Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
May I ask why it is that you agree that the apparent world/political views of those nominated is a vital consideration depending upon the 'flavor' of the nominee and those legislators charged with making the decision to vote up or down?
Because of political affiliation. By and large, Repubs will want "conservative" judges and Dems will want "liberal" judges. Political expedience trumps everything in Washington, in nearly every instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This is extremely helpful information. Would you say that at least some of the decisions you make in your life include God? If so, could you give me some idea as to how they include God?
No, not at all. I see no reason to believe that God exists, so I don't base any decisions based on his possible existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Sorry, I don't know any other way to try to communicate this without posing another hypothetical:
Suppose you're married (I don't know whether you are or not) and your wife comes home and tells you she's been having an affair. She also informs you that she is pregnant and has already decided to have an abortion.
Keeping this hypothetical situation in mind, could you explain how you would negotiate this dilemma as a skeptic/agnostic? Would God be included any of the decisions you would be forced to make?
I think it's important that, if were really going to understand each others view here, that you try to provide a very full and complete elaboration of what your hypothetical actions would be. Not what you would do, specifically, but what would motivate your decisions.
Lots of possible motivators in your scenario, but God is not one of them, for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Honestly, it seems to me that I did answer the question. Doesn't taking an oath qualify as a process? What sort of process would you be looking for?
Personal opinion does not equal a process. Would you agree to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
They were apparently enacted because SCOTUS decided that it would be approved as Constitutional by popular vote within the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS ignores the Constitution, it would appear that there would be a need for the electorate to change the SCOTUS.
Bills do not require SCOTUS pre-approval before being signed into law, to the best of my knowledge. So, the SCOTUS would not have made a decision one way or the other, until the law was appealed all the way up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Right on the money. You're singing my tune.
Right on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...basically, that's it. Just to illustrate that such things tend to be viewed subjectively.
Cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Who is this God that you can believe in without being "religious." I mean, I don't consider myself to be "religious" either, but that's just me. Most people tend to view Christianity as a "religion."
So, you're saying you cannot believe in an intelligent creator and NOT belong to any religion? I think there are several theist members on this board that would strongly disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Indeed I was. I was just curious as to where that statement might appear in the founding documents - if at all.
Nope, not that I'm aware of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
No, we were actually discussing how the world view of the electorate effects the make-up of our government, to include SCOTUS.
Actually, we were talking about the application of the separation of church and state, specifically. As a Constitutional matter, that falls to the SCOTUS as the source of ultimate authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This naturally has a major effect on the type of judges that are eventually appointed. Agree?
Yes, as I stated above, appointing SCOTUS Justices is all too often a matter of political expediency.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
Your first sentence is half right. Secular, because that's the only way for the government to be religiously neutral.
Your second sentence was intended as sarcasm, but just so happens to be correct.
"Imposing atheism" would be to require atheism. Secular laws that do not ban religion or theistic thought or practice are not imposing atheism. E.g. Laws against speeding are not "imposing atheism", but they are secular.
Because of political affiliation. By and large, Repubs will want "conservative" judges and Dems will want "liberal" judges. Political expedience trumps everything in Washington, in nearly every instance.
I note your injection of the terms "Repubs, Dems, Conservative and liberal" into the discussion. This apparently references and addresses the topic of ideology. Very closely aligned/connected to world views. Logically, some of these world views would include God and some would not. This would quite naturally impact the concept of "secular neutrality" would it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
No, not at all. I see no reason to believe that God exists, so I don't base any decisions based on his possible existence.
Then we're back to my assertion about world views with respect to the existence of God. There is the God view and there is the non-God view. Based upon your assertion here, how do we arrive at any other conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Lots of possible motivators in your scenario, but God is not one of them, for me.
...you seem to be saying that you live your life as though God does not exist. The non-God world view. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Personal opinion does not equal a process. Would you agree to that?
Well, I can agree that personal opinion may not necessarily EQUAL process. However, it is obviously a vital ingredient. Supreme Court justices offer OPINIONS as part of the judicial process.
Sorry. I just don't see how SCOTUS can be viewed as the sole arbitrators of constitutionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Bills do not require SCOTUS pre-approval before being signed into law, to the best of my knowledge.
