The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So if you're a religious person you are supposed to develop a separate set of morals that have no basis in your religious beliefs? That just doesn't make a lick of sense. Morals don't just come in the mail and you install them like a software program. If you are non-religious, then I can understand of course you'd look elsewhere for your basis for your morals, but if you are religious, I just don't get how your religious beliefs can't impact, very likely heavily, your morals.

I agree with you, although non-religious people don't "look elsewhere" for their morals any more than religious people go shopping at Religions R Us -- we're motivated by mostly biographical experiences that thus seem entirely organic and "logical," same as y'all.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Snowe falls.

So to nobody's surprised, Kagan's a done dealio.

Presumably Ginsberg will be next (by age and bad health). Perhaps she'll be the third annual Feb/Mar announcement.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the GOP can get the Senate back to 52-48 or something close like that. Might make the chances of a filibuster a little higher. Which of course would lead to Democrats to have to backtrack mightily from their statements in 2005 about how great a judicial filibuster is. Of course, they'll have to take care not to run into the backtracking Republicans, who will be trying to disavow their statements about what a travesty such a filibuster would be. Fun times.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I agree with you, although non-religious people don't "look elsewhere" for their morals any more than religious people go shopping at Religions R Us -- we're motivated by mostly biographical experiences that thus seem entirely organic and "logical," same as y'all.

That's a fun flow chart, though I can't say that was my process. But then again, I like bacon, so maybe there's something to that chart!

By "look elsewhere" I just meant that for a non-religious person, I assumed religious input wasn't the driving force in how they define their morals, though I'm sure a bit of religious wisdom of some sort could still play a part here and there in forming an overall moral framework.

Actually to me one of the fun things about the Christian God is that he often acts in ways I wouldn't predict. Which is a good thing. I've always said that if a God was small enough that I could fully grasp and understand and fathom him, he wouldn't be much of a God. But, I'm venturing off into areas where folks like Priceless, etc. will jump all over me, so I'll stop now.

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm apparently not a very good Jew. But then again, I've been saying that for YEARS.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So if you're a religious person you are supposed to develop a separate set of morals that have no basis in your religious beliefs? That just doesn't make a lick of sense. Morals don't just come in the mail and you install them like a software program. If you are non-religious, then I can understand of course you'd look elsewhere for your basis for your morals, but if you are religious, I just don't get how your religious beliefs can't impact, very likely heavily, your morals.

No, it just means leave God out of the argument. If you think abortion is murder that is your belief and that is all fine and dandy. (whenever I say that I want to go George Carlin on the bit!) Everyone understands that. Once you start inserting the word of God though, quoting the Bible and making yourself sound righteous though you are not involved in civil discourse, now it is a holy crusade. Hell, lets say I am just as Christian as you are but I happen to believe in choice, if you start preaching the word of God to me not only are you judging my opinion you are judging my belief and my faith. That isnt your place. (and of course I dont mean you Bob personally)

If the argument stays on the facts or opinions that stay out of ecumenical diatribes I think you would see the argument dialed down a notch. Bring in God, and it becomes a holy war.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

No, it just means leave God out of the argument. If you think abortion is murder that is your belief and that is all fine and dandy. (whenever I say that I want to go George Carlin on the bit!) Everyone understands that. Once you start inserting the word of God though, quoting the Bible and making yourself sound righteous though you are not involved in civil discourse, now it is a holy crusade. Hell, lets say I am just as Christian as you are but I happen to believe in choice, if you start preaching the word of God to me not only are you judging my opinion you are judging my belief and my faith. That isnt your place. (and of course I dont mean you Bob personally)

If the argument stays on the facts or opinions that stay out of ecumenical diatribes I think you would see the argument dialed down a notch. Bring in God, and it becomes a holy war.

So people can make every argument under the sun for or against an issue, and can cite anything they want, except their religious beliefs? If a primary basis of my view on an issue is my belief, you are fundamentally hamstringing me, and unnecessarily. And at least it used to be that my view based on my religious beliefs was as legit as someone else's view based on some non-religious source. Yowser.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So people can make every argument under the sun for or against an issue, and can cite anything they want, except their religious beliefs? If a primary basis of my view on an issue is my belief, you are fundamentally hamstringing me, and unnecessarily. And at least it used to be that my view based on my religious beliefs was as legit as someone else's view based on some non-religious source. Yowser.

It's because of a little thing called the first amendment. You're religious beliefs have the exact same power as everyone else's. So in effect they are worthless to use as a justification.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

It's because of a little thing called the first amendment. You're religious beliefs have the exact same power as everyone else's. So in effect they are worthless to use as a justification.

