Semantics suck, let's settle this.

[mischief]

Good vs. Evil

Choice vs. Dictation

Freedom vs. Compliance

Rights vs. Priviledges


At what point do we draw the line beween these things?

At what point does any Government or agency rightfully have juristiction in fixing policy on ANY of it?

What possible justification is there to ever dictate and punnish actions purely on narrow moralistic mores?

At what point do we separate the teachings of Religion from the support frameworks of Law?

Is Law supposed to be a deterrant, a way to "fix" problems in society or a code of conduct with attatched penalization? ( 3 choices here)

Is the function of government to prevent the citizenry from making moral mistakes by removing the option of making those mistakes "legally" or is it the function of government to protect the populus only from defineable and practical dangers?

Is not the central theme in life to learn these distinctions through personal experience?

Is not the concept of Rote learning the LEAST effective means of conveying understanding?

[AlphaTech]

I hate how the democrats seem to all be for more government control of the citizens. The government should NOT get into our personal lives in any way.

Also, unless you are committing an act that harms someone else, who gives a bloody fork?? Along those lines, murder would be illegal as well as theft and other acts that harm others.

I'm also all for capital punishment for convicted murderers.

[I can hear the liberals grinding their teeth even now... heh]

[Nipsy]

Do you mean you don't like the software company Symantec, or were you talking about 'semantics'. When starting a thread about detail and nuance of usage, you really oughta spell the word correctly.

Sorry, but when you leave yourself open like that, I gotta have a go.

[mischief]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I hate how the democrats seem to all be for more government control of the citizens. The government should NOT get into our personal lives in any way.

Also, unless you are committing an act that harms someone else, who gives a bloody fork?? Along those lines, murder would be illegal as well as theft and other acts that harm others.

I'm also all for capital punishment for convicted murderers.

[I can hear the liberals grinding their teeth even now... heh]

But that's the question isn't it? Is the conviction the key or is the recoverability of the felon's mind?

If the existing system is considered the appropriate one it would seem that for convicted murderers the case is one of punnishment reguardless of mental status. It becomes a simple matter of Roman style punnishment with no reguard for compassion at all.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Nipsy
Do you mean you don't like the software company Symantec, or were you talking about 'semantics'. When starting a thread about detail and nuance of usage, you really oughta spell the word correctly.

Sorry, but when you leave yourself open like that, I gotta have a go.

That's what I get for posting while selling software.:p

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by mischief
But that's the question isn't it? Is the conviction the key or is the recoverability of the felon's mind?

If the existing system is considered the appropriate one it would seem that for convicted murderers the case is one of punnishment reguardless of mental status. It becomes a simple matter of Roman style punnishment with no reguard for compassion at all.

Murder should be punished by capital punishment. There are different classifications of murder as well... those that kill in self defense do not fall into the same category as someone that actively sought to kill someone. Killing someone while under the influence should be murder just the same as if someone was sober. People need to have better control over their own actions, and be willing to accept the consequences for their actions.

As for recovery of a felon's mind... Medical students could use it for research for all I care.

An eye for an eye, in some cases, would be a better deterrent for criminal acts then the current system. You rape someone, you get raped in turn. You kill someone, you get killed. Oh, and abortion is NOT murder, no matter what the "right to life" yahoo's say. I can think of several instances where abortion is not only justifiable, but necessary. Also, unless you are the woman that is pregnant, you have NO right to tell her that she cannot abort. Ultimately, it's her decision and she will have to live with it.

[strider42]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I hate how the democrats seem to all be for more government control of the citizens. The government should NOT get into our personal lives in any way.


Funny, seems to me its the republican politicians who want to allow the FBI and CIA to seruptitiously monitor everything we do. The mainstream liberal politicians do have a tendency to try an legislate things that don't need to be legislated, but its got little to do with being liberal.

[RandomDeadHead]

At what point do we separate the teachings of Religion from the support frameworks of Law?

