[QUOTE=The JoZ]Is/Ought Fallacy.

Just because something SHOULD be a certain way doesn't mean it's a valid reason for justifying it. [/quote] i know this as well, i was just stating what the US could be doing to help fellow man, which is also in the bible[quote]



And as stated, that's the crux of the argument. Because everyone's beliefs are different, we cannot legislate based on personal spiritual or religious beliefs, because that's not what this country stands for. We have freedom from being forced into them, or having them forced upon us by the government. Legislating abortion as illegal, for example, because the Bible says so or because someone thinks it is morally wrong, would be a violation of those rights.[/quote]
isn't it a violation of my rights, that they aren't takeing into consideration everyones rights when deciding legislation on this issue and others?[quote]



Maybe my point here has been misunderstood. Some politicans are always going to be influenced by their beliefs. That's fine, there's nothing I can do to stop that, and it shouldn't be stopped. But when Bush wants to go around talking about God this, and God that...or when people want to make references to the Bible and say "We ought to make a law against ____, because it's in the Bible" or whatever. That's what I don't want, and that's what we shouldn't have.[/QUOTE]

i agree that we shouldn't have that eather, why? because it would cloug up the legal system and nothing that should take pririty over thses issues would be acomplished.

lowsound

[url]http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/[/url]

^^^Read it if you want, y'all. Keep in mind that I posted this because I'm canadian and don't know much about the U.S. constitution. I just googled up the phrase "Arguments for seperation of Church and State".

[QUOTE=The JoZ]


And as stated, that's the crux of the argument. Because everyone's beliefs are different, we cannot legislate based on personal spiritual or religious beliefs, because that's not what this country stands for. We have freedom from being forced into them, or having them forced upon us by the government. Legislating abortion as illegal, for example, because the Bible says so or because someone thinks it is morally wrong, would be a violation of those rights.
[/QUOTE]

also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]iisn't it a violation of my rights, that they aren't takeing into consideration everyones rights when deciding legislation on this issue and others?i[/QUOTE]

It's not logistically possible to please every single person in a democracy. It just isn't going to happen. Your rights are not being violated if someone doesn't take the Bible into account.

By your logic, my rights have been violated because they didn't take into consideration that I want to drink at age 18.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Chlamydiherpasyphalis?[/QUOTE]



maybe :upset:

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound[/QUOTE]

...Once again, right back to the difference of beliefs.

What I consider good morality is not necessarily agreed on by most conservatives, or other people in general.

Morals, for the most part, are subjective. Sure, it can be said they are rooted in religion...but how I interpret/practice my religion versus the way you do yours might be different.

Being Christian and having good morals are not mutually exclusive. Non-Christians can have good morals, and Christians can have no morals.

We cannot legislate based on morality.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]It's not logistically possible to please every single person in a democracy. It just isn't going to happen. Your rights are not being violated if someone doesn't take the Bible into account.

By your logic, my rights have been violated because they didn't take into consideration that I want to drink at age 18.[/QUOTE]

your rights have been violated, how can the government expect us to go die for our country if we can't go out and get drunk legally first. or we can influance who the most powerful man in the world is but we can't drink? that is ludicris.

/not really on topic

lowsound

[QUOTE=The JoZ]...Once again, right back to the difference of beliefs.

What I consider good morality is not necessarily agreed on by most conservatives, or other people in general.

Morals, for the most part, are subjective. Sure, it can be said they are rooted in religion...but how I interpret/practice my religion versus the way you do yours might be different.

Being Christian and having good morals are not mutually exclusive. Non-Christians can have good morals, and Christians can have no morals.

We cannot legislate based on morality.[/QUOTE]

by what you are saying is that we should have no morals in law making??? ok so we take all laws that deal with morals, ok i can now kill people at random rape at random. i know that this violates others rights, but still those laws were made because of morals, not indivigual rights. (in canada this is, i am not sure about the US)

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound[/QUOTE]


morals/beliefs are highly subjective

sorry im joining in this rather late it seems.

Fist off, separation of church and state is a separation, not a removal. The bible can still be taken into account. Especially since this country was founded on biblical beliefs. I have a list of statements in the constitution that relate directly to scriptures. I can post them later if anyone wants to see them. While i agree that it IS impossible to please everyone in a democracy, i think the bible still needs to be considered.

[QUOTE=e p]morals/beliefs are highly subjective[/QUOTE]

everything is, taste for example. you might like steak, i for one don't really like it. the bass that i play is subjective as well. what i am saying is take the most comming beliefs of moral and turn that into law. that will make the most people happy. then when it is discovered to violates others rights, change it so it doesn't

lowsound

everyone is welcmoe in this debate

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]by what you are saying is that we should have no morals in law making??? ok so we take all laws that deal with morals, ok i can now kill people at random rape at random. i know that this violates others rights, but still those laws were made because of morals, not indivigual rights. (in canada this is, i am not sure about the US)

lowsound[/QUOTE]

How can you claim this?

There is nothing in any legal code or document that says the laws made were made out of moral reasoning.

