MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

[adios]

Comments ?

Myth: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.

Fact: Republicans Are Seeking To Restore The Advice And Consent Constitutional Obligations Of The Senate For Judicial Nominees – Not Eliminate The Legislative Filibuster – Even Though Democrats Have Supported In The Past Abolishing All Forms Of Filibusters.

In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes) Wanted To End The Legislative Filibuster. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the legislative filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay on a motion to table the rules change; Frist Voted Yea)

· The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome “Any” Filibuster, Legislative Or Executive. (Karen Hosler, “Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Amdt. 1, Motion To Table Agreed To, 1/5/95)

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) Is Proposing To Change The Rule On Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Only. “Majority Leader Frist is threatening to use an obscure parliamentary maneuver – dubbed by some ‘the nuclear option’ – to change Senate rules and forbid filibusters against judicial nominees.” (John Yang, Op-Ed, “Fili-bluster,” The Washington Post, 1/16/05)

In fact, Senator Frist’s first Senate vote, on January 5, 1995, was to preserve legislative filibusters.

As Majority Leader, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) Initiated Four Precedents That Allowed A Simple Majority To Change Senate Procedures Without Altering The Standing Rules, Thereby undermining minority rights to filibuster and use related tactics.. (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1977, pp. S31916-27; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1980, pp. S4729-32; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S31892-94; Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1987, pp. S12252-60)

Myth: Democrats Treatment Of Bush’s Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton’s Nominees.

Fact: President Clinton’s Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up Or Down Vote In The Senate By A Filibuster.

“[Harry] Reid And Company Have Used The Senate Filibuster Rule To Permanently Deny Votes To Nominees With Clear Majority Support. That’s Never Been Done Before.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibustered," The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

President Bush’s Confirmation Rate For Appellate Judges Is The “Lowest” Of Any Modern President. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

· In 1994, When The Democrats Controlled Both The Senate And The Executive Branch, President Clinton Confirmed A Record Number Of Federal Judges – 54 Of These Nominees Were Pushed Through In The 3 Months Immediately Prior To The 1994 Elections. “President Clinton has gotten 129 federal judges confirmed by the Senate, more than any previous president during the first two years in office… 101 of his 129 judges were confirmed in 1994. That was the highest one-year total since Jimmy Carter won approval of 135 in 1979.” (Michael J. Sniffen, “Clinton Outdoes Predecessors In Filing Judicial Vacancies,” The Associated Press, 10/12/94)

· While Democrats Claim They Have Confirmed More Than 200 Of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees, 10 of The 52 Nominees To The Circuit Court Of Appeals Were Filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05)

During The 108th Congress (2003-2004), The Senate Voted On 20 Motions To Invoke Cloture, or End Debate, On 10 Different Judicial Nominees. The Average Vote To End Debate Was 53-43 – Enough Support To Confirm Each Nominee But Fewer Than The 60 Votes Required To End Debate. (CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03; CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03; CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03; CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03; CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03; CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03; CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03; CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03; CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03; CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04; CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04)

· Numerous Clinton Nominees That Were Confirmed Received Less Than 60 Votes, and none of these were kept off the bench by partisan filibusters (E.G., Judge Richard Paez, With 59-Vote Support; Judge William Fletcher, With 57-Vote Support; And Judge Susan Mollway, With 56-Vote Support). (Sen. John Cornyn, “President’s Nominees Deserve Up-Or-Down Vote, Sen. Cornyn Says,” Press Release, 2/14/05; CQ Vote #40, Confirmed 59-39; R 14-39; D 45-0, 3/9/00; CQ Vote #309, Confirmed 57-41; R 14-41; D 43-0, 10/8/98; CQ Vote #166, Confirmed 56-34; R 14-34; D 42-0, 6/22/98)

Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.

Fact: Having to Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) on Judicial Nominees Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee – And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes.

Congressional Quarterly: “Indeed, As Daschle’s Whip, Reid Helped Orchestrate An Unprecedented Filibuster Of Some Of President Bush’s More Conservative Judicial Nominees.” (Allison Stevens, “Senate Democrats Set A Daschle-Like Tone For 2005,” Congressional Quarterly, 11/16/04)

National Review’s Mark Levin: “Each Of These Candidates Reportedly Has Enough Votes For Confirmation, But For The Unprecedented Use Or Threat Of Filibusters. The Majority Has Every Right And Reason To Change The Rule.” (Mark R. Levin, Op-Ed, “Will On Filibusters,” National Review Online, 3/21/05)

In 1999, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Declared: “Vote Them Up, Vote Them Down.” “But I think they have given the President of the United States the benefit of the doubt, and if the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. That is what these good and decent people have a right to expect. That is what our oath of office should compel Members to do – to vote for or against. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)

· In 1998, Leahy Called Filibustering Judicial Nominations “Improper.” “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

In 1998, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said That Voting On Judicial Nominees Was Something That The Senate Owed To All Americans. “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/98, p. S295)

Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Based on the Constitution

· Fact: Senate debate is governed by Senate rules, not by the Constitution. The Senate’s Constitutional role to advise and consent is in fact being impaired by the unprecedented use of partisan filibusters to block confirmation votes.
In 1998, Sen. Leahy Said Promptly Confirming Judges Was Senate’s “Constitutional Responsibility.” “We must redouble our efforts to work with the President to end the longstanding vacancies that plague the federal courts and disadvantage all Americans. That is our constitutional responsibility.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/8/99, p. S10544)

· Leahy In 1998: “Acting To Fill Judicial Vacancies Is A Constitutional Duty That The Senate – And All Of Its Members – Are Obligated To Fulfill. In Its Unprecedented Slowdown In The Handling Of Nominees In The 104th And 105th Congresses, The Senate Is Shirking Its Duty. This Is Wrong And Should End.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 7/17/98, p. S8477)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Government Does Not Fulfill Its “Constitutional Mandate” When Judicial Nominees Do Not Receive A Vote. “The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

· Schumer In 2000: “[W]e Are Charged With Voting On The Nominees. The Constitution Does Not Say If The Congress Is Controlled By A Different Party Than The President There Shall Be No Judges Chosen.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Myth: The Nomination Of Abe Fortas Was Filibustered By Senate Republicans.