Prayer in school is in DIRECT violation of separation between church and state. The bible is nothing but a book of laws, where the consequences are eternal damnation. So the teachings of Religion AND the frameworks of Law where disigned and crafted by men from the the ground up to scare you into submission.
If king James can write his own version of the bible why cant George Bush? Or how about the President Clinton version of the bible?

Sorry if I am babbling like an idoit, its just that, When I was growing up my family and I were devout christians(church every sunday, prayer before supper and bed) So of course when I went off to college it was at a christian one. My first day I was excited about getting to learn all about my religion in an academic setting. One year later I despised christianity. All of my questions while there were answered with the following phrase: Its just gods will.

Dont get me wrong, I do beieve in A god, just not one that demands that we go to church every week and patronize him by singing his praise. Think about it, God obviously knows that he is wise and all powerfull, so why do we have to go to a church to tell him that he is. And I HAVE read the bible several times so dont flame me for not knowing what I am talking about. ( If you havent read the bible I suggest that you do, it is an EXCELENT work of fiction, writen just like so many of our laws, cryptic and open ended, so that it is easy to find loop holes and can be misenturprated to fill any need.

My favorate scripture:Proverbs 13:25: "The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want."
My second favorate: James 4:8: "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."


And to all you holy rollers who I am shure will flame the hell out me: Matthew 6:14-15: "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by strider42
Funny, seems to me its the republican politicians who want to allow the FBI and CIA to seruptitiously monitor everything we do. The mainstream liberal politicians do have a tendency to try an legislate things that don't need to be legislated, but its got little to do with being liberal.

Hardly exclusive to Republicans. The author of the USA-PATRIOT Act (and its strongest advocate) was Bill Graham, D - FL.

As for the answer to the original question, it can be summed up in two rules: .... which I will post when I have more time.

[strider42]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Hardly exclusive to Republicans. The author of the USA-PATRIOT Act (and its strongest advocate) was Bill Graham, D - FL.

As for the answer to the original question, it can be summed up in two rules: .... which I will post when I have more time.

You're quite right of course. I was trying to make a point, rather than try to portray such practises as the exclusive realm of republicans. But it has always bothered me when some (and certainly not all) republicans shout and yell about democrats trying to legislate their lives when some of the biggest instances of stripping away our rights has come from republican leadership. Lets share the blame equally. I vote with the democrats because they more closely align themselves with the kinds of social ideals I think are important, not because I think the party line is flawless. PLenty of instances where democrats try to do stupid things and plenty of times republicans do equally stupid things that take away from our rights and freedoms because of knee jerk responses or politics.

[hvfsl]

Well I think the US has too many freedoms they can do without anyway, what is it with guns? There are more guns per person in the US than Iraq, especially in LA.

You cant have a totaly free society, it is this kind of thing that has helped M$'s dominance. But you can't have a society like China ether. I think something like Germany or Finland is probably the best. We need restricts to keep the order, but these restrictions must not be too harsh.

[mischief]

Nor is it a debate about particular politician's views.

This is a debate about the philosophy of Morality and Ethics as they are applied to Law.

If the debate can be kept to the subjects stated all will go smoother and we won't have anyone hiding behind group dynamics.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
The bible is nothing but a book of laws, where the consequences are eternal damnation.

No its not, I wish people would really not put assumptions here, the bible is a book about Gods interaction with Earth and the human race. That is the main theme, it only mentions a few times about people going to hell.

Although I do agree religon should be separated from state (it says it in the bible), but the church is one of the only places people are taught about ethics, so if religon goes from school, what will replace it?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by hvfsl
No its not, I wish people would really not put assumptions here, the bible is a book about Gods interaction with Earth and the human race. That is the main theme, it only mentions a few times about people going to hell.

The bible is the longest piece of fiction still in print.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
The bible is the longest piece of fiction still in print.

