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.
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.
Please explain how ANY law can be shown not to be an imposition.
We can disagree as to the manner and extent of the imposition, still, if it's a law it logically equates to imposition - as far as I know anyway.
Please elaborate...if it isn't too much to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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."
You may want to reread the question. I asserted that a group of atheists would be seeking to establish laws (imposition) that favor or promote abortion. It would be imposition, plain and simple. To what degree? Debatable. To what extent? Debatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
Agree in the sense that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy or hypothetical. It seems to me that whatever hypothetical of analogy that either one of us puts forward is going to be picked apart in some fashion. With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION, the law must either be in concurrence with the God view (theism) or the non-God view (atheism). With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION there is no in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
<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.
If it is truly your intention to have an amiable discussion, why insult my intelligence to begin with? You seem to be saying that future implied insults, if objected to, will not be dignified by a response.
Do I sense a chill in the air?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Please give us some examples and evidence to support the claim that secularity is "little more than a fairy tale".
What do you think we've been discussing all this time with respect to how world views impact people (elected officials/judges) and how they are regularly injected into the decision making process? This WHOLE topic is obviously subjective. I have already provided examples. What sort of "evidence" are you looking for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
If secular is defined as neutral, how is it possible to have a neutral law? If secular is defined as non-God (no religion), how would it be possible to have neutrality with respect to the theistic view? I can see where it would be a very convenient definition if one happens to favor the non-God view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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?
My point is SUBJECTIVITY. Whether or not the law is viewed as purely "secular" would apparently depend upon who you ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
Yes, I anticipated that you might disagree. Do we need to go down this rabbit trail? In other words, is exploring this issue further going to help you make a point with respect to the OP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
In what way(s), specifically, does the absence of teaching creation in a science class impede you from practicing your religious beliefs and morality?
Did I mention science class? If the philosophical discussion is broached during science class then, it seems to me that it would only be fair for the teacher to present all the popular alternatives. If the law prohibits this, then it would be imposing the non-God view by implication. While I'm at home teaching the God view, the teacher would be countering such a view. A teachers job is to teach...as the title would imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
Again, any LAW is imposition. We would merely be quibbling over the extent and the degree of the imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
Totally agree. There are tasks that belong to the church and tasks that belong to the state. This principle is rooted in Old Testament scripture. The folly of mixing church and state activities was aptly illustrated during the middle ages and with the state established church in England.
"Congress shall make no law with respect to ESTABLISHMENT..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
What about pro-abortion laws? If it's a law, it's automatically imposition. Any assault on the value of life would clearly be an imposition on my world view. Again, we can haggle as to the extent and degree of the imposition, but there's absolutely no question that it would be imposition if it's law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
If "practical application" does NOT include questions about the belief of gods, the meaning of life, the origins of the universe, etc, sure.
...you're simply determined not to concede the point aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
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.
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.
Is personal bias ALWAYS an issue with respect to atheism vs. theism? No, not always. Is it SOMETIMES an issue? Most assuredly, yes.
What is your world view? Does your world view impact your decision making process with respect to moral decisions?
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.
You mean...not substantiated TO YOU !!
YOUR concept, YOUR definition, YOUR perception of God may be "unsubstantiated"...to YOU. But everybody else isn't governed by "The Universe According to Nozz"!
YOU are the one "crying and tantruming"...about your insistence that "God is not substantiated".
As I've explained to you, et al, before..."God" is a TITLE. That title can be assigned by anybody, to anyone or anything they perceive "God" to be.
GOD EXISTS. Maybe not to you...but to anyone that perceives someone or something as "God", and assigns them/it that title.
EVEN if they assign that title to nothing more than a concept of "God" in their thoughts...if their thoughts as respects the concept of "God" REALLY DO EXIST...then GOD EXISTS.
See...you can't reasonably compare "God" to "a page of statistics". One is information based on something...the other is a conceptual title that can be assigned to ANYTHING or ANYBODY.
The title of "God" CAN be assigned to a fantasy...so, if that fantasy REALLY exists in the mind/thoughts or someone...and anyone assigns the title of "God" to that fantasy...then, "GOD EXISTS". You need to get hip to that.
The better analogy is to compare "God" to "beauty".