Fact: Abe Fortas’s Nomination Was Opposed By A Bipartisan Effort In The U.S. Senate, There Was No Evidence He Would Have Received A Majority Vote And Some Say Fortas’s Nomination Was Not Filibustered.

Twenty-Four Republicans And Nineteen Democrats Voted Against Cloture. (CQ Vote #255: Motion Rejected 45-43: R 10-24; D 35-19; 10/1/68)

The Fortas case was an isolated incident in 1968 that cannot be compared to Leadership-driven, wholly partisan filibusters that have been used as an instrument of party policy to block Bush nominees.

The Washington Times: “There Is No Evidence That Fortas Would Have Received Majority Support In The Senate On An Up-Or-Down Vote.” “Only Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, whose 1968 nomination to be chief justice was briefly subjected to a bipartisan filibuster before it was withdrawn after a single cloture vote, failed to be confirmed. And with 19 Democratic senators voting against cloture, there is no evidence that Fortas would have received majority support in the Senate on an up-or-down vote.” (Editorial, “A Senatorial Bottleneck,” The Washington Times, 2/20/05)

Former Senator Robert Griffin (R-MI), Who Was A Leading Republican Opponent of the Fortas Nomination Asserted the Day After the Cloture Vote That Cloture Was Opposed because of clearly insufficient time for debate, that more Senators were on the record against Fortas than were for him, and that the nomination would not have commanded majority support. Congressional Record, October 2, 1968, page 29150

· Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) Quoted A Letter From Former Sen. Griffin Which Stated That, “Four Days Of Debate On A Nomination For Chief Justice Is Hardly A Filibuster.” “Having been on the scene in 1968, and having participated in that debate, I see a number of very important differences between what happened then and the situation that confronts the Senate today.” (Sen. Larry Craig, Congressional Record, 11/12/03, p. S14560)

Myth: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.

Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.

· As Majority Leader in 1979, Senator Byrd expressly threatened to use the Constitutional option in order to leverage successfully a time agreement on a rules change resolution : “Let The Senate Vote On Amendments, And Then Vote Up Or Down On The Resolution. … If I Have To Be Forced Into A Corner To Try For A Majority Vote, I Will [Change The Rules] Because I Am Going To Do My Duty As I See My Duty, Whether I Win Or Lose.” (Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, 1979, pp. S144-45)

· Byrd Led The Creation Of Precedents In 1977, 1979, 1980 And 1987 To Stop Filibusters And Other Delaying Tactics Previously Allowed Under Senate Rules Or Precedents. “Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing.” (Editorial, “Sen. Byrd On Filibuster-Busting,” The Washington Times, 3/7/05)

MYTH: Democrats Merely Want To Express Their Opinions On The Judicial Nominations.

FACT: Democrats Are Filibustering Nominees In Order To Block Them Permanently – Not To Preserve Free Speech.

When Asked How Many Hours Were Necessary To Debate The Nomination Of Priscilla Owen, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Answered, “There Is Not A Number In The Universe That Would Be Sufficient.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/8/03, p. S4949)

By September 2004, The Senate Had Spent More Than 150 Hours Debating Judicial Nominations – More Than Any Previous Congress. (U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, “The Assault On Judicial Nominations In The 108th Congress,” 9/28/04)

The Senate Had 28 Months To Debate The Nomination Of Miguel Estrada Before It Was Withdrawn. “After remaining in limbo for 28 months while Democrats filibustered to block his approval, Estrada … withdrew his name in September 2003.” (Tim O’Brien, “Hispanic Lawyers Line Up Behind Nominee For AG,” The Legal Intelligencer, 11/16/04)

Myth: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority.

Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To “Shutdown The Senate” Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[N]o Senate Right Is More Fundamental Than The Right To Debate. Should The Majority Choose To Break The Rules That Give Us That Right, The Majority Should Not Expect To Receive Cooperation From The Minority In The Conduct Of Senate Business.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Letter To Sen. Bill Frist, 3/15/05)

“This Month, Democrats May Use Procedural Tricks To Stop All Senate Business And Block A Republican Effort To Eliminate Minority Filibuster Rights ...” (Joe Klein, Op-Ed, "A New Idea For Democrats: Democracy," Time, 4/11/05)

[mosta]

you can't fault republicans for attempting to force judicial confirmations by majority vote. they've got the majority. they're expressing popular will. (you might argue that they are more extreme than the electorate in actuality--well then the electorate shouldn't have voted for them.) you really can't deny the constitutional legitimacy of their position.

but then you also (or at least I can't) blame democrats for trying to keep more troglodytes off the bench--the kind who wouldn't have voted for the decisions that allowed married couples to use contraceptives in their bedroom, that allowed consenting adult men and women to be free in their personal intimacy in their bedroom, that allowed national legislation limiting the work week and child labor, that allow a citizen to put a peace symbol on the american flag, that allow the teaching of foreign languages in school, etc, etc, etc.

no one is really in the wrong. just pick your side. it's very hard to deny that the activist court is well outside the bounds of the original intent and text of the consitution. the country was founded essentially as a commercial union. that's it. scalia and thomas are right. but there has also been the push from the beginning to develop universal egalitarian moral principles. and many of us think that's just about the best thing that ever happened to this country. and whatever can be done to stop losers like scalia is for the good. some things can't be settled by votes.

