MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

[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/art...ews/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