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.
They've been repeatedly struck down due to certain world view preferences held by those who do the strike downs. The people can change this...which is absolutely as it should be.
So when the USSC struck down prayer in school by a 6-1 vote, the majority 6 did so because of their atheistic 'world view preferences' rather than their view of what the constitution demands ? And the 1 vote was based on a theistic world view rather than his interpretation of the constitution ?
So when the USSC struck down prayer in school by a 6-1 vote, the majority 6 did so because of their atheistic 'world view preferences' rather than their view of what the constitution demands ? And the 1 vote was based on a theistic world view rather than his interpretation of the constitution ?
I'm not a mind reader, are you?
I think it logical to approach this from the understanding that all people (this would include judges/justices) have a world view and, to some extent, it will influence their decision making. In other words, they would naturally be inclined to interpret previous laws and court precedents according to personal biases. The call to so called "secular neutrality" is subliminal. Anyone can make a biased decision and then turn around and declare that they were being "neutral" throughout the process.
It seems to me that the court system does not guarantee justice. It is only a method by which we try to achieve justice.
I think it logical to approach this from the understanding that all people (this would include judges/justices) have a world view and, to some extent, it will influence their decision making. In other words, they would naturally be inclined to interpret previous laws and court precedents according to personal biases. The call to so called "secular neutrality" is subliminal. Anyone can make a biased decision and then turn around and declare that they were being "neutral" throughout the process.
It seems to me that the court system does not guarantee justice. It is only a method by which we try to achieve justice.
Okeydokey, you go in a circle. You take a decision regarding religion/non-religion, then from your personal belief that everyone has and always applies an atheist/theist world view, you conclude that the 'world view' did or might have or subliminally causes the outcome. When in fact the logical and reasonable explanation is the judges reached a decision based on their judicial training, experience, perspective about the proper way to interpret and apply the constitution.
Okeydokey, you go in a circle. You take a decision regarding religion/non-religion, then from your personal belief that everyone has and always applies an atheist/theist world view, you conclude that the 'world view' did or might have or subliminally causes the outcome. When in fact the logical and reasonable explanation is the judges reached a decision based on their judicial training, experience, perspective about the proper way to interpret and apply the constitution.
I'm a natural skeptic. Am I supposed to believe that they "reached a decision based on their judicial training, experience, perspective about the proper way to interpret and apply the constitution" without ANY personal bias, simply because you say so?
Would you say that this is how SCOTUS determined the Trinity and Dred Scott decisions?
So when the USSC struck down prayer in school by a 6-1 vote, the majority 6 did so because of their atheistic 'world view preferences' rather than their view of what the constitution demands ? And the 1 vote was based on a theistic world view rather than his interpretation of the constitution ?
The constitution demands protection of minority. So, even though the majority will call it "atheistic behavior", the fact is that the law doesn't promote the will of the majority (religion). Hence the decision. Take fundamentalist Islamic nations for example, they have gotten around this inconvenience by using the rule of the majority religion using Sharia.
My apologies. I take it that you still agree that ALL law is imposition.
In the broad sense, yep. There may very well be a minority of laws that can be shown to NOT be imposition, but that's neither here nor there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Okay, in my hypothetical I posited a group of atheists as seeking to establish law that expands the practice of abortion. I also posited the group of theists seeking to establish laws that limit abortion. The world views are obviously off-setting. If the theists actually succeed in establishing laws that run contrary to the atheistic view, they would be forcing the atheist group to abide by law that they oppose, thereby creating the imposition. If the group of atheists suceed in establishing laws that run counter to the theistic view, they would similarly be imposing that view upon the theists.
As an aside, I take the personal view that the legalizing of abortion is an imposition simply because it runs counter to my world view. I'm quite sure that any efforts to limit abortion would be similarly recieved by those who espouse "abortion rights."
I believe you're still missing a key aspect of our little abortion scenario - legalized abortion does nothing to force people who are against abortion to have an abortion or support abortions from a moral perspective. Banning abortions DOES force people not to have abortions. Going back to LogicIsYourFriend's post stating "'Imposing a ban on something' is an imposition. But 'not imposing a ban on something' is the opposite of imposition."
This may or may not be a theistic issue, however, as I'm certain there are plenty of atheists that are anti-abortion. Not a great example, but it's one we've been using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Insulting my intelligence again? Like I don't already know what the thread is about?
<SIGH> Are you *really* going to trot this strawman out every time I attempt to be clear about something? I will not respond to this in the future, FYI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My point here was that political affiliation DOES impact law-making as well as judicial appointments. "Secular neutrality" amounts to little more than a fairy tale.
Please give us some examples and evidence to support the claim that secularity is "little more than a fairy tale".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You've asked a presuppositional question. You're assuming that there is such a thing as a "secular" law and that we both already have a mutual understanding as to what a "secular" law might be.
Do you disagree that there IS such a thing as a secular law? Yes, I assumed we both had working knowledge of what a secular law is - I described my interpretation of what a non-secular law would be more than once in this thread and I heard no objections to that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Is the speed limit a "secular" law, theistic law or an atheistic law? In other words, did the people who established the law base it's need according to their individual world views? One could argue that the speed limit is "religiously" based if, those who established the law were motivated by their personal "religious" convictions, even though it's perfectly reasonable to view speed limits as mutually benficial to society as a whole.