[mosta]

a few of us are also really happy about the getting out of religion from government. unfortunately the process is far from complete, and right now is going backwards. the poles are far apart, and the struggle will likely be to the death. there are those in favor of local, traditional (backwards) morality with fascistic undertones of conformity and obedience. and there are the godless egalitarians. it's funny, for the first time I think since grade school someone asked me the other day if I believed in "god" (in invisible magic heroes?). just asking gave me grave doubts about hte person (even though the person was an avowed atheist--the mere need to say so was highly suspect). I've always instinctively found a person's religiosness to be a measure of a defectiveness of either intelligence or character. there's really no room for deals. and that's a circle I've travelled in widely all my life.

[lastchance]

What mosta said, pretty much. Republicans are going to do the majority thing and get their point across, and Dems are going to the vice-versa. It's politics. You can't fault either party for doing the self-interest thing. Pretty standard stuff here. Politics, it happens.

This article doesn't offer a direct rebuttal, but shows a different side of the coin: factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/article317.html)

I also felt the Constitutional obligation point was weak. The Dems obviously aren't trying to protect debate, but isn't that what they're doing anyway?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
a few of us are also really happy about the getting out of religion from government. unfortunately the process is far from complete, and right now is going backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id be interested in seeing some examples of "religion in government" that greatly concern you.

[ QUOTE ]
I've always instinctively found a person's religiosness to be a measure of a defectiveness of either intelligence or character

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are calling people troglodytes. Very funny indeed. Tell you what. Let me know if you want to have a discussion on the use of reason to establish evidence for the existence of God. There is no way this forum to stand up for my character but I can stand up for my intelligence.

[MMMMMM]

That's a pretty good overall summation, mosta.

Where I disagree is regarding judge activists: it's just not their job, or their call. If changes should be made to constitutional laws, let it be through the proper constitutional process, which is the process of Amendments.

Jusges just aren't supposed to inject their own opinions about what is best for society into their decisions. There are proper processes for modifying the law--and it's not via fudging judicial analysis or slanting decisions.

Many people, such as yourself, feel very strongly about certain issues, and feel so strongly that they welcome judicial activism since it benefits their views. HOWEVER, that knife can easily cut both ways. That's why it is bad. For if judges can deliberately muddy the waters to support their social or political views, it can just as easily happen IN REVERSE at a later date. In other words the side getting the judicial favoritism now may be the side getting judicial disfavor later when the judges and the political climate eventually change (as they will). So in my view it is an entirely unacceptable thing for the judges to be doing what you describe.

Again, there are proper channels (legislative, and constitutional) for modifying various laws. What has been happening is very dangerous for the future. Again, just reverse the current favoritism in your mind and you will see what I mean.

Imagine a majority of judges, not just strict interpreters like Scalia and Thomas (who, I agree, do seem to be correct)--but imagine a majority of very conservative judges who are not even correct, but rather who warp the law to support conservative causes. Yes, they would garner the approval of some people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, but would that excuse what they would be doing? Jerry and Pat might think so, but you wouldn't think so. Therefore it is imperative that both liberal and consefvative judges keep their personal political views out of their decisions (to the best of their ability). If they don't intend to try to do that to the best of their ability they shouldn't even be judges in the first place. Gay marriage or whatever (just using that as a random general example) is not important enough to subvert the Constitutional process for addressing change. And perhaps more ominously, the potential seeds of future tyranny are being sown every time judges rule in an activist manner.

[ACPlayer]

Are activist judges and judgements the norm or even moderately prevalent these days?

I hear a lot of talk about activist judges (mostly from social conservatives for some reason) -- do you have a link that shows a list of "activist" decisions and why that links' author thinks they are activist?

[MMMMMM]

We've discussed it briefly before, ACPlayer, but I'd rather not take further tangent from this thread.

Just how common it may be is actually a worthy question, but I would ratrher not see this thread further diverted at present. adios posted some material and I would like to see that discussed. I actually took a bit of a tangent responding to mosta; probably I should have waited 'til the points raised initially had been discussed in more depth, but I didn't think of it at the time;-)

[jon462]

Does anybody else find it odd that the democrats generally are not opposing the white males that Bush has nominated, yet have pretty much opposed across the board any blacks, hispanics, or women that Bush has appointed???

I dont think troglodytes have anything to do with it. Do you see why?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
democrats...have pretty much opposed across the board any blacks, hispanics, or women that Bush has appointed

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anybody else find it odd when a republican just spews forth crap they hear elsewhere without doing any independent thought of their own??

The Senate has confirmed 204 of President Bush's judicial nominees in the past four years, including 38 minorities

[mosta]

religion in goverment? on sixty minutes this sunday there was a segment on the new sex education disseminating from washington. by law prophylactics can only be mentioned as prone to failure. no instruction can be given on their proper use. no discussion of their possible success is allowed. abstinence is the only allowable policy. and abstinence is tied with promises and marriage and...guess what...religion. (religion can be in the program explicitly as long as there is an alternative section that omits the more explicit references.) that disturbs me. that makes me wish ill for a certain type of person.