True. I wouldn't object to this. However, my previously posted assertion was intended to apply to situations where legislation already passed into law is challenged in court - ultimately, SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
So, the SCOTUS would not have made a decision one way or the other, until the law was appealed all the way up.
Right. They (SCOTUS) wouldn't decide unless the law was legally challenged. Totally agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Right on.
Cool.
Far out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
So, you're saying you cannot believe in an intelligent creator and NOT belong to any religion? I think there are several theist members on this board that would strongly disagree with you.
My apologies...I left out the question mark. I was simply asking the question. I didn't mean to infer that all theists must or should be considered members of a "religion." Whatever one's view of "religion" happens to be. There is the text book definition of course, but it can be a rather loaded term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Actually, we were talking about the application of the separation of church and state, specifically. As a Constitutional matter, that falls to the SCOTUS as the source of ultimate authority.
In reviewing previously posted assertions, I have a different take. We could attempt to start over or just chalk it up to a sort of protracted confusion.
...to address your point:
If SCOTUS is the FINAL authority I would wonder what became of the Dred Scott and 1892 Trinity decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Yes, as I stated above, appointing SCOTUS Justices is all too often a matter of political expediency.
Well, that's certainly one way to view it. I would be inclined to view it as a necessary process designed to accommodate human nature as had been envisioned by the Founders.
I note your injection of the terms "Repubs, Dems, Conservative and liberal" into the discussion. This apparently references and addresses the topic of ideology. Very closely aligned/connected to world views. Logically, some of these world views would include God and some would not. This would quite naturally impact the concept of "secular neutrality" would it not?
Yes, I would agree that ideology and "world view" are very closely connected, if not nearly two different terms for the same thing.
IMO, secular neutrality would not necessarily be impacted, taking us back to our previous discussions about motivations for voting not always defining the secularity of a law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Then we're back to my assertion about world views with respect to the existence of God. There is the God view and there is the non-God view. Based upon your assertion here, how do we arrive at any other conclusion?
As long as you mean that the "non-God" view doesn't espouse a certainty that gods do NOT exist, I would agree with that statement. Otherwise there are 3 views in play - to include the agnostic view which allows for the possibility that gods exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...you seem to be saying that you live your life as though God does not exist. The non-God world view. Agree?
In the same way that I don't worry what Bigfoot might think about how I live my life, sure. Bigfoot might exist, but I don't see any evidence to lead to that assumption. Same/same for gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Well, I can agree that personal opinion may not necessarily EQUAL process. However, it is obviously a vital ingredient. Supreme Court justices offer OPINIONS as part of the judicial process.
Sorry. I just don't see how SCOTUS can be viewed as the sole arbitrators of constitutionality.
Perhaps "ultimate" is more accurate than "sole" arbitrators?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
True. I wouldn't object to this. However, my previously posted assertion was intended to apply to situations where legislation already passed into law is challenged in court - ultimately, SCOTUS.
Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My apologies...I left out the question mark. I was simply asking the question. I didn't mean to infer that all theists must or should be considered members of a "religion." Whatever one's view of "religion" happens to be. There is the text book definition of course, but it can be a rather loaded term.
Agreed, loaded if often accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
In reviewing previously posted assertions, I have a different take. We could attempt to start over or just chalk it up to a sort of protracted confusion.
I'm A-OK with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...to address your point:
If SCOTUS is the FINAL authority I would wonder what became of the Dred Scott and 1892 Trinity decisions.
Well, the 14th ammendment is what happened to the Dred Scott decision. I'm not familiar with the 1892 Trinity decision. Care to enlighten me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Well, that's certainly one way to view it. I would be inclined to view it as a necessary process designed to accommodate human nature as had been envisioned by the Founders.
For a certainty. However, it would appear that Dems/Repubs often try to stack the deck in the favor of their own party - at least to me.
I really hate to be a pain, but could I get you to respond to post #207? Some of your follow-on assertions have me a bit mystified as to your position on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, I would agree that ideology and "world view" are very closely connected, if not nearly two different terms for the same thing.
IMO, secular neutrality would not necessarily be impacted, taking us back to our previous discussions about motivations for voting not always defining the secularity of a law.
Would it be your contention that the supposed secular neutrality of "Dems, Repubs, Liberals and Conservatives" is not necessarily impacted?
