The Banned said:

---

The fact that Jesus existed means we can actually attempt to look at the claims made about Him. We may arrive at different conclusion, but we can wrestle with actual facts and data, which I know is important to you.

Mohammed also existed and left behind teachings we can examine to see if they are true. The Islamic Dilemma is a great example of this.

The FSM offers none of this and is a poor comparison for that reason.

---

Right, which is why my post above explains why historicity of the FSM is not relevant to what its purpose is / was.

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

That's squaring a circle. One has to have a base of knowledge to do so, meaning being able to find truth and define ideas. If one intends to govern by them, they must be established outside of oneself, necessarily.

Why? Because one cannot define an idea of 'oppression' to govern society without supposing 'oppression' exists outside of one's self (anyone can suffer it). Unless of course, being oppressed is the only ill in society, and no one else matters. Either way, this isn't humility. One must claim to know what's 'best' for all to support secularism, or that there's something maximized or minimized by it that is preferable to other alternatives.

Quote:

---

That has been engaged with. Your claim that it is unverifiable is equally unverifiable. We're just pulling at the threads of reality itself if we go this way. Nothing can be definitively proven because there is no test to prove "definitively proven" is a thing. We all have a faith leap to make, but you seem to believe only one of us does.

---

Yes, but as I said before, giving credit to all claims on the basis that they cannot be disproven leads to epistemological chaos as there is no way to disprove any supernatural claim from any system of beliefs. You would have to treat all religions as equally plausible. I feel strongly that a better epistemological approach relies on positive evidence and falsifiability, not just the absence of disproof.

Your statement saying we all have a leap of faith is one that I agree with. And I think both of us believe this. This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary. My goal minimizing government control.

Quote:

---

We have an actual, documented, historical lineage. I'm not just pulling this crap out of my butt. Jesus (if He is God) left his apostles who left their successors for this very reason. I get that from your formerly protestant lens it all looks like we're making it up as we go along, because that's exactly what many protestant denoms and non-denoms do. The historical Church's claim is that God gave His power to the Church, as is spelled out in the bible. Again, I know this won't move the needle for you, but your mischaracterizing our position when you say things like this.

---

Formerly Catholic lens (for what its worth)

I have very few doubts that there is a connection between the start of Christianity and a real life person. But, history and archeology and documentation, and lineages cannot prove that God gave His power to the Church. And it cannot prove that Jesus was God or the purpose of the apostles. The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

Quote:

---

I don't think I glossed over this. Objective morality is spelled out. Applications can change based on the realities of the world at that time. You didn't like that answer, but it's true. Imagine trying to detail what a moral amount of work hours is or a moral wage 1000 years ago when the concept of money, industrial revolution and so much more has changed the concept of work so drastically. I gave the example of the death penalty and the incapacity for permanent incarceration back in the day. There is a moral constant, but it must wrestle with the material facts of the day. Morality itself is not subjective. Application is. In application both sides are the same. In standard we are not.

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

But I do think I see common ground. If the applications of what is and is not a moral way to deal with work hours, wages, or the death penalty is all subjective, then we have reason to justify our own self doubt and to justify humility regarding whether or not our preferred application of a moral objective is the best application. This, I feel, should all be reason to limit government control on these types of questions, no?

Quote:

---

I'll agree that there are degrees of separation from neutrality in your worldview, but it is only based on number of people affected. When less people are affected, it feels more neutral, but that's only a feeling if we don't have a standard by which to judge it. You have a standard, which I acknowledge. But others have opposite standards and you just sort of waive those away as if they have less standing. That's why it can feel more neutral

---

If we define neutrality, in this case, as something like zero government control - something like anarchy, then we have a standard by which we can compare different legal systems against.

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

Quote:

---

I certainly recognize the difference in goals. I would obviously agree more with B than A. So together you and I will work together to suppress the desires of A because we have the numbers. But not because A is objectively wrong, if we're using your view.

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

---

I've never once argued that we're oppressed and don't have the ability to practice my faith here in America, but it happens quite frequently in Canada and Europe. Praying silently in front of an abortion clinic is now a crime. Saying homosexuality is a sin is now a crime. Forgive me, but I'd rather not wait for that to happen here before speaking up. Maybe you'd come to my defense then, but it's clear the secular population in these other countries are perfectly fine watching it happen.