I seriously doubt it's fiction. For one, events that have gone on in the Bible have been proven as real events. And I really doubt that at least half of the world believes in the bible in some form or another (i.e. the Koran, Torah, and Bible).

[Rower_CPU]

So then stories centered around historical events are real, too?

Wow! Casablanca actually happened like that! ;)

[mischief]

Originally posted by hvfsl
No its not, I wish people would really not put assumptions here, the bible is a book about Gods interaction with Earth and the human race. That is the main theme, it only mentions a few times about people going to hell.

Although I do agree religon should be separated from state (it says it in the bible), but the church is one of the only places people are taught about ethics, so if religon goes from school, what will replace it?

The Bible is only about how the God of Abraham spoke to the Aramaic people followed by a concoction of collected writings assembled and edited by politically ambitious Italians 300 years after the death of Yeshua (Jesus). God has spoken to many other cultures before and since.

Relative to this discussion, however all of this is irrelevant.

Ethics can be taught through the Platonic Virtues and subsequent Philosophic writings. If Students want to study religions as Cultural studies they can do that LATER, like say in HS as elective courses.

If the parents can't teach their kids ethics then there are other problems that no school prayer session can solve. Religious study in public schools is unconstitutional by definition if it's part of the curriculum or led by staff.

[shadowfax]

the bible is not a work of fiction, even if you don't believe the spiritual side of it. it's highly historically supported.

why you people let this devolve into a discussion of the bible's validity, though, i don't know.

mischief, i think you should stop with your "ethics" being better than "morals" trip. there is no science of morals per se that is somehow superior to religion. you can sit there and try to analyze right and wrong from your own "tabula rasa" native reason and draw your own conclusions, but in your mind, how does that make your, or "science's" conclusions about morals superior to the morals of someone who derived his morals from religion? to say that religious people are less analytical about it is an argument from ignorance. you don't have the knowledge to say that.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by mischief
But that's the question isn't it? Is the conviction the key or is the recoverability of the felon's mind?

If the existing system is considered the appropriate one it would seem that for convicted murderers the case is one of punnishment reguardless of mental status. It becomes a simple matter of Roman style punnishment with no reguard for compassion at all.

If we just put everybody who commits murder into fuzzy rooms for the rest of thier lives, or parts of their lives, we would have a much higher murder rate. Heck, convicted felons get cable TV, a comfy bed, workout facilities, and three meals a day, and they don't have to lift a finger to get any of it.

With capital punishment, we show murders that we will not tolerate it at all. You set the example. Commit the crime, pay the price. If the price is your life, I'm sure a lot less people would consider murdering others.

I also think we need to change our prison system, so that every prision, state, federal, county, or whatever, has small brick cells, a thin mattress on a wodden bed, no TV, no workout room, and just enough food to get by. Prisoners should have to work all day, paying for their stay in prison, that way us taxpayers don't have to take care of it. A prison in Arizona took care of the costs by making their prision a tent city surrounded by barbed wire, giving the prisoners pink clothes, and making them work all day long. It worked. The prisoners paid their price, and the taxpayers didn't pay as much for the prison.

These are just my opinions on this topic...

[mischief]

Originally posted by Shadowfax

mischief, i think you should stop with your "ethics" being better than "morals" trip. there is no science of morals per se that is somehow superior to religion. you can sit there and try to analyze right and wrong from your own "tabula rasa" native reason and draw your own conclusions, but in your mind, how does that make your, or "science's" conclusions about morals superior to the morals of someone who derived his morals from religion? to say that religious people are less analytical about it is an argument from ignorance. you don't have the knowledge to say that.

If parents want their kids morally educated through religion that's THEIR responsibility. If you want Morals or Ethics taught in public schoos it falls back to Platonic philosophy.

I have no opinion at all about which is superior nor have I posted any such statement on this thread. Putting words in my mouth will just get you seriously verbally whipped.

Don't assume I have no Faith simply because I haven't told you what format that belief takes. That's incredibly arrogant and insulting.