When did they rewrite the First Amendment? I've never seen it remotely say anything like that before. But, nothing much surprises me anymore.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

It's because of a little thing called the first amendment. You're religious beliefs have the exact same power as everyone else's. So in effect they are worthless to use as a justification.

As a justification, yes, but not as informing your decision-making. You can't put "God told me to" in your decision, but you can't put "evolutionary biology programmed me to" either. I don't think that's what Bob is trying to argue for (although obviously he can speak for himself). It's the idea that you're supposed to somehow check your religion in the cloakroom that's onerous and, for that matter, utterly impossible.

To me this is analogous to jury selection out of people who have no knowledge of a case. That has always seemed ludicrous to me and an invitation to stocking juries with only the uninformed and incurious. In the same way, I'd prefer to have judges come out of traditions with deep convictions, frequently and thoroughly exploring and debating moral issues. Otherwise you're left only with the genuinely amoral (those who view the law as a machine and themselves as mere engineers) or with a variety of self- or other-deluding frauds.

Or to put it in a less long-winded way (too late), just because something is a religious tenet doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

As a justification, yes, but not as informing your decision-making. You can't put "God told me to" in your decision, but you can't put "evolutionary biology programmed me to" either. I don't think that's what Bob is trying to argue for (although obviously he can speak for himself). It's the idea that you're supposed to somehow check your religion in the cloakroom that's onerous and, for that matter, utterly impossible.

To me this is analogous to jury selection out of people who have no knowledge of a case. That has always seemed ludicrous to me and an invitation to stocking juries with only the uninformed and incurious. In the same way, I'd prefer to have judges come out of traditions with deep convictions, frequently and thoroughly exploring and debating moral issues. Otherwise you're left only with the genuinely amoral (those who view the law as a machine and themselves as mere engineers) or with a variety of self- or other-deluding frauds.

Or to put it in a less long-winded way (too late), just because something is a religious tenet doesn't mean it's wrong.

Well said.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I know if I wait long enough Kep will type it succinctly and I won't have to try and be coherent and fail even tho I edit my post 100 times

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So if you're a religious person you are supposed to develop a separate set of morals that have no basis in your religious beliefs?

I have "religous morals" Bob just most Christians do. However I set them aside when it comes to arguing for or against enforcing and/or implementing law. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be smarmy here, but what it boils down to for me is that I don't need God to tell me I shouldn't rob or assault someone. One of my comments was...

....but the loudest advocates ignore morality and insist on applying God to the conversation which utterly destroys civil discourse on the matter.

My point is that when religion is brought into the discussion it diverts the conversation in a direction it need not head. I think most would be more apt to listen to an argument that discusses what an abortion is truly like for the fetus than being told the Bible instructs us it's murder.

And please note the comment you quoted that I said "not you" meaning I wasn't trying to pin any specific rationale upon you, even though we had both been engaged in the prior conversation.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So people can make every argument under the sun for or against an issue, and can cite anything they want, except their religious beliefs? If a primary basis of my view on an issue is my belief, you are fundamentally hamstringing me, and unnecessarily. And at least it used to be that my view based on my religious beliefs was as legit as someone else's view based on some non-religious source. Yowser.

You can make whatever argument you want, but you cant use God as your reference then cry about how people attack your religious beliefs or how you cant find any civil discourse. Some people dont like the idea of God Bob whether you like it or not. And if in the middle of a good conversation you start tell me how you are right because God said so it is going to get old real quick and not just because I happen not to believe in God.

Here lets see if you can discern the difference between these two statements, if you can you just might get my point.

"I am against Abortion because it is my belief that it is murder and as a person and a Christian that bothers me."

"I am against Abortion because it is a sin, the bible denounces all killing and God forbids it."

Now I attempted to take all incendiary language out (no attacks in either statement) but one of them leaves open a retort, the other is just proselytizing. It leaves no room for discourse, it is basically "I am right because God said so deal with it you sinner!" Sorry but that isnt civil no matter how much you pretend it is.

So I guess I should amend what I said, it isnt that you use God as an argument, it is HOW you use God as an argument and in this fight it is usually in attack mode. (once again not YOU personally in all of this )

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

even tho I edit my post 100 times

To be fair. I edit my posts 100 times too, but that's because I'm dyslexic.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

To be fair. I edit my posts 100 times too, but that's because I'm dyslexic.

Dyslexics have more fnu!

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You can make whatever argument you want, but you cant use God as your reference then cry about how people attack your religious beliefs or how you cant find any civil discourse. Some people dont like the idea of God Bob whether you like it or not. And if in the middle of a good conversation you start tell me how you are right because God said so it is going to get old real quick and not just because I happen not to believe in God.

Here lets see if you can discern the difference between these two statements, if you can you just might get my point.

"I am against Abortion because it is my belief that it is murder and as a person and a Christian that bothers me."