The founding fathers, Jefferson especially, were heavily influenced by the Renaissance thinkers, specifically John Locke. The belief that every man had the right to "Life, liberty and property" (Jefferson changed it to "the pursuit of happiness") was espoused by Locke, and the protection of these rights were espoused in several ways regarding government by those such as Montesquieu and Rousseau.

While I cannot say with any certainty exactly what the founding fathers WERE thinking when they wrote the documents that became the basis for all of our laws as the USA, they were highly influenced by those ideals, and that is most likely where they came from. Murder, rape, etc, violate those rights, thus, they are not permissible in this society.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]everything is, taste for example. you might like steak, i for one don't really like it. the bass that i play is subjective as well. what i am saying is take the most comming beliefs of moral and turn that into law. that will make the most people happy. then when it is discovered to violates others rights, change it so it doesn't

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Here you run into something that had Alexander Hamilton and his buddies all tied up in knots. See, the problem with a democracy is that the majority decides the direction of the country. This leads to what they called "Tyranny of the Majority." They tried to provide for this in the Constitution by separating church and state (for example). This means that they don't use the moral yardstick of the majority to legislate the minority. If ya don't like democracy, there are governments where the minority leads. They're called oligarchys, aristocracies...you get the idea. Minority rule doesn't work so good either.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]How can you claim this?

There is nothing in any legal code or document that says the laws made were made out of moral reasoning.

The founding fathers, Jefferson especially, were heavily influenced by the Renaissance thinkers, specifically John Locke. The belief that every man had the right to "Life, liberty and property" (Jefferson changed it to "the pursuit of happiness") was espoused by Locke, and the protection of these rights were espoused in several ways regarding government by those such as Montesquieu and Rousseau.

While I cannot say with any certainty exactly what the founding fathers WERE thinking when they wrote the documents that became the basis for all of our laws as the USA, they were highly influenced by those ideals, and that is most likely where they came from. Murder, rape, etc, violate those rights, thus, they are not permissible in this society.[/QUOTE]

i was giving a point that these ideals are bassed in morals. you said to take morals out of law making. those morals/ideals are bassed on the old testiment of the bible. therefore brining the bible back into this debate

lowsound

Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Here you run into something that had Alexander Hamilton and his buddies all tied up in knots. See, the problem with a democracy is that the majority decides the direction of the country. This leads to what they called "Tyranny of the Majority." They tried to provide for this in the Constitution by separating church and state (for example). This means that they don't use the moral yardstick of the majority to legislate the minority. If ya don't like democracy, there are governments where the minority leads. They're called oligarchys, aristocracies...you get the idea. Minority rule doesn't work so good either.[/QUOTE]

no government can satisfy everyone, democricy works the best in my books because it saticfys that majority of the people. it is unfarntunate that we can't saticfy everyone, but this is the way that it works. but the beauty of democricy is that you can voice your opinion when you don't likw something and you can try to get it changed, its really hard to but it's possable.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Noushi]Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.[/QUOTE]

no that really changes the debate, very good point.

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]i was giving a point that these ideals are bassed in morals. you said to take morals out of law making. those morals/ideals are bassed on the old testiment of the bible. therefore brining the bible back into this debate

lowsound[/QUOTE]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).

[QUOTE=Noushi]Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.[/QUOTE]

It's a two-way street, yo. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that a) government wouldn't interfere with civil liberties and b) nothing would come between the will of the people and the legislators.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).[/QUOTE]

Spot on :thumb:

I'd rep you again, but I can't :upset:

[QUOTE=super deluxe]I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).[/QUOTE]

first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound

Hey guys

hey ry welcome to debate central, just join in if you are the political type

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

But that doesn't mean anything.

They based their political philosophies on secular things. They didn't say "God believes life is sacred, therefore murder is illegal" or anything like that. They talked about our secular rights, and how they should be protected, and that is mainly where the founding fathers got their inspiration from, and that's what our government is based on, not morals or God.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Uh, no not really. Thomas Hobbes says that in the state of nature, life is "nasty, brutish, and short", and people are constantly out to take advantage of each other. Without an overarching power to "keep them in awe" people will knock each other over the head and take stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, has a state of nature where property conflict leads to the creation of the social contract.

Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]But that doesn't mean anything.

They based their political philosophies on secular things. They didn't say "God believes life is sacred, therefore murder is illegal" or anything like that. They talked about our secular rights, and how they should be protected, and that is mainly where the founding fathers got their inspiration from, and that's what our government is based on, not morals or God.[/QUOTE]

but what you failed to see in my point is that the same things that are "secular" in there eyes are basicly the same thing that is stated in the bible. ya they might have "come up" with their own ideas and ideals but you can still see the root of it in the bible.

lowsound

hmm

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Uh, no not really. Thomas Hobbes says that in the state of nature, life is "nasty, brutish, and short", and people are constantly out to take advantage of each other. Without an overarching power to "keep them in awe" people will knock each other over the head and take stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, has a state of nature where property conflict leads to the creation of the social contract.[/quote] this is addressed in number and deutarominy.[/quote]

Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.[/QUOTE]

i never said that it did, i said "beliefs"

lowsound