"belief in God" is not a simple factual proposition. there are many aspects to the position, most of which are non-empirical, non-factual. on the factual level, I don't see how one can take modern science seriously, and get science, and then posit invisible magic super-men. but I understand that some people including scientists will add in "beliefs" in some extra romantic ideas like life-force or something. note that I agree that science is an (alternative) system of religious postulates too. what I specifically mean is scientsts or unitarians or whatever talking about non-empirical supernatural being. but still that's not quite what I mean by religion. I do find it suspect. but these flowery notions are so attenuated in content that they have little meaning beyond a generalized positive attitude or romanticism. I don't mean to dismiss such beliefs or debate about whether they count as relgion or not--rather I just mean that's not what I'm talking about.

what I'm talking about is this, from today's news on drudge:

http://www.thedigitalcourier.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/news01.txt

A sign in front of Danieltown Baptist Church, located at 2361 U.S. 221 south reads "The Koran needs to be flushed," and the Rev. Creighton Lovelace, pastor of the church, is not apologizing for the display.

"I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong," said Lovelace.

--------------------------------------------------

I personally would flush them both. people will say this guy is an extremist and does not represent modern religion. but those people are lying to themselves. you can not believe in a particular omnipotent omniscient omnipresent supreme being (note: "omni" ALL EVERY, no exceptions) and then say that other people have their own god too (without attentuating your religion into nothing but an abstract niceness or positiveness). that's just being polite, just agreeing not to speak your mind, and letting them alone in their godless heathen unsaved existence. you can't have a prayer in congress to the god of jesus and not thereby/therein exclude every non-christian. and guess what, people are still allowed to hold prayers in congress without being put in jail, shocking as that may be. for the most part religion has little to no empirical content on a practical level. what happened six thousand and one years ago is not something that will have any practical meaning or import to most of the world, and most of them will never be able to discern any difference directly, empirically. and if your beliefs are more abstract and only posit that after all the physics and biology there is "god" behind it, then by definition it has no empirical meaning. the main significance of these "beliefs" is in their public declaration and affirmation as a sign of inclusion conformity and submission, to this particular church of htis particular "god". all of which basically are values that disgust me, and which I think will necessarily lead to evil in the context of the modern age.

I could say that I don't mean for anyone to take it personally when I allege some defectiveness on someone's part--I mean, I don't know you and I'd probably think you were a fine person if I met you--but that would be disingenuous. the fact is on some level it's unavoidable that you will be a troglogdyte to me and I will be a troglodyte to you. here's how it would come out. a group of people talking about drug use. persons A,B,C etc. A: I use LSD all the time. I really enjoy it. B: I used to use lsd. but then I decided it's not that interesting and then it just wastes the next day or two of my life afterwards. C: I use lsd occasionally, but keep it from interfering with other tihngs. D: I don't think people should use lsd because children will get hold of it and they can't be careful or responsible with it. E: I don't want to try lsd because I tihnk it's dangerous or risky and I don't think anyone can use it responsibly. F: I don't want to use lsd because I don't ever want to be off my game. etc etc etc pro and con. then person G comes out with: I don't use lsd because it's against my religion, becaues it dishonors our lord and saviour jesus christ, because some commandment says not to, because lsd users will go to hell, etc, etc. at this point persons A to F nod politely while walkng backwards to the door, and make a mental note that person G is not someone you can have an intelligent conversation with. that's how I see it. to put it one other way, I don't think I could ever seriously respect someone who prays. reflection, concentration, aspiration, etc, sure. but to pray, to a particular invisible hero? please. and note again, prayer is not essentially an empirical position. every religious person agrees that you can be the most virtuous person the world and never miss a prayer and god may still rain tragedy and misfortune down upon you. they would never purport to prove that prayer works by a study. rather, prayer is a declaration of loyalty obedience and conformity to your sect. even in a nice form, that's proto-fascism. and I'll have none of it.

[elwoodblues]

Most of these "myths" are actually things that nobody (at least nobody of any significant prominence) is actually arguing. Rather, they are the conservative spin on what democrats are arguing. So you have a conservative telling conservatives what the democrats are arguing (incorrectly) and then refuting those arguments.


[ QUOTE ]
Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who has argued this?


[ QUOTE ]
Myth: Democrats Treatment Of Bush’s Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton’s Nominees...Fact: President Clinton’s Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up Or Down Vote In The Senate By A Filibuster

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I guess if you require an analogy to be exactly identical, then this is correct. Otherwise, not so much.

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.


[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that they have been done in the past they are part of senate tradition. Defining "tradition" to mean something as common as apple pie and ice cream changes the argument significantly. Nobody is claiming that this is a common occurrance.


[ QUOTE ]
Myth: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Based on the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the Constitution gives congress the power to determine its own rules and unlimited debate in the senate is one of those rules, it is part of the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: The Nomination Of Abe Fortas Was Filibustered By Senate Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats weren't bringing up the Abe Fortas example as a way of saying "See Republicans do it too"; rather it was brought up to demonstrate that there is historical precedent for it...a "tradition" if you will.

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an important (though subtle) distinction between the Byrd example and the "nuclear option." The distinction is that in one the rules are being changed midstream. In the other, an existing rule was used (Byrd invoked an existing rule regarding amendments to end the POST CLOTURE action).

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that recent history says something about this one...