---

Apologies if I misunderstood. In my mind, this back and forth was mostly about the US. I don't have the full story on the criminality of the things you mentioned, but I'm fine taking your word for it. There are plenty of places where Christians are oppressed - no argument here. There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

Quote:

---

I don't mean to come across as cocky, and I try to stay as humble as I can. I know for a fact I have many flaws and failures. I have no belief that I alone am able to come up with all these answers. I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us through the moral issues of the day. I only have to answer two questions: Was Jesus God? Did He leave a Church? Maybe I've answered them incorrectly, but I don't think assuming I've answered two whole questions correctly makes me God.

I think if we were in person, we'd get along quite well. I apologize if any of this came across with a harsh tone. Just trying to get out of the office and back home, so didn't take much time to edit for tone.

---

Its not cocky or arrogant to have strong opinions or strong beliefs. I have strong opinions and beliefs as well. i also have a high degree of respect for you and your autonomy and right to have your own opinions and beliefs. This is why I want a system of laws that exerts as minimal amount of control as possible. Government controls, laws, oppression, non-neutrality are all inevitable. The best we can do, in my opinion, is try to share equally in that control.

My interpretation when someone pushes for a system of laws that advantages their beliefs over mine is that they do not value my autonomy and right to have my own opinion and beliefs. This is my objection against someone who is pushing for the minimalization of control over only one group of people while increasing the level of control against others. Thats where I see the arrogance - its the idea that some people are more deserving of their opinions and beliefs than others.

Someone said something like this before in the thread - but, if God gave us free will, who are any of us to try to impose belief on anyone else. And if government is necessary and inherently an imposition of value, should we not try to minimalize those impositions? That all sounds very libertarian of me. . . . Maybe more than actually reflects my views .

Yeah, I'm sure we'd get along fine. I come across as confrontational in these threads, but I get along with everyone.

AGC said:

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems.

---

I don't claim to know what is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. If there are terms you need me to define, let me know. I defined good and bad a few posts ago. I'm happy to define others as long as its useful and not just an exercise in trying to use semantics to undermine my position.

Quote:

---

So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

I accept the same level of restraining as you. It is my goal for both of us to have the same level of oppression as it relates to our ability to practice our beliefs and participate in society and culture.

I am just as opposed to having a bust of Christopher Hitchens in front of a courthouse as I am of having the 10 Commandments. And I'm just as opposed to having a public school teacher read the tenants of secular humanism over the loud speaker as I am to having a prayer read. I would rather have nothing in front of the courthouse than advantage one group over another. And I would rather have nothing read at a school event than advantage one group over another.

I want us all to be equally restrained and equally benefitted - as much as that is possible.

If I wanted a system that benefitted me primarily, I could call for the dissolving of religious rights and remove protections against religions. I'm not doing that, am I?

The Banned said:

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

Here is the way I look at the benefit my worldview thing.

Lets say I was voting on a new law that would let people with blue eyes pay no taxes. This would benefit me, but I would say this is a bad law and should not be passed. If you have brown eyes, we should be subject to the same tax laws. Both of us equally subjected to same oppression of taxes.

My worldview is not about maximizing my own advantage, me personally, or one group of people over another.

Quote:

---

This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary

---

But this is exactly what happened. Local schools in their particular regions chose to have religious content in their schools. It was the federal government who stepped in and made them stop. You've given the federal government control over all religion rather than keeping the government out of it. Now if school taxes weren't mandatory, or in the areas where school vouchers allow people to take their tax money and apply it to a religious school, then you'd have some ground to stand on. But right now we are forced to pay for a government service that explicitly forbids religion, even if the local population wants it. And by the way, you're required to educate your children, so if you choose not to do the public school, you have to pay extra to follow the law. How much more control could you give them?

Quote:

---

The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

---

It may not be verifiable in the way that you'd like, but it's not a completely subjective, personal belief. There is a middle ground there that is a far cry from the FSM. You believe that reducing harm is a reasonable stance because it seems to be correct. The Christian is at least meeting that standard.

Quote:

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

---

Analogy: speeding endangers the public and is against the law. Great! We have an objective law based on a value we hold. Now how do we determine what the speed limit should be in one area versus another? Do we say it's 30 mph everywhere? No. We look at the particulars of that road and area, and apply a legal limit to that stretch of road. The law itself is still objective, but the application of the law varies depending on the circumstances in which it needs to be applied.

What about first responders? The value that we hold there is that what they do protects the public and speeding is no longer a danger in this situation (provided they are following the specific guidelines for these situations). You could say "you're just saying speeding is ok some times", but what I'm actually saying is that responding to emergencies is good and speeding is a part of that. I can say that because we all like the speeding when their lights are blaring, and we all hope everyone is ok. But when we see a cop speeding for the hell of it, it pisses us off because they're abusing a good thing.