One could argue whatever they have a mind to, they would be hard pressed to show that speed limits were NOT secular, however. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I would say that laws that prohibit teachers in public schools from postulating creation as an alternative explanation to the "time + chance + matter" hypothesis stand out as a major imposition of the atheistic view.
And I would strongly disagree. If it's a philosophy or mythology class, talk about creation to your heart's content. If it is a science class, there is no legitimate scientific data to point to creation as a plausible theory, so to include it in a science class would absolutely be non-secular. You would be including it for strictly religious reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This (excluding creation) would be a direct imposition upon my family in a public school setting as they would be teaching a view that is directly opposed to my world view and the world view that I am attempting to inculcate in the home.
In what way(s), specifically, does the absence of teaching creation in a science class impede you from practicing your religious beliefs and morality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm fine with public schools offering the non-God view. As well, I see no reason as to why teachers should be barred from INFORMING students of the alternative. If roles were reversed, and teachers were barred from offering the time + chance + matter hypothesis and ONLY offered the view of creation, I would also view this as direct imposition upon those holding to a differing viewpoint.
See my comment above - I think it would wholly depend on WHAT subject matter was being taught. To my knowledge there is no ban on talking about creationism in philosophy or other non-science classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
That said, I naturally view all law that runs counter to my world view as imposition and I would expect that atheists would view laws running counter to their world views as imposition as well.
I would disagree, but I can't speak for all atheists. Laws allowing believers to do, or not do, something based solely on their religious beliefs are A-OK with me, as long as they don't directly impact me. Laws forcing me, in any way, to comport to religious belief or dogma are not at all OK. Just like I wouldn't be OK with any laws preventing people from practicing the religion of their choice, provided that practice doesn't effect others. My rights end where they begin to infringe upon yours and vice versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...and what does your dialog with Greenspan have to do with me? I manage my own discussions. Greenspan isn't responsible for me and I'm not responsible for Greenspan.
OK, ignore the bit about Greenspan. My post you quoted still applied to you, specifically, and still does. You still have yet to produce a law that imposes atheism on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Do you agree that with respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION of a world view, that there is only the God view (theism) and the non-God view (atheism)?
If "practical application" does NOT include questions about the belief of gods, the meaning of life, the origins of the universe, etc, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Oh, I certainly agree that it's highly unlikely. With respect to the issue of a governement of, by and for the people, I just wanted to make it clear that the people get the final word - not SCOTUS.
My point was that the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on what is or isn't Constitutional based on what the Constitution is at that point in time. Nothing more. Obviously the Constitution can be amended or that future Justices may overturn past decisions.
I'm a natural skeptic. Am I supposed to believe that they "reached a decision based on their judicial training, experience, perspective about the proper way to interpret and apply the constitution" without ANY personal bias, simply because you say so?
Would you say that this is how SCOTUS determined the Trinity and Dred Scott decisions?
Is personal bias regarding a Particular issue the same as an atheist/theist world view ? I know bias, the times, maybe even a flip of a coin can enter decisions of any type. What I reject is your opinion that some overriding conscious or subliminal 'world view' rules.
No . I dont want to because youre so biased not wanting God to even exist..that youd deny him even if he were nose to nose with you.
False. It is nothing to do with "bias" or "want".
If someone was trying to set up new laws based on a page of statistics, but the person was unable to substantiate those statistics in ANY WAY then I would resist his use of that page of statistics and his suggestions for policy changes.
Him crying and tantruming that "I am biased against his page of statistics and I do not want them to be true statistics" would not for one moment change the fact that the page is just a page of made up numbers which he is unable or unwilling to even attempt to substantiate. He can scream "bias" until he expires in front of me, but that does not make the page of numbers true, valid or unmissable.
Your claim there is a god is the same as that page of statistics. Entirely and wholly unsubstantiated in any way. Therefore I resist the use of that fantasy when discussing laws and policies. Screaming "bias" over and over is just a canard and a cop out. You can scream it all you like, it does not suddenly mean your false claims are substantiated.
So yes, there is a bias. But it is not the bias you want to imagine it is. The bias is against unsubstantiated claims. I am biased against unsubstantiated claims. I will likely always be. And I have not once ever been shown why it is wrong to be.
Is personal bias regarding a Particular issue the same as an atheist/theist world view ? I know bias, the times, maybe even a flip of a coin can enter decisions of any type. What I reject is your opinion that some overriding conscious or subliminal 'world view' rules.
If the decision has gone in the direction favoring the majority (and you would be happy about it), would you have accused the judges of being biased, and decision being primarily based on them being Christians? Yes?
If the decision has gone in the direction favoring the majority (and you would be happy about it), would you have accused the judges of being biased, and decision being primarily based on them being Christians? Yes?
What are you talking about ? I'm opposed to prayer in school. I think the decision banning prayer was legally sound. I know, however, that personal opinion, bias can affect what in theory are 100% legal opinions. [My local town attorney does it all the time.]
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.
