has the right to impose its standards of conduct on society no matter how idiotic or based on superstition.

Actually I was suggesting that it already does - the majority of those who think they know better than (no matter how many) others AND who are in a position to regulate and rule. Moral relativism is the position of the atheist and agnostic.

Meade

[Big RR]

[quoteJust a quick reply to a few points. I think you would agree with me that lying and marital infidelity would be immoral, regardless of whether there is any religious proscription attached. Likewise, murder and theft. But while all four may be "sins," only two are crimes. While there may be utilitarian justifications for outlawing lying and infidelity, there are countervailing factors that prohibit a free society from doing so (at least until the point of fraud and bigamy, respectively). The fact that there may be some overlap between religious and secular morailty is sometimes convenient, but in itself it is insufficient as a basis for legislation][/quote]

Sue--sorry, I was away a bit and coundln't respond. You raise a few points I'd like to respond to. Firstly, I do not agree that marital infidelity is necessarily immoral; indeed, I see marriage as a contract and the infidelity might well be a breach of the contract. So it comers down to either what the terms of the contract are and/or what the expectations of the parties were to when it was entered. Now the idea of a monogamous marriage in western society stems back tot he promarily western religions, as marriage was a much an institution of the religious authority as of the state. Contrary to islamic societies (and some offshoots of the LDS church), mainstream western religiounsg eschew both polygamy and sex outside of marriage, hence the perception of immoraility attached to both; however, I see nothing inherently immoral if twocompetent adults choose to live in a polygamous (or polyamorous) relationship, or even to condone serial sexual realtionships. That we have laws against them is, IMHO, based on the perception that such is a breach of the marriage as it is envisioned by many western religious insitutions, reasoning that those entering into marital relationships would have the same expectation as to what the duties of the parties to each other will be.

Now, yes, there may also be pragmatic reasons as well to say these things are objectively wrong, but I don't think the moral condemnation is based on these solely, nor do I think the laws prohibiting polygamy were enacted for solely objective reasons. Now whether one likes the law or not, I do think that the religious viewpoint was considered inthe legislative debates, and rightly so. To call it anything different aor isisnst there is a secular morality which also condemns these practices raises it to a greater level than it deserves; it should be recognized as a religious argument and debated on that merit alone, being but one of the points considered in deciding whether or not to enact a law.

Slavery is actually a good example of progress of secular public morality into religious thinking. I doubt there are any sects today that approve of slavery. Yet the Old Testament embraces it as a cultural feature and is replete with laws about how slaves must be treated; the Bible was widely used as a justification for American slavery. Although Quakers had opposed slavery, it really wasn't until the First Great Awakening, which fundamentally altered the nature of religious experience in most Protestant sects, that the abolitionist movement started to become intertwined with churches. It was perhaps the Christianizing of the slaves that most intensified the abolitionist argument.

Point well taken, and also one that demonstrates that the "religious viewpoint" is not monolithic and may comprise several viewpoints. I don't see it as a secular morality influencing religious thinking, but quite the opposite--it's the divergence of religious viewpoints to encompass different views of morality. I honestly don't think there was much of a nonreligous viewpoint that slavery was immoral, more like some religious leaders, particularly among the quakers and the congregationalists making compelling arguments steeped in morality and fairness as well as scriptures.

As for the Declaration of Independence, the references to the God of Nature and the Creator were necessary argument for a document whose express purpose was to overthrow the divine right of kings; if you are declaring the reasons that justify your release from the Sovereign's rule, you need to set forth an understandable superseding power that authorizes it.

Yes, it may just be empty words designed to manipulate those reading it, but I domn't think so. The arguments are steeped in a natural justice viewpoint that is inherently relgious. And, FWIW, after the GLorious Revolutiion I don't think the Brisitsh embodied and view of the divine right of a monarch to rule, unless the "supreme being" granting this right was parliament.

But again, my point is not that a religious viewpoint should be given any sort of preeminence or attention, only that, in a truly free society, it should be considered. Now, if we ultimately come to a point where we completly eschew morality as any basiis for enactment of laws (and as attractiive as this seems at first blush it is not something I would endorse), then I would agree that the religious position should not be considered, but I do object to trying to elevate some moral positions to those worthy of consideration because they also qualify as "secular" while others are not.