Objective morality is the law in this situation. How it applies after the invention of the car may look at little different, but the law hasn't changed. The law goes hand in hand with the belief that there is an objective, natural purpose to human life. Materialism rejects this, so any attempt to show you how we can have objective morality while having some degree of subjective application is just going to look like moral relativism to you. If that's what you need to call it to find common ground, then I guess that's the best approach to take. But we will continuously disagree with the idea of moral relativism because we have certain underlying principles that can't change.

Quote:

---

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

---

I'll agree with this

Quote:

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

---

But why a president? Why not a king? Because our forefathers 250 years ago said so? Who are they to tell me what to do? If Donald Trump crowns himself like all the left loonies fear, the only thing he's done "wrong" is not follow instructions we've been following for 250 years. And if enough loonies on the right agree with him, and he is successful, then we have no grounded basis with which we can disagree outside of our feelings.

Quote:

---

There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

---

Yes I would, although I'm equally unaware of what that atheist oppression looks like.


To the end of your post, I largely agree with the wording, but in practice we'll disagree. For example, you see forbidding gay marriage as a way of disadvantaging a particular people group. We would see gay marriage as completely redefining the term and forcing us to agree with the redefinition. You see government "staying out of the bedroom" and we see the government forcing the bedroom into the public domain. Nothing happens in a bubble when it's enacted on a federal level. So when we push back, we are attempting to protect our autonomy, but you see it as an attack on another's. And all of that happens despite the majority not wanting it, but they still get publicly framed as "the bad guys"

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems.

---

I don't claim to know what is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. If there are terms you need me to define, let me know. I defined good and bad a few posts ago. I'm happy to define others as long as its useful and not just an exercise in trying to use semantics to undermine my position.

Quote:

---

So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

I accept the same level of restraining as you. It is my goal for both of us to have the same level of oppression as it relates to our ability to practice our beliefs and participate in society and culture.

I am just as opposed to having a bust of Christopher Hitchens in front of a courthouse as I am of having the 10 Commandments. And I'm just as opposed to having a public school teacher read the tenants of secular humanism over the loud speaker as I am to having a prayer read. I would rather have nothing in front of the courthouse than advantage one group over another. And I would rather have nothing read at a school event than advantage one group over another.

I want us all to be equally restrained and equally benefitted - as much as that is possible.

If I wanted a system that benefitted me primarily, I could call for the dissolving of religious rights and remove protections against religions. I'm not doing that, am I?

---

The thing is, you didn't define good or bad. You just stated they had a relationship with well being, suffering, and justice, which were not defined. But there are non-theistic centered systems that allow you to determine what they are, even though such systems arrive at different conclusions with the same data. And then you said you didn't want to get into semantic arguments, which you repeat here.

But really, to argue these are things to take seriously is to say they exist outside of your head. Justice doesn't mean anything if it's purely tethered to a mob or your individual brain, aside from, 'I like this' or 'I want to do this.' Having a secular decision tree to make a determination doesn't make the idea of 'justice' defined, or true, or worth pursuing. Who cares about 'justice' if you can't tell us what it is aside from something you used utilitarianism to find, that made you or someone else feel good?

You feel no repression because you have nothing equivalent to religion. Humanism is part of the curriculum by default and design, so you don't perceive any favoritism if it isn't proclaimed over the load speaker. To not teach religion is to teach its lack of importance. The state enforces 40 hours a week of not-religion and homework to boot. It's your world, you are preferences.

Quote:

---

But this is exactly what happened. Local schools in their particular regions chose to have religious content in their schools. It was the federal government who stepped in and made them stop. You've given the federal government control over all religion rather than keeping the government out of it. Now if school taxes weren't mandatory, or in the areas where school vouchers allow people to take their tax money and apply it to a religious school, then you'd have some ground to stand on. But right now we are forced to pay for a government service that explicitly forbids religion, even if the local population wants it. And by the way, you're required to educate your children, so if you choose not to do the public school, you have to pay extra to follow the law. How much more control could you give them?

---

Is your main concern here that you feel religion in school ought to be a local decision and not a federal decision? There are issues where I assume that you are okay with federal control, right? For example, the legalization of race based slaver. Should local governments be able to legalize race based slavery if the majority of its residents want it? Why or why not? We accept that federal government has a domain of control. In the case of religion, freedom of religion is explicitly discussed in the first amendment and so it feels like maintaining that standard has always been within federal jurisdiction in some way.