Let's get away from the Bible shall we? I established this thread to determine by debate what role Law should take in determining the behaviour of the populus. Whose writings you use to relate to the big G are irrelevant to this discusion IF you follow any.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mischief
If parents want their kids morally educated through religion that's THEIR responsibility. If you want Morals or Ethics taught in public schoos it falls back to Platonic philosophy.

I have no opinion at all about which is superior nor have I posted any such statement on this thread. Putting words in my mouth will just get you seriously verbally whipped.

Don't assume I have no Faith simply because I haven't told you what format that belief takes. That's incredibly arrogant and insulting.


Let's get away from the Bible shall we? I established this thread to determine by debate what role Law should take in determining the behaviour of the populus. Whose writings you use to relate to the big G are irrelevant to this discusion IF you follow any.
i didn't tell you you had no faith; now it's you putting words into my mouth.

let's stop that. i'm sorry for accusing you of thinking platonic morals superior to religious morals; from the tone i inferred from some of your posts, it sounded like it, but perhaps i was wrong. my issue is that, in the abortion thread, for instance, we can say that murder is wrong, and can be accused (if indirectly) by you of bringing religion into it. as you point out, it just happens that murder and theft are "proscribed" by both religious moralism and platonic moralism.

yes, let's leave the bible out of the discussion of government laws, shall we?

[mischief]

Originally posted by G4scott
If we just put everybody who commits murder into fuzzy rooms for the rest of thier lives, or parts of their lives, we would have a much higher murder rate. Heck, convicted felons get cable TV, a comfy bed, workout facilities, and three meals a day, and they don't have to lift a finger to get any of it.

With capital punishment, we show murders that we will not tolerate it at all. You set the example. Commit the crime, pay the price. If the price is your life, I'm sure a lot less people would consider murdering others.

I also think we need to change our prison system, so that every prision, state, federal, county, or whatever, has small brick cells, a thin mattress on a wodden bed, no TV, no workout room, and just enough food to get by. Prisoners should have to work all day, paying for their stay in prison, that way us taxpayers don't have to take care of it. A prison in Arizona took care of the costs by making their prision a tent city surrounded by barbed wire, giving the prisoners pink clothes, and making them work all day long. It worked. The prisoners paid their price, and the taxpayers didn't pay as much for the prison.

These are just my opinions on this topic...

http://www.endcapitalpunishment.com/stats/

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/capitalpun/capitalp.html

If the DP is such a deterrant.... why are there more executions than ever before? Wouldn't you think that if it were a deterrant there'd be effectively NO Capital Crimes after eighty some odd years of executions?

The point I was making is that it makes more sense to psychologically screen Capital offenders into 2 categories: Sociopath and redeemable. Then you Humainly Euthanize the Sociopaths. No more of this public execution bull****.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i didn't tell you you had no faith; now it's you putting words into my mouth.

let's stop that. i'm sorry for accusing you of thinking platonic morals superior to religious morals; from the tone i inferred from some of your posts, it sounded like it, but perhaps i was wrong. my issue is that, in the abortion thread, for instance, we can say that murder is wrong, and can be accused (if indirectly) by you of bringing religion into it. as you point out, it just happens that murder and theft are "proscribed" by both religious moralism and platonic moralism.

yes, let's leave the bible out of the discussion of government laws, shall we?

Touche.

Fine. Now can we get down to what your views are in respect to where you draw the line across which the Government should never tread?;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mischief
http://www.endcapitalpunishment.com/stats/

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/capitalpun/capitalp.html

If the DP is such a deterrant.... why are there more executions than ever before? Wouldn't you think that if it were a deterrant there'd be effectively NO Capital Crimes after eighty some odd years of executions?