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
religion in goverment? on sixty minutes this sunday there was a segment on the new sex education disseminating from washington. by law prophylactics can only be mentioned as prone to failure. no instruction can be given on their proper use. no discussion of their possible success is allowed. abstinence is the only allowable policy. and abstinence is tied with promises and marriage and...guess what...religion. (religion can be in the program explicitly as long as there is an alternative section that omits the more explicit references.) that disturbs me. that makes me wish ill for a certain type of person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either CBS misconstrued this or you misunderstood, Im more inclined to think its CBS thats at fault. There is grant money available for states that wish to teach abstinence only programs. There is a list of items that show what qualifies as an abstinence only program. They are an educational or motivational program which:

<ul type="square"> Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and (h) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. [/list]

Note that it doesnt even have to be used for a school program. I hardly think it is an example of religion in government. I think it may be a case of traditional moral values in government. I'll be worried when the government tries to mandate a state religion.

Your depiction of religion is childish caricature of what religion is so it is easy to turn your nose up at it. Some of the greatest thinkers in history, both in science and philosophy, have been very religious and strongly believed in the existence of God.

[mosta]

this government is a work in progress. it was from the first step a product of experiment and compromise. lots of things we do weren't planned or anticipated, and couldn't have been, and therefore aren't in the constitution. judicial review is not in teh constitution. but I think it's pretty much necessary unavoidable. should it be in an amendment? maybe. certainly couldn't be a bad idea. fundamental rights theory undertaken under the rubric of the 14th amd ("substantive") due process isn't in the constitution either. that doesn't mean that the government wasn't supposed to be in the business of rights. one of the major positions in the drafting debates was that no rights should be specified in the constitution because to specify could be interpreted as restricting. the court's jurisprudence is entirely in keeping with that natural rights position. textually, the entire doctrine of substantive due process is a bit of a stretch, granted, but I didn't ever get why they didn't want to avail themselves of the 9th amd. whatever. even if they're not using it, the 9th amd clears my conscience with regard to this usurpation. the main question to me is whether the judiciary is an appropriate vehicle for the articulation and protection of generalized libertarian rights. I think it is. I think the limits of morality, the framework, can't come from the political process. politics is always interest driven and parochial. note that the clash between the court's rights intiatives (or usurpation) and parochial traditionalism is not merely a clash of one particularism versus another (one mere bias versus another) like sunni--shiite, jew--muslim, anti-[censored]--anti-hetero, vanilla--chocolate. it's not just a matter of one person's bias or another's, not just a swing of the pendulum, maybe. the clash is much more profound, and revolutionary in scope. and it's not arbitrary. the court has defined a universalistic egalitarian value framework wiht presumptions of individual liberty and equal treatment (and strict scrutiny analysis). in a way it's both less and more of an imposition than one other particularistic morality. it's less because it's only negative--only telling government when not to impose on individuals. it's more because it can wipe out any particularism. I don't think there is any middle ground. there's no "impartial" position. the project continues or it does not. and I'm not sure anyone else could do it than the court.

[mosta]

tell me some of the things "god" can add to my life. (aside from teh comfort of conformity and the abdication of reason.) and note I don't dismiss christianity as a whole. it was a profound revolution and advance from more particularistic barbarisms. but now it's time to get past it and keep moving.

ps. in the last few days another news item that really disturbed me was that the air force academy is over run by christian fundamentalists who badger and persecute non-members of the sect. each time I hear one of these things again, I become that much more detached from this place, adopting an attitude of pure expediency and self service. I'll have nothing ot do with it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
tell me some of the things "god" can add to my life. (aside from teh comfort of conformity and the abdication of reason.) and note I don't dismiss christianity as a whole. it was a profound revolution and advance from more particularistic barbarisms. but now it's time to get past it and keep moving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well God can add eternal salvation. On a more practical level, without positing the existence of God, its hard to argue for any sort of objective moral standards. And your abdication of reason comment is both snide and completely wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
ps. in the last few days another news item that really disturbed me was that the air force academy is over run by christian fundamentalists who badger and persecute non-members of the sect. each time I hear one of these things again, I become that much more detached from this place, adopting an attitude of pure expediency and self service. I'll have nothing ot do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is abdicating from reason again? Did you investigate the facts behind that story or did you just blindly accept it because it fit with what your view of how things really are?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
And your abdication of reason comment is both snide and completely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of us believe that to practice religion is to abdicate reason in favor of faith and acceptance. I certainly do.

[vulturesrow]

Many of you believe wrong then. It is a fact that rational and reasoned thinking can you lead you to faith in God. See St. Thomas Acquinas for just one example. Im not saying there is undisputable evidence for the existence of God. Im just saying a person can reach the point of belief through reason. It isnt just unthinking faith.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
without positing the existence of God, its hard to argue for any sort of objective moral standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's an interesting argument. alternatively one could argue that if someone needs make-believe fairy tales about other lives and other worlds to motivate them to conform to a standard, then they they don't really get it and they aren't really moral because they are unable to be moral for its own sake.

[jokerswild]

no further comment is needed

[MMMMMM]

and you are the reincarnation of Cujo, in miniature schnauzer form.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

it's an interesting argument. alternatively one could argue that if someone needs make-believe fairy tales about other lives and other worlds to motivate them to conform to a standard, then they they don't really get it and they aren't really moral because they are unable to be moral for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with motivation. The point is that your standard is subjective and whimsical without some ultimate reference point. Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God. Even the worlds staunchest and most eloquent defenders of atheism have conceded this point.