How much power would you give local government to have religious content in schools? Putting a 10 Commandments poster is relatively innocuous compared to what we could be talking about? Can a local school force indoctrinate students into Christianity. Or Islam. Or atheism? Can a local school force students to renounce their chosen faith? And since we cannot separate belief from action, what actions are schools permitted to take against students?

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand your position here. How much power are you wanting to give local government? And is tyranny and oppression imposed at local levels better than if it is imposed at a federal level?

Religion and beliefs are so important to people. What is more important to you than your faith? Its more important than our racial identity or our safety and protection or our property rights or our freedom of speech or freedom of the press . . . and we protect all of those things at the federal level. The idea that we would protect all of these things at the federal level and let local governments willy nilly discriminate, or worse, people of the 'wrong' religion seems odd to me.

Quote:

---

Analogy: speeding endangers the public and is against the law. Great! We have an objective law based on a value we hold. Now how do we determine what the speed limit should be in one area versus another? Do we say it's 30 mph everywhere? No. We look at the particulars of that road and area, and apply a legal limit to that stretch of road. The law itself is still objective, but the application of the law varies depending on the circumstances in which it needs to be applied.

What about first responders? The value that we hold there is that what they do protects the public and speeding is no longer a danger in this situation (provided they are following the specific guidelines for these situations). You could say "you're just saying speeding is ok some times", but what I'm actually saying is that responding to emergencies is good and speeding is a part of that. I can say that because we all like the speeding when their lights are blaring, and we all hope everyone is ok. But when we see a cop speeding for the hell of it, it pisses us off because they're abusing a good thing.

Objective morality is the law in this situation. How it applies after the invention of the car may look at little different, but the law hasn't changed. The law goes hand in hand with the belief that there is an objective, natural purpose to human life. Materialism rejects this, so any attempt to show you how we can have objective morality while having some degree of subjective application is just going to look like moral relativism to you. If that's what you need to call it to find common ground, then I guess that's the best approach to take. But we will continuously disagree with the idea of moral relativism because we have certain underlying principles that can't change.

---

In your analogy, the objective is controlling something (speeding in this case) that endangers the public. So, should a road have a 25 mph limit or a 60 mph limit? Without objective criteria for how to evaluate 'endangerment', the speed that constitutes endangerment is purely subjective. Once city law maker could argue for a 25 mph limit based on what they think protects the public and another city law maker could argue for 60 mph based on the same objective. As long as the intention is in line with the objective, you cannot say that either law maker is 'wrong'. They are working toward the same objective, but with different application of 'endangerment'. Intention to comply with the objective becomes the metric for determining if a law is 'right' or 'wrong'. This feels like basically deontology.

Quote:

---

But why a president? Why not a king? Because our forefathers 250 years ago said so? Who are they to tell me what to do? If Donald Trump crowns himself like all the left loonies fear, the only thing he's done "wrong" is not follow instructions we've been following for 250 years. And if enough loonies on the right agree with him, and he is successful, then we have no grounded basis with which we can disagree outside of our feelings.

---

People either should have the right to govern themselves or they should not. If your position is that kings ought not to be permitted because of some external grounded basis, then you do not believe people should have the right to govern themselves, right? Or maybe you do, but just in a limited capacity.

If tomorrow, 95% of Americans voted to make Donald Trump king, then, as far as I'm concerned, he should be king. Me and my family would look to move to another country to find somewhere where our values are more protected. . . . . but, If everyone wants a king, who am I to tell them no?

This gets back to what we feel the role of government should be. Do you want a government that reflects the values of the people (eventhough those values can change over time)? Or do you want a government that is held hostage to external rules even if those rules not longer represent the people in the country?

Quote:

---

To the end of your post, I largely agree with the wording, but in practice we'll disagree. For example, you see forbidding gay marriage as a way of disadvantaging a particular people group. We would see gay marriage as completely redefining the term and forcing us to agree with the redefinition. You see government "staying out of the bedroom" and we see the government forcing the bedroom into the public domain. Nothing happens in a bubble when it's enacted on a federal level. So when we push back, we are attempting to protect our autonomy, but you see it as an attack on another's. And all of that happens despite the majority not wanting it, but they still get publicly framed as "the bad guys"

---

First off, I don't care what you call gay marriage. Call it a civil union, if you want. But, even if government uses the term marriage for same sex unions, no one is forcing you to agree with anything. You do not have to agree with a law. You do not have to think the law is correct. You do not have to change what you believe to confirm to a law. Your belief that same sex couples cannot marry is protected.