The point I was making is that it makes more sense to psychologically screen Capital offenders into 2 categories: Sociopath and redeemable. Then you Humainly Euthanize the Sociopaths. No more of this public execution bull****.
now let's argue the DP!
there are more factors to committing a crime than just whether or not there is a death penalty. other factors, such as TV violence, affect the decision to take a life.

it was my understanding that capital punishment these days was by and large filmed (sometimes) euthanasia. it's not like they flay them alive, or even hang them enymore. as for the electric chair, sure. that's pretty brutal. but to take their life via euthanasia is also capital punishment.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mischief
Touche.

Fine. Now can we get down to what your views are in respect to where you draw the line across which the Government should never tread?;)

I'll be mostly libertarian. i despise the idea of allowing the government to monitor me without reasonable suspicion, terrorists or no. but actions taken in public or that effect others should be fair game.

[hvfsl]

You need capital punishment as long as you let people have guns. Also there are some freedoms in the US (and other countries) that you should do without. For example the freedom to choose to wear seat belts. Because of this freedom and to cut down on deaths from people not wearing seatbelts car manufactures now have to redesign their cars. This means turning something that looks like a Ferari into a van. Because the US is the bigest market, car manufactures around the world have to adhere to this US law.

[Kyle?]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
Prayer in school is in DIRECT violation of separation between church and state.

On separation of church and state. (http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html)
This links to the original usage of the phrase 'church and state.' Interestingly, this wall was meant to hold back the government from persecuting religions, not to repress religious expression.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Kyle?
On separation of church and state. (http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.jeffers.2.html)
This links to the original usage of the phrase 'church and state.' Interestingly, this wall was meant to hold back the government from persecuting religions, not to repress religious expression.


Ah the old debate.....

The origins of the separation were, indeed to preserve religious freedom on the one hand. However the prevention of an "official" Religion was also a defining priority to the founders who knew quite well the dangers of allowing Religion to determine or direct policy.

Thusly was the compromise of official separation reached. The Government was not to regulate, tax or adopt any religion. There is some violation of that now in that the establishment of Churches of this or that religion require that they be officially recognized as Temples before getting federal tax-exempt status. Some religions have been left out in the cold because they don't qualify under official rules as Temples. Wiccans come to mind.

Repression of religious expression is quite different from prevention of religious cerimony conducted by government workers while operating in their official capacity.

There's a double standard here. Those who argue that it's persecution to prevent school prayer as part of the school day would, I'm sure be quite uncomfortable with Muslim students working their daily prayer schedule into the classroom's routine because it would be both more often and more alien. No. It's better to at most provide non-denominationally endowed rooms for prayer that go unstaffed but for janitorial and let the students use the space as needed.

[Kyle?]

You raise good points.

The founding fathers were deeply religious, and, in many cases participated in state sponsored religious activity. (I'll try to get some links). However, I can't possibly think they would want to force religion on people who simply don't believe as they did. They didn't really face that problem in their era, though. But forced religion seems to have just the opposite effect, polarizing those it tried to convert. My view is that religious expression should be allowed by staff, but they should take care not to engage in public religious activities if there is anyone who objects. They should, however, be allowed to express their religious views to students, presented as such. After all, even the strongest atheist has a "religious" code they adhere to. It just goes by a different name. (ethics, morals, guiding principles, whatever) We all hold beliefs, every scientific fact must be accepted as belief. Though viewed as more tangible, belief in this world, in current events, physical phenomena, human psychology, etc, etc, still require a basic human characteristic called faith. It's what differentiates us from mechanical and biological machines.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Kyle?
You raise good points.

The founding fathers were deeply religious, and, in many cases participated in state sponsored religious activity. (I'll try to get some links). However, I can't possibly think they would want to force religion on people who simply don't believe as they did. They didn't really face that problem in their era, though. But forced religion seems to have just the opposite effect, polarizing those it tried to convert. My view is that religious expression should be allowed by staff, but they should take care not to engage in public religious activities if there is anyone who objects. They should, however, be allowed to express their religious views to students, presented as such. After all, even the strongest atheist has a "religious" code they adhere to. It just goes by a different name. (ethics, morals, guiding principles, whatever) We all hold beliefs, every scientific fact must be accepted as belief. Though viewed as more tangible, belief in this world, in current events, physical phenomena, human psychology, etc, etc, still require a basic human characteristic called faith. It's what differentiates us from mechanical and biological machines.