[ACPlayer]

Moral standards are a man made device to run a society in a "reasonable" manner. Hence we have made murder and rape illegal and we have deemed them immoral acts -- without that our society would break down. There is no ultimate morality that has been given to us by God or whatever. The morality of the religion is a man made political device

Most religions are simply a way of making a social structure with an ever increasing population work.

I would be interested in a link from a staunch and eloquent atheist conceding this point. Of course if he conceded this point would he still be an atheist?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral standards are a man made device to run a society in a "reasonable" manner. Hence we have made murder and rape illegal and we have deemed them immoral acts -- without that our society would break down. There is no ultimate morality that has been given to us by God or whatever. The morality of the religion is a man made political device

[/ QUOTE ]

So then if a certain society decided rape was an acceptable act then you wouldnt think it was wrong? What about a society of child molestors?

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested in a link from a staunch and eloquent atheist conceding this point. Of course if he conceded this point would he still be an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he would have to admit objective morality isnt feasible though. I will work on some links, most of the quotes I have are at home in non-electronic sources.

[ACPlayer]

If they could make society work, I would suggest that anything goes. In the modern age, it is unlikely that they can make society work as the weight of world outrage would be tremendous.

I believe that we, as a population have determined that for good social order it is better that rape, incest, murder etc be banned. Giving them an immoral label gives it a the ring of a "higher commandment".


Regarding the atheist -- seems to me that if he admits that God is the arbiter of morality then he cant be much of an atheist. If he is saying that there are some actions that we have determined to be "objectively immoral" then that is OK, as long as it is WE who are doing the determining and not god.

Anyway, I await the links or even any books you can refer.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God. Even the worlds staunchest and most eloquent defenders of atheism have conceded this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and I am not an atheist.

Moral standards can be based upon the golden rule--or at least, upon not inflicting unnecessary cruelty to others. I don't see why the existence of God is necessary for this; it is simply a matter of empathy for others (and perhaps also an indirect self-interest in that by not mistreating others, you may make it less likely that others will mistreat you).

I don't think you need to believe in God to know that needlessly mistreating others is bad and wrong.

[vulturesrow]

Here is a quote from Kai Nielsen, one of the leading defenders of atheism.

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (l984):90

[ QUOTE ]
If they could make society work, I would suggest that anything goes. In the modern age, it is unlikely that they can make society work as the weight of world outrage would be tremendous.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why would the world be outraged? Would they be outraged at the disruption of social order? Or would it be something more visceral than that? I would almost to a man it would be the latter.

A couple books to recommend on Christian apologetics. I sincerely encourage you to try one of them out. My main point in all this is show that faith in God is a position that can be reached through reason.

Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891077642/ref=sib_rdr_dp/002-5347483-3897616)
Handbook of Christian Apologetics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830817743/qid=1117068291/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-5347483-3897616?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846)

The first is one is the one that is a bit more intellectually rigorous. The latter has a bit more breadth and just a bit less depth. Both are excellent. I also recommend C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
don't think you need to believe in God to know that needlessly mistreating others is bad and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please dont misunderstand me here. I am not saying an atheist isnt capable of what I would consider a very moral life. My point is that his moral way of life would be no more valid than any other. There is no way to prove it. It is completely subjective.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Please dont misunderstand me here. I am not saying an atheist isnt capable of what I would consider a very moral life. My point is that his moral way of life would be no more valid than any other. There is no way to prove it. It is completely subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand, and still disagree.

I don't see what the existence of God--or lack thereof--has to do with treating others decently (or treating others needlessly cruelly).

I don't see why a belief in God, or the actual existence of God, would make that moral standard any more "objective." It seems pretty clear to me that treating others decently is moral, and treating others meanly is immoral. And that whether God exists or does not exist.

Now, you may say that such a moral standard cannot be proven, and exists subjectively. Perhaps. But I don't think that moral standard it can be proven any better if God exists, than if God does not exist.

Also, tangentially speaking now, I am not aware of any proof that God either exists or does not exist.

I think all that is necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently instead of meanly, is an awareness of others and a degree of empathy for others. God may exist, but the existence of God is not necessary for this perception or standard.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty clear to me that treating others decently is moral, and treating others meanly is immoral. And that whether God exists or does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the person who thinks it is completely moral to always act in his best interest, regardless of harm it may inflict on others. Do you think your morality trumps his? If so, why?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why a belief in God, or the actual existence of God, would make that moral standard any more "objective."

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you objectively measure something? You compare it to a known standard and see how it measures up. What standard are you using to measure your morality? What makes it better than the society of child molestors?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, tangentially speaking now, I am not aware of any proof that God either exists or does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. There is no way to empirically prove the existence of God. Instead you have to build the case like building a case based on circumstanial evidence in a court of law. There are many sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God. This plus other things, which are more pertinent to Christianity than to the existence of God in general, build a strong probability for the existence of God. And that is really the best you can hope for.

[ACPlayer]

I dont find anything much that i disagree with in the quote you provided. Although the context would be very helpful.

Reason certainly does not require us to be moral, except that we want society to survive and have a vested interest in its survival. You and I can agree that if the world was full of amoralists then our society would likely not survive. The question then becomes has our system of morality evolved from our desire to build a stable survivable society or has it evolved from the word of god. I submit that the world requires a standard of morality and that morality was not handed down from god.

The end result of course is the same, whether we designed it or it was handed down to us.

----------------------


Regarding the world outrage if some group adopted a certain "immoral" behaviour".