I would certainly agree that secular neutrality (if it's there to begin with) is not going to be NECESSARILY impacted in all situations, however, we are getting into world views and ideology here. Do you catch my drift?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
As long as you mean that the "non-God" view doesn't espouse a certainty that gods do NOT exist, I would agree with that statement. Otherwise there are 3 views in play - to include the agnostic view which allows for the possibility that gods exist.
Based on your previous assertions, you seem to agree that it is impractical for one to have a skeptic/agnostic world view.
This logically leaves us with the God view and the non-God view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
In the same way that I don't worry what Bigfoot might think about how I live my life, sure. Bigfoot might exist, but I don't see any evidence to lead to that assumption. Same/same for gods.
Right. Having an agnostic world view is obviously impractical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Perhaps "ultimate" is more accurate than "sole" arbitrators?
Sorry. I don't even see them as "ultimate" arbitrators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Well, the 14th amendment is what happened to the Dred Scott decision. I'm not familiar with the 1892 Trinity decision. Care to enlighten me?
You're making my point. The 14th amendment trumped the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
Trinity was a rather controversial SCOTUS decision concerning the religious make-up of the people of Pennsylvania. Many tend to view it as ammunition for the argument that America is a Christian nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
For a certainty. However, it would appear that Dems/Repubs often try to stack the deck in the favor of their own party - at least to me.
Quite right. This is a great follow-on to my opening point.
Any Jew, rabbi or not, that believes that, is violating the prohibition against worshiping the one true G-d, and is permanently cut off from Clal Yisroel.
I was mistaken...it wasnt Rabbi Harold Kushner that said he believes the ressurection of Christ happened...but rather Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, as follows :
[CENTER][/CENTER]
"I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event. If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known...not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus."
Do you believe the ressurection of Christ happened ? If so, would you think that something so unprecedented, incredible, and identity-confirming....would only be for the Gentiles and not for everybody including Jews ?
I was mistaken...it wasnt Rabbi Harold Kushner that said he believes the ressurection of Christ happened...but rather Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, as follows :
[CENTER][/CENTER]
"I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event. If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known...not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus."
Do you believe the ressurection of Christ happened ? If so, would you think that something so unprecedented, incredible, and identity-confirming....would only be for the Gentiles and not for everybody including Jews ?
Though the discussion of messianic judaism is off the thread topic... Lapide wasn't a rabbi; he's a self-proclaimed theologian, scholar. He did believe the resurrection happened, but never accepted jesus as fulfilling old testament prophecy for the messiah. For what his opinion is worth.
I really hate to be a pain, but could I get you to respond to post #207? Some of your follow-on assertions have me a bit mystified as to your position on this.
Again, I've been as clear as I know how to be on this topic. In my opinion, the "atheist world view" cannot be forced on you (or any other believer) unless the laws passed somehow prevent you from holding to your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Would it be your contention that the supposed secular neutrality of "Dems, Repubs, Liberals and Conservatives" is not necessarily impacted?
There is no call for the PEOPLE to be secular, only the laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I would certainly agree that secular neutrality (if it's there to begin with) is not going to be NECESSARILY impacted in all situations, however, we are getting into world views and ideology here. Do you catch my drift?
Not really, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Based on your previous assertions, you seem to agree that it is impractical for one to have a skeptic/agnostic world view.
Not at all. Until someone can prove God exists, I will remain a skeptic/agnostic. I don't rule out the possibility of his/its/their existence. I see nothing impractical about allowing for the possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This logically leaves us with the God view and the non-God view.
No. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Right. Having an agnostic world view is obviously impractical.
I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Sorry. I don't even see them as "ultimate" arbitrators.
What authority is higher than the SCOTUS when it comes to evaluating and deciding Constitutional matters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You're making my point. The 14th amendment trumped the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision.
Of course it did! The 14th was ratified AFTER the Dred Scott ruling. The SCOTUS *evaluates* the constitutionality of laws, they don't supercede the Constitution itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Trinity was a rather controversial SCOTUS decision concerning the religious make-up of the people of Pennsylvania. Many tend to view it as ammunition for the argument that America is a Christian nation.
One doesn't have to research very far to see that the Justice who used those words in the decision had this to say later:
Perhaps realizing how his phrasing could create mischief and misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.
So, I'm not sure I see your point...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not familiar with the 1892 Trinity decision. Care to enlighten me?
