What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
burd said:
I don't think it is illogical for a person to support a policy that is inconsistent with his or her own personal belief. I guess it depends on your concept of infallibility. I think it is possible to have strong personal beliefs yet also understand that most (all, I'd say) of us base our faith on imperfect knowledge and are therefore extremely fallible. So I don't think it's a matter of a lack of conviction or an exercise in moral relativism to support a policy that is inconsistent with your own personal belief.
Click to expand...

If one believes in the separation of church and state it is not illogical at all.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Yet how many here jump all over a holier than thou who then gets caught with the live hooker?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
Yet how many here jump all over a holier than thou who then gets caught with the live hooker?
Click to expand...

It's those who are caught with dead hookers that I have no time for.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
Yet how many here jump all over a holier than thou who then gets caught with the live hooker?
Click to expand...

I think you realize that the reason the Elmer Gantry types are so worthy of scorn is that they tub thump about morality to build their popularity (and fortunes). They themselves are putting it first and foremost. They are setting Theological Purity as the criterion of good citizenship.

So ef them. They made their bed.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This may be beating a dead horse, but here is the genesis of how a Catholic politician can support abortion.

http://unbornwordoftheday.com/2008/...esis-of-us-catholic-pro-abortion-politicians/

(if you want more, Google Kennedy Drinan abortion)

And my take on Separation of Church and State means that there shall be no State Religion. To exclude religion (faith/morality) from the Public Square leads to a big mess.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
This may be beating a dead horse, but here is the genesis of how a Catholic politician can support abortion.

http://unbornwordoftheday.com/2008/...esis-of-us-catholic-pro-abortion-politicians/

(if you want more, Google Kennedy Drinan abortion)

And my take on Separation of Church and State means that there shall be no State Religion. To exclude religion (faith/morality) from the Public Square leads to a big mess.
Click to expand...

What is the definition of morality though? IMO, "faith" and "morality" can be/are mutually exclusive.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
IMO, "faith" and "morality" can be/are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Divine command is only one type of one type (deontological) of ethics, and a questionable one at that. Faith and ethics are independent dimensions and a given person can just as easily occupy any of the four quadrants.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

burd said:
I don't think it is illogical for a person to support a policy that is inconsistent with his or her own personal belief. I guess it depends on your concept of infallibility. I think it is possible to have strong personal beliefs yet also understand that most (all, I'd say) of us base our faith on imperfect knowledge and are therefore extremely fallible. So I don't think it's a matter of a lack of conviction or an exercise in moral relativism to support a policy that is inconsistent with your own personal belief.
Click to expand...
All depends on what the issue is, and as I said, on most issues, I'd agree with what you said. But, on an issue like, say, abortion. If you really personally believe that abortion is killing a human being, I don't see how you don't advocate for any policy that reduces said abortions, recognizing that your side of the issue won't always prevail. That line is there for most people, it's just in different places. To illustrate, an very extreme example would be if you were in Nazi Germany and you personally were against the really bad stuff the Nazis did, yet you didn't oppose it.

I don't really get the infallibility angle your discussing.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bob Gray said:
To illustrate, an very extreme example would be if you were in Nazi Germany and you personally were against the really bad stuff the Nazis did, yet you didn't oppose it.
Click to expand...
It's beyond extreme, it's a bad argument. If you were to openly oppose a Nazi regime policy while living in Germany, it was certain death. If you secretly opposed the regime then it was only death should they find you. Opposing abortion carries none of those consequences. What's the worst that could happen? Someone might mock you openly. It doesn't quite carry the same magnitude of oh-no factor.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bob Gray said:
If you really personally believe that abortion is killing a human being, I don't see how you don't advocate for any policy that reduces said abortions, recognizing that your side of the issue won't always prevail.
Click to expand...
So abortion foes who oppose universal access to birth control are hypocrites?

I bet there's only a handful of people in the whole country who hold that position.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Bob Gray said:
All depends on what the issue is, and as I said, on most issues, I'd agree with what you said. But, on an issue like, say, abortion.
Click to expand...

The person who believes that only by converting to faith X can you avoid eternal torment is in an even worse position. What's pushing up an already guaranteed death date by 85 years compared with an eternity in hell? Any believer who did not advocate forcing everyone to convert to faith X would be the worst hypocrite of all.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

geezer said:
Maybe you're just being silly, otherwise you don't understand what "faith" is.
Click to expand...

Go back and reread it. I was specifically talking about "conversion." I fully understand the idea of holding faith in your heart, thanks.

Bob's example of an overriding moral stance basically precludes somebody from holding office, not just in a democratic state, but in any state that's not a theocracy. As soon as you posit a secular law that takes precedence over a theological command, if you have pledged to uphold the rule of law you have to either be comfortable with violating your conscience or stay out of the political game.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
Go back and reread it. I was specifically talking about "conversion." I fully understand the idea of holding faith in your heart, thanks.

Bob's example of an overriding moral stance basically precludes somebody from holding office, not just in a democratic state, but in any state that's not a theocracy. As soon as you posit a secular law that takes precedence over a theological command, if you have pledged to uphold the rule of law you have to either be comfortable with violating your conscience or stay out of the political game.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's why it's so entertaining to watch the right over and over again claim that we live in a theocracy. We don't.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
Go back and reread it. I was specifically talking about "conversion." I fully understand the idea of holding faith in your heart, thanks.
Click to expand...
I know, that's what I quoted. So how could it ever be possible to "force conversion"? I can't get my head around it. Rather, "force conversion to faith." It might be possible to "force conversion to decaf", but isn't faith generated internally by definition?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

geezer said:
I know, that's what I quoted. So how could it ever be possible to "force conversion"? I can't get my head around it. Rather, "force conversion to faith." It might be possible to "force conversion to decaf", but isn't faith generated internally by definition?
Click to expand...
No. If it were, how could it be so heritable? We believe what we are *TAUGHT* to believe. Forced conversion is extremely possible, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout the millennia.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
The person who believes that only by converting to faith X can you avoid eternal torment is in an even worse position. What's pushing up an already guaranteed death date by 85 years compared with an eternity in hell? Any believer who did not advocate forcing everyone to convert to faith X would be the worst hypocrite of all.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Because fundamentally you can't force anyone to truly convert. To me that runs counter to everything I know and understand about my faith. Can't speak for others who may have different beliefs, but what you posit makes no sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top