[Big RR]

[quoteJust a quick reply to a few points. I think you would agree with me that lying and marital infidelity would be immoral, regardless of whether there is any religious proscription attached. Likewise, murder and theft. But while all four may be "sins," only two are crimes. While there may be utilitarian justifications for outlawing lying and infidelity, there are countervailing factors that prohibit a free society from doing so (at least until the point of fraud and bigamy, respectively). The fact that there may be some overlap between religious and secular morailty is sometimes convenient, but in itself it is insufficient as a basis for legislation][/quote]

Sue--sorry, I was away a bit and coundln't respond. You raise a few points I'd like to respond to. Firstly, I do not agree that marital infidelity is necessarily immoral; indeed, I see marriage as a contract and the infidelity might well be a breach of the contract. So it comers down to either what the terms of the contract are and/or what the expectations of the parties were to when it was entered. Now the idea of a monogamous marriage in western society stems back tot he promarily western religions, as marriage was a much an institution of the religious authority as of the state. Contrary to islamic societies (and some offshoots of the LDS church), mainstream western religiounsg eschew both polygamy and sex outside of marriage, hence the perception of immoraility attached to both; however, I see nothing inherently immoral if twocompetent adults choose to live in a polygamous (or polyamorous) relationship, or even to condone serial sexual realtionships. That we have laws against them is, IMHO, based on the perception that such is a breach of the marriage as it is envisioned by many western religious insitutions, reasoning that those entering into marital relationships would have the same expectation as to what the duties of the parties to each other will be.

Now, yes, there may also be pragmatic reasons as well to say these things are objectively wrong, but I don't think the moral condemnation is based on these solely, nor do I think the laws prohibiting polygamy were enacted for solely objective reasons. Now whether one likes the law or not, I do think that the religious viewpoint was considered inthe legislative debates, and rightly so. To call it anything different aor isisnst there is a secular morality which also condemns these practices raises it to a greater level than it deserves; it should be recognized as a religious argument and debated on that merit alone, being but one of the points considered in deciding whether or not to enact a law.

Slavery is actually a good example of progress of secular public morality into religious thinking. I doubt there are any sects today that approve of slavery. Yet the Old Testament embraces it as a cultural feature and is replete with laws about how slaves must be treated; the Bible was widely used as a justification for American slavery. Although Quakers had opposed slavery, it really wasn't until the First Great Awakening, which fundamentally altered the nature of religious experience in most Protestant sects, that the abolitionist movement started to become intertwined with churches. It was perhaps the Christianizing of the slaves that most intensified the abolitionist argument.

Point well taken, and also one that demonstrates that the "religious viewpoint" is not monolithic and may comprise several viewpoints. I don't see it as a secular morality influencing religious thinking, but quite the opposite--it's the divergence of religious viewpoints to encompass different views of morality. I honestly don't think there was much of a nonreligous viewpoint that slavery was immoral, more like some religious leaders, particularly among the quakers and the congregationalists making compelling arguments steeped in morality and fairness as well as scriptures.

As for the Declaration of Independence, the references to the God of Nature and the Creator were necessary argument for a document whose express purpose was to overthrow the divine right of kings; if you are declaring the reasons that justify your release from the Sovereign's rule, you need to set forth an understandable superseding power that authorizes it.

Yes, it may just be empty words designed to manipulate those reading it, but I domn't think so. The arguments are steeped in a natural justice viewpoint that is inherently relgious. And, FWIW, after the Glorious Revolution I don't think the Brisitsh embodied and view of the divine right of a monarch to rule, unless the "supreme being" granting this right was parliament.

But again, my point is not that a religious viewpoint should be given any sort of preeminence or attention, only that, in a truly free society, it should be considered. Now, if we ultimately come to a point where we completly eschew morality as any basiis for enactment of laws (and as attractiive as this seems at first blush it is not something I would endorse), then I would agree that the religious position should not be considered, but I do object to trying to elevate some moral positions to those worthy of consideration because they also qualify as "secular" while others are not.