The reason the world would be outraged is because we would start to see an unravelling of our society as we see it. In the modern world we are all closer and see threats in far away places that may impact us. However, recognize that certain practices that you consider "immoral", may well be "normal" elsewhere.

I am a bit more tolerant than some of certain "immoral" practices in foreign countries -- this is because of my view that these practices have been put in place for that society to function. Some of these of course should now be defunct due to the evolution of society but continue to persist. An example would be the practice of the the widow jumping into the funeral pyre of her husband. The practice started for a reason which of course is now lost in history.

I posit that one reason for the moral outrage at gay marriage is that we see a fundamental part of the fabric of society changing in ways that offend us. Of course, even the most vicious homophobe is not likely to feel personally threatened by what a couple is doing in the next house. "Marriage should be between one man and one woman" -- why? The answer is that our society has, essentially, forever seen that is the way that society works best. The argument is very reasonable and is based on our society's needs not on the visceral immorality of two men who want to live in holy matrimony. I further believe, that just like the practice of widow suicide, society is reaching the point where this is an outdated viewpoint.

[MMMMMM]

Fair questions, and we may return to them, but for the moment let me please focus on what I had intended to be my central point--OK?

Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly? I don't see why it should be.

Also, don't nearly all morals ultimately flow from the Golden Rule (or variations on the theme) at base? Not stealing derives treating others decently. Not committing adultery derives from a concern for the feelings of your spouse. Etc. (also, both help maintain societal order).

Without God, I don't see why the principle of treating others decently should be diminished in the slightest. It takes a degree of sensitivity and empathy for others, which can exist regardless of the question of the existence of God. So why is God necessary for this moral standard?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say that it was necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently. I said that it is necessary if you believe that this is an objective truth, i.e., treating other people decently is the correct way of approaching life and moral decisions and that any other moral code is lesser or wrong.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly?

[/ QUOTE ]



I didnt say that it was necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently. I said that it is necessary if you believe that this is an objective truth, i.e., treating other people decently is the correct way of approaching life and moral decisions and that any other moral code is lesser or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying and thanks for the clarification.

I was trying to respond to this your statement in a post earlier in the thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have four problems with this assertion:

1) It might be so, but is unproven.

2) Someone could turn your statement about and assert the following: "Objective moral standards don't exist even with the existence of a Creator or God". You could have a hard time disproving that.

3) Objective mathematics exists with or without God, so one cannot claim that God is a prerequisite for all types of objective standards.

4) For your statement to be taken as fact, you must first prove the following:

A) God exists, AND B) God sets moral standards. I don't think either A OR B has ever been proven.

Logically speaking, you are in essence postulating the existence of a God, who also sets moral standards; and then you are using that to claim an objective or independent basis for moral standards which cannot exist without such a God. This really seems to be a sort of circular reasoning. I think it has no more validity, and perhaps less validity, than my claim that: morality is treating others decently rather than meanly. Your claim is based on several postulated assertions which are unproven. My claim is unproven also (which does not imply it can't be proven), but that is no support of your claim which appears to be based upon a sort of circular reasoning.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It might be so, but is unproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what we're trying to figure out here, right? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Someone could turn your statement about and assert the following: "Objective moral standards don't exist even with the existence of a Creator or God". You could have a hard time disproving that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could but Id ask them to offer argument for the non-existence of objective morals. Proving a negative is a daunting proposition. At any rate, thats a non-sequitir when turned about.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Objective mathematics exists with or without God, so one cannot claim that God is a prerequisite for all types of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges my friend. Mathematics can be empricially derived and proven. Its hard to do so with something like morals. So you have to look to an authority to set a measurable standard. What greater authority than a omni-everything entity?

[ QUOTE ]
4) For your statement to be taken as fact, you must first prove the following:

A) God exists, AND B) God sets moral standards. I don't think either A OR B has ever been proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually my premises and conclusion go something like this.

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.
B. Either you believe the atheistic view or the religious view
C. The atheistic view is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
D. Therefore the religious view is the correct one.

Now I am presupposing objective moral values. Id be willing to defend that position but if you dont accept that premise than this particular path is ending. I have others I can take us down though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(PS For purposes of full disclosure, I should add that A-D above are a very direct paraphrase from the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Kreeft and Tracelli)

There are some reasonable objections to this argument, which I think you may discover as you think about this some more.


B.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually my premises and conclusion go something like this.

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.
B. Either you believe the atheistic view or the religious view
C. The atheistic view is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
D. Therefore the religious view is the correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A: Quite possibly

B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

C: I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.

D: "Therefore" ???

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
A: Quite possibly

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of this line of reasoning, we have to accept this as true. If not, it can go no further.

[ QUOTE ]
B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that a false dichotomy? Either God exists or he doesnt.

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have already covered this part ad naseum. Morals are completely subjective if you have no ultimate source. You might think treating others decently is moral, I may think acting completely in my own self-interest is moral. And we both be right, or at least unable to ascertain who was actually right.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
A: Quite possibly
-------------------------------------------------------------


For purposes of this line of reasoning, we have to accept this as true. If not, it can go no further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think objective morals probably exist (at least to an extent). So let's give this a tentative "yes" so that we can proceed.

[ QUOTE ]

B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

---------------------------------------------------------------

How is that a false dichotomy? Either God exists or he doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).


[ QUOTE ]

I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.
-------------------------------------------------------
We have already covered this part ad naseum. Morals are completely subjective if you have no ultimate source. You might think treating others decently is moral, I may think acting completely in my own self-interest is moral. And we both be right, or at least unable to ascertain who was actually right.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.