All there needs be for "beauty" to exist...is for anyone, anywhere to perceive something/someone (even something/someone they only thought of) as "beautiful"---Same with "God".
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.]
I'm confused. You say the decision was legally sound. Then you accuse the judges of showing an atheistic bias in the decision. The former is objective that is backed up by the Consitution, the latter is subjective based on a belief.
I'm confused. You say the decision was legally sound. Then you accuse the judges of showing an atheistic bias in the decision. The former is objective that is backed up by the Consitution, the latter is subjective based on a belief.
I didn't accuse the majority of being biased, basing the decision on an anti-religion bias. I Did acknowledge that "bias, the times, maybe even a flip of a coin can enter decisions of any type." Dred Scott was a good example of when 'the times' entered the decision as have judges rulings on other racial, gender, role of government [New Deal, for example] issues.
I didn't accuse the majority of being biased, basing the decision on an anti-religion bias. I Did acknowledge that "bias, the times, maybe even a flip of a coin can enter decisions of any type." Dred Scott was a good example of when 'the times' entered the decision as have judges rulings on other racial, gender, role of government [New Deal, for example] issues.
So, regardless of the bias, it was a win for the law of the land as opposed to the corruption from religiosity. Let us leave it at that.
Please explain how ANY law can be shown not to be an imposition.
We can disagree as to the manner and extent of the imposition, still, if it's a law it logically equates to imposition - as far as I know anyway.
Please elaborate...if it isn't too much to ask.
I clearly stated that there "may be", not that there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You may want to reread the question. I asserted that a group of atheists would be seeking to establish laws (imposition) that favor or promote abortion. It would be imposition, plain and simple. To what degree? Debatable. To what extent? Debatable.
How would that law be an atheistic imposition? It doesn't force you to abandon your world view, support abortion or have an abortion. What atheistic imposition is there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Agree in the sense that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy or hypothetical. It seems to me that whatever hypothetical of analogy that either one of us puts forward is going to be picked apart in some fashion. With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION, the law must either be in concurrence with the God view (theism) or the non-God view (atheism). With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION there is no in between.
Good enough for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If it is truly your intention to have an amiable discussion, why insult my intelligence to begin with? You seem to be saying that future implied insults, if objected to, will not be dignified by a response.
That's my whole point - I didn't insult your intelligence! In fact, I have no idea why you keep insisting on interpreting my actions as such. I assure you, they are merely an incorrect inference on your part and were not intended as such on my part. I have absolutely no control over what you "read into" my posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Do I sense a chill in the air?
At this point, I honestly have no idea what you sense in the air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What do you think we've been discussing all this time with respect to how world views impact people (elected officials/judges) and how they are regularly injected into the decision making process? This WHOLE topic is obviously subjective. I have already provided examples. What sort of "evidence" are you looking for?
Hypotheticals are not evidence or examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If secular is defined as neutral, how is it possible to have a neutral law? If secular is defined as non-God (no religion), how would it be possible to have neutrality with respect to the theistic view? I can see where it would be a very convenient definition if one happens to favor the non-God view.
Secular is not defined as "neutral". I'd copy/paste the Webster definition for you, but you'd no doubt see that as an insult to your intellect. Secular is a separation of religion and government. As such, it is absolutely possible to enact laws that are completely separate from religion/theism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My point is SUBJECTIVITY. Whether or not the law is viewed as purely "secular" would apparently depend upon who you ask.
No reasonable person, let alone a court of law, would ever agree to any case made for speed limits being non-secular. Yes, this, along with myriad other legal issues, is somewhat subjective. You still need evidence and reason to back up your assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Yes, I anticipated that you might disagree. Do we need to go down this rabbit trail? In other words, is exploring this issue further going to help you make a point with respect to the OP?
Do you feel this subject is off-topic? I certainly don't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Did I mention science class? If the philosophical discussion is broached during science class then, it seems to me that it would only be fair for the teacher to present all the popular alternatives. If the law prohibits this, then it would be imposing the non-God view by implication. While I'm at home teaching the God view, the teacher would be countering such a view. A teachers job is to teach...as the title would imply.