Bingo.

The line has to be drawn at instances that begin with phrases like " Class, we'll now have a moment of Prayer for x or y."

It's a common procedure to use a "moment of silence" for this in other countries to allow a nondenominational pause to reflect on this or that as you see fit. The line can be crossed here also by inserting such moments in the context of particular lesson plans that "spin" the moment of silence in a denominational direction.

[mcrain]

How many wars have been fought for the purpose of making "god" happy? How many wars have been fought on Her behalf?

Get rid of the concept of god, get rid of many wars?

[mischief]

Originally posted by mcrain
How many wars have been fought for the purpose of making "god" happy? How many wars have been fought on Her behalf?

Get rid of the concept of god, get rid of many wars?

Nah. Revise the concept. Better to go with the oldest Pagan beliefs: The One loves U just for existing.

[h'biki]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
mischief, i think you should stop with your "ethics" being better than "morals" trip. there is no science of morals per se that is somehow superior to religion. you can sit there and try to analyze right and wrong from your own "tabula rasa" native reason and draw your own conclusions, but in your mind, how does that make your, or "science's" conclusions about morals superior to the morals of someone who derived his morals from religion? to say that religious people are less analytical about it is an argument from ignorance. you don't have the knowledge to say that.

i'm glad you've accepted the idea that ethics = the science of morality.


:)

you can be religious and ethical and you can also be areligious and unethical.

if we take the 'science of morality' to mean the application of critical reasoning to morality then it does not by definition exclude religion - afterall, ethics has its roots in theology.

but i would content that religious people are likely to accept the morality of their religion prima facie... afterall, religion is often shown to be shrinked-wrap ethics. follow this religion and you'll be a good person.

my father has a BA degree from when he was in the Seminary and he (apparently) studied Philosophy. The Philosophy taught there wasn't, however, philosophy in the contemporary meaning. He was taught religious dogma by rote. Y'know: "God is perfect. Not-existing is not perfect. Therefore God Exists".

So why do I think ethics is 'superior' to morality? Consistency.

We live in a morally pluralist world. In such a word hypocrisy is the greatest sin. No better argument against one person's morality than their own hypocrisy.

Ethics seeks to reduce the 'cognitive dissonance' in our (moral) belief systems.

No worldview will ever be truly consistent - the universe is full of paradoxes which we may never be able to reason our way out of - but we keep on striving (perhaps because, as cosmologist Paul Davies proposes life is characterised by the creation of order).

This is why I believe that ethics is the superior basis for law.

As Blackstone argued in his 'Commentaries' (published during the American War of Independence and highly influential on the development of American Law and law in general) one of the fundamentals of common law is consistency.

To wit:

Law without consistency is arbitary power. It is through consistency that the Law gains normative authority. (Though there are also other ways for Law to gain normative authority).

Even the Courts of Equity, which are discretionary courts (unlike Common Law Courts) have a set of principles which gives them consistency and normative authority.

Normative authority is key. If you do not have normative authority then people won't follow the law and insitutions won't enforce the law and then its only law in name and not law in practice.

[charboneau]

Originally posted by G4scott

With capital punishment, we show murders that we will not tolerate it at all. You set the example. Commit the crime, pay the price. If the price is your life, I'm sure a lot less people would consider murdering others.

These are just my opinions on this topic...
Then why does Texas, which zealously executes its murderers, have such a high murder rate? How about Canada which has no death penalty and a low murder rate.

Of course that is just your opinion, which could perhaps be influenced by the mountains of evidence that the death penalty is not a deterent. But this is not the time in history for people to be bothered by facts.