Now I am presupposing objective moral values. Id be willing to defend that position but if you dont accept that premise than this particular path is ending. I have others I can take us down though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

B.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove it. Prove Premise A. I just don't see how you could do it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).


[/ QUOTE ]

Mea culpa, bad choice of words on my part. That should have read initially what my response did, that either the religious point of view is correct, or the atheistic point of view is correct. I think that makes more sense, no? I agree my original usage of words was poor.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In the atheistic world view, we are a just random results of the interactions of the physical universe, a universe that churns along oblivious to human purpose. How can you can derive any moral obligation from that source?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove it. Prove Premise A. I just don't see how you could do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't, nor did I claim to. all I can do is offer a reasonable defense of this premise. I dont claim to offer any sort of empirical proofs here, thats not what we are dealing in.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).

-------------------------------------------------------------

Mea culpa, bad choice of words on my part. That should have read initially what my response did, that either the religious point of view is correct, or the atheistic point of view is correct. I think that makes more sense, no? I agree my original usage of words was poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes more sense, yes, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In the atheistic world view, we are a just random results of the interactions of the physical universe, a universe that churns along oblivious to human purpose. How can you can derive any moral obligation from that source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you or I might not know the answer to some seemingly mysterious questions does not imply that no answer exists (nor do similar questions imply the existence of a Creator. Some such questions might suggest such things but they do not imply such things). So your question is far, far, far from a proof of what you are trying to show with it.

As for how one might derive a moral obligation from that worldview, I already gave an example: simply out of concern for the feelings of others, whom you know have feelings similar to yours. Whether the universe was created by God, or was created through a more mundane process, is irrelevant to the fact that at present, others have feelings like your own.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
As for how one might derive a moral obligation from that worldview, I already gave an example: simply out of concern for the feelings of others, whom you know have feelings similar to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are straying away from my point again(due to poor wording on my part again). You can derive to your hearts content. There is nothing that proves that your derivation is objectively better than what I derive.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

You are straying away from my point again(due to poor wording on my part again). You can derive to your hearts content. There is nothing that proves that your derivation is objectively better than what I derive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there is anything that proves the derivation I suggest as a possibility is better than your derivation. I'm saying you can't claim the converse, basing that upon a circular sort of reasoning or upon mysterious questions which may or may not have findable answers.

In other words I don't think you've shown even slightly that an objective moral framework must depend on or derive from God.

I'm not just arguing this to be difficult, and I don't have much of a preference for either side of this coin: if there is some SOUND chain of such reasoning I would like to read it. But what you've presented thus far in this thread appears to me to be full of holes.

[vulturesrow]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, busy day today.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I don't think you've shown even slightly that an objective moral framework must depend on or derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

With out some sort of ultimate standard, any moral derivation is purely subjective. I may not be explaining it as well some could, but by no stretch this outside the mainstream of philosophical thought.

you are hitting close to one shortcoming of this particular argument. It doesnt necessarily prove the existence of a monotheistic, creator type God that I believe in. Ill quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say "It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point."

So you wer sort of right MMMMMM and I was being some disiengenuous, since you are one of the few people willing to engage me on this sort of topic with an open mind.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


you are hitting close to one shortcoming of this particular argument. It doesnt necessarily prove the existence of a monotheistic, creator type God that I believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, and that is a requisite but missing link in the chain of reasoning.

It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say "It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.

[ QUOTE ]

So you wer sort of right MMMMMM and I was being some disiengenuous, since you are one of the few people willing to engage me on this sort of topic with an open mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well whatever; I just find it interesting;-) Thanks

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already answered why this must be. If you want to objectively evaluate something that cant be empirically proving, it has to derive from something. Comparing mathematics and objective morality is is incorrect because we evaluate their truth in completely different ways.



[ QUOTE ]
I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there isnt much missing. The quote was the first paragraph of their answer to the question: This proof doesnt conclude to God, but to some vague religious view. Isnt this religious view compatible with much more than traditional theism? Their answer it what I posted plus the following:

"It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds, and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal creator, you need other arguments, (cf. arguments 1-6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open,and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate."

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

It also doesn't prove that an absolute framework must depend on or derive from God. And the counterexample of the framework of mathematics suggests the opposite: that absolute framework(s) can exist irrespective of God. So if anything, the "absolute framework must depend on or derive from God argument" appears dubious.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I already answered why this must be. If you want to objectively evaluate something that cant be empirically proving, it has to derive from something. Comparing mathematics and objective morality is is incorrect because we evaluate their truth in completely different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

So OK, let's hypothesize it has to derive from something. That doesn't mean imply that that something has to be God. It might instead derive from some fundamental order of the universe, for instance.

Also, just because we might not be capable of proving something empirically, does not imply it cannot be proven period. Maybe we just don't have enough information at this time, for instance.


[ QUOTE ]
I think I would need to see that quote in context to really understand what they were saying.
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually there isnt much missing. The quote was the first paragraph of their answer to the question: This proof doesnt conclude to God, but to some vague religious view. Isnt this religious view compatible with much more than traditional theism? Their answer (combining the two paragraphs here):

I'll quote Kreeft and Tracelli here, who say:

"It is compatible with Platonic idealism and other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terrible deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism , and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things.That is the important point.

It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds, and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal creator, you need other arguments, (cf. arguments 1-6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open,and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate."

[/ QUOTE ]

All that really seems to me to be full of implied assertions presumed to be fact.