No, you simply mentioned school. I pointed out that the discussion of creationism is absolutely allowed in public schools, under the correct context, i.e. philosophy, not science. A teacher's job is to teach. A science teacher's job is to teach science - not philosophy. Also, I don't believe that spontaneous discussion has ever been the issue. It has always been centered around adding creationism to the curriculum. That is a horse of an entirely different color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, any LAW is imposition. We would merely be quibbling over the extent and the degree of the imposition.
No, it's not. Teaching about creationism in a religion/philosophy/mythology class is completely secular. Teaching it in science class is not. Science deals in facts and evidence and there is NO measurable evidence to support creationism. *IF* it were included in the curriculum of a science class, THAT would be non-secular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Totally agree. There are tasks that belong to the church and tasks that belong to the state. This principle is rooted in Old Testament scripture. The folly of mixing church and state activities was aptly illustrated during the middle ages and with the state established church in England.
"Congress shall make no law with respect to ESTABLISHMENT..."
I'm glad we agree on this, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
What about pro-abortion laws? If it's a law, it's automatically imposition. Any assault on the value of life would clearly be an imposition on my world view. Again, we can haggle as to the extent and degree of the imposition, but there's absolutely no question that it would be imposition if it's law.
You still haven't explained how this imposes atheism on you. It would seem that you are saying that the mere existence of abortions in our shared reality is an imposition of atheism. Surely I'm misunderstanding that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...you're simply determined not to concede the point aren't you?
I'm simply trying to be consistent with your definition of "world view". With the provisos I detailed in the post you quoted, I have already conceded the point.
You may want to reread the question. I asserted that a group of atheists would be seeking to establish laws (imposition) that favor or promote abortion. It would be imposition, plain and simple. To what degree? Debatable. To what extent? Debatable.
Imposition requires coercion or force under penalty of the law. How does a law allowing abortion coerce YOU or force YOU to do anything?
Quote:
Agree in the sense that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy or hypothetical. It seems to me that whatever hypothetical of analogy that either one of us puts forward is going to be picked apart in some fashion. With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION, the law must either be in concurrence with the God view (theism) or the non-God view (atheism). With respect to PRACTICAL APPLICATION there is no in between.
Which view are the traffic laws in concurrence with? Your false dichotomy is evident to all who spend any time thinking about it. There are a plethora of laws that have absolutely nothing to do with Theism or Atheism. In a perfect society those would be the ONLY kind of laws in existence.
Quote:
If secular is defined as neutral, how is it possible to have a neutral law? If secular is defined as non-God (no religion), how would it be possible to have neutrality with respect to the theistic view? I can see where it would be a very convenient definition if one happens to favor the non-God view.
Secular has to do with the constraints on behavior that serve a societal purpose in establishing and maintaining social harmony and well-being. It has NOTHING to do with Theism or Atheism, period. There is no justification to use either "world view" to force or coerce ANY behavior on the individuals in society.
Quote:
Did I mention science class? If the philosophical discussion is broached during science class then, it seems to me that it would only be fair for the teacher to present all the popular alternatives.
If it is broached in science class the teacher should simply point out that it is not a science subject.
Quote:
If the law prohibits this, then it would be imposing the non-God view by implication. While I'm at home teaching the God view, the teacher would be countering such a view. A teachers job is to teach...as the title would imply.
It has nothing to do with science and has no business in a science curriculum, period.
Quote:
What about pro-abortion laws? If it's a law, it's automatically imposition. Any assault on the value of life would clearly be an imposition on my world view. Again, we can haggle as to the extent and degree of the imposition, but there's absolutely no question that it would be imposition if it's law.
See above. It is not imposition if it does not force YOU to do anything. It just allows others to do what their conscience allows and prevents YOU from forcing themto comply with YOUR wishes. In principle, it is no different than preventing YOU from forcing them to comply with your wishes that they give you their money or else.
Did I mention science class? If the philosophical discussion is broached during science class then, it seems to me that it would only be fair for the teacher to present all the popular alternatives. If the law prohibits this, then it would be imposing the non-God view by implication. While I'm at home teaching the God view, the teacher would be countering such a view. A teachers job is to teach...as the title would imply.
.)
I couldn't disagree with you more here. The teacher should teach what is supported by mounds and mounds of fact. Fact that can be observed, proven, and reproven over and over again. NOT something that cannot be proven, has no fact to support it, and something you "just have to have faith" in.
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.