"I am against Abortion because it is a sin, the bible denounces all killing and God forbids it."

I still don't know if I buy the whole 'your belief system has no place in discussions based on belief'. First, if someone gets upset because you reference the Bible as a reason for your beliefs...IMO that's their own deal.

Maybe I have a different opinion here. But in the end, IMO its always OK to share the basis of your values or opinions (whether its upbringing, science or the Bible). The problem is not bringing up the basis of your beliefs...but rather its the assumption that it applies to the other person or everyone.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I still don't know if I buy the whole 'your belief system has no place in discussions based on belief'. First, if someone gets upset because you reference the Bible as a reason for your beliefs...IMO that's their own deal.

Maybe I have a different opinion here. But in the end, IMO its always OK to share the basis of your values or opinions (whether its upbringing, science or the Bible). The problem is not bringing up the basis of your beliefs...but rather its the assumption that it applies to the other person or everyone.

I think this is a good point. I do agree that if someone tells me the way I should think based on their belief system it is obnoxious. If they try to explain why their beliefs make them feel the way they do that is different. I might not agree but hopefully I will understand.

Really off topic~[However I set them aside when it comes to arguing for or against enforcing and/or implementing law. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be smarmy here, but what it boils down to for me is that I don't need God to tell me I shouldn't rob or assault someone.](another post I forgot to quote) This struck me as odd. Why is bad to leave God in? If your belief system is based upon your faith system how do you leave your God out of your equation? If you have a faith that is a part of how you formed your morals and ethics. How or why would you want to extract that from your decision making process?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So I guess I should amend what I said, it isnt that you use God as an argument, it is HOW you use God as an argument and in this fight it is usually in attack mode. (once again not YOU personally in all of this )

I largely agree with you here. Really though, it's not a point specific to Christians speaking out, but rather to anyone speaking out, as non-Christians can be, and are at times, in attack mode just as much. I actually really enjoy at times hearing from/reading stuff from thoughtful non-Christians who get beyond rhetoric and really think about stuff. A guy like Christopher Hitchens, though I don't tend to agree with him, is a good read.

My only point of disagreement is that you say it is usually in attack mode. I think there's a relatively small vocal minority that tends to be in attack mode, but I think if you step back, you'll realize that the vast majority of Christians are rarely if ever in attack mode. A lot of them probably never speak out on stuff outside the privacy of their home.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I have "religous morals" Bob just most Christians do. However I set them aside when it comes to arguing for or against enforcing and/or implementing law. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be smarmy here, but what it boils down to for me is that I don't need God to tell me I shouldn't rob or assault someone. One of my comments was...

My point is that when religion is brought into the discussion it diverts the conversation in a direction it need not head. I think most would be more apt to listen to an argument that discusses what an abortion is truly like for the fetus than being told the Bible instructs us it's murder.

And please note the comment you quoted that I said "not you" meaning I wasn't trying to pin any specific rationale upon you, even though we had both been engaged in the prior conversation.

But my point is, regardless of whether you are a Christian or Buddhist or non-religious, or whatever, your beliefs, morals, etc. somehow have to derive from somewhere and be anchored in something, or else you'd just float around, not really believing in anything in particular (which I guess happens at times with people, but not most people). You can't realistically create this artificial divide between the religious beliefs of someone, and what they believe and their morals overall. I don't know what you believe or your history, but for me, I can't imagine approaching any issue of importance without giving profound consideration to what the Bible says, and what I believe God leads me to think/do about something (for me, coming from a Christian perspective, obviously not for someone who is not a Christian). But maybe your experience is different, so you really can't relate to my experience? You'd have to inform me on that, but I can only speak from how it works for me.

If you want to understand someone, a powerful part of it is to understand what motivates them and what has brought them to the views/beliefs/morals they have. But, if people just want to rant at each other, as is often the case in this country now, nothing of the sort is of interest.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I largely agree with you here. Really though, it's not a point specific to Christians speaking out, but rather to anyone speaking out, as non-Christians can be, and are at times, in attack mode just as much. I actually really enjoy at times hearing from/reading stuff from thoughtful non-Christians who get beyond rhetoric and really think about stuff. A guy like Christopher Hitchens, though I don't tend to agree with him, is a good read.

My only point of disagreement is that you say it is usually in attack mode. I think there's a relatively small vocal minority that tends to be in attack mode, but I think if you step back, you'll realize that the vast majority of Christians are rarely if ever in attack mode. A lot of them probably never speak out on stuff outside the privacy of their home.

It isnt just Christians And you would be surprised how heated even the passive faithful can get when you bring up certain subjects and they begin to get frustrated. (most of my friends arent hardcore at any religion, but when it comes to something they believe in the arguments devolve into screaming matches quicker than even political talks )