The second the government takes a stance on what a marriage is or is not, you've put it in the public domain. We've spent 10 pages talking about how laws and governments are not neutral. And so, a government that recognizes only heterosexual marriages has taken a non-neutral stance and has already 'entered the bedroom'. Government isn't 'forced into the bedroom' just because gays want equal rights. Early Americans and Christians forced it when they gave government power to recognize some marriages, but not others. Your position above is against everything you spend the last 10 pages arguing, no?

I'm sort of tired of asking the question, but what do you want government to do? Do you want government to be in the business of defining the religious holy sacrament of marriage - a bond between two people and God. . . . is this where government ought to inject itself? The second you say that government should recognize heterosexual marriages, but not same sex marriages, you have made it the government's power to redefine this sacred religious institution as it sees fit. And as was pointed out my 'your side' many pages ago - once you give government a power, you cannot complain that it begins to use it against you.

Christians get framed as the bad guys here because we are a country of "Mind your own F#%& ing business". Personal liberty and distrust of authority are inseparable from the heart and soul of the culture of this country.

Gays are not trying to pass laws that invalidate Christian marriages. It is the Christians trying to invalidate gay marriages. Whether you like it or not, in this scenario, the gays are the ones minding their own business.

AGC said:

---

The thing is, you didn't define good or bad. You just stated they had a relationship with well being, suffering, and justice, which were not defined. But there are non-theistic centered systems that allow you to determine what they are, even though such systems arrive at different conclusions with the same data. And then you said you didn't want to get into semantic arguments, which you repeat here.

But really, to argue these are things to take seriously is to say they exist outside of your head. Justice doesn't mean anything if it's purely tethered to a mob or your individual brain, aside from, 'I like this' or 'I want to do this.' Having a secular decision tree to make a determination doesn't make the idea of 'justice' defined, or true, or worth pursuing. Who cares about 'justice' if you can't tell us what it is aside from something you used utilitarianism to find, that made you or someone else feel good?

---

If I define suffering and justice, will you ask for definitions for those terms in those descriptions as well? Should I just say that I can't respond to your post until you've defined every word you just used above?

And why should I take seriously what you say if you cannot prove that your ideas about God and morality exist outside of your head. As far as I can tell, its all man made - just like every other religion. The problem in this thread that we keep coming back to is that you fail to see that the criticisms you offer for secularism apply exactly to your faith as well.

Quote:

---

You feel no repression because you have nothing equivalent to religion. Humanism is part of the curriculum by default and design, so you don't perceive any favoritism if it isn't proclaimed over the load speaker. To not teach religion is to teach its lack of importance. The state enforces 40 hours a week of not-religion and homework to boot. It's your world, you are preferences.

---

We MUST get to the bottom of this one. . . .


I believe that you want public schools to be grounded in Christian values and beliefs. But, which version of Christianity?

What are public school kids to be taught about whether or not to pray to Mary? Should they be taught to follow the Catholic tradition or Protestant? If you say that the schools should not teach it one way or the other, then you've chosen a non-neutral value proposition that says public school kids should not be taught about the appropriateness of praying to Mary. Which by default, is that you don't pray to Mary and so now you are giving the Protestant's favoritism.

What should public schools teach about which interpretation of the Holy Trinity is correct? Catholic? Mormon? Eastern Orthodox? Again, if you tell me that public school curriculum should not discuss the Holy Trinity, then you are making a non-neutral value statement about teaching the Holy Trinity. And you are showing favoritism to one side or the other and oppressing those who do not receive that favoritism


My argument is this:

Any attempt by the government to not show favoritism toward one faith tradition is not neutral and is a favoritism toward someone and an oppression of another.

Therefore, anything short of complete and absolute indoctrination of every public school child to one specific religious tradition in an attempt to not show favoritism will result in a non-neutral favoritism toward one group and oppression of another.

Do you see how ridiculous this becomes. . .

The second you say that there are some things that public school teachers should not be teaching our children, you've defeated yourself.

And so, I ask again. What exactly do you want? And what is your preferred role for public schools in terms of religious education? Do you want schools to have some vague acknowledgement of the superiority of Christianity, but not teach any specifics. Well, thats not neural. To not teach about the importance of praying to Mary or the right interpretation of the Holy Treatment is to teach its lack of importance. If Public schools do not teach EVERYTHING about religion is to teach of its lack of importance.

I'm obviously expecting you to tell me I've mis-represented your position. I just don't know how. As far as I can tell, anything short of an absolute theocracy based on your beliefs and values is showing favoritism to someone else and unacceptably results in your oppression. . . . . what am I supposed to do with this?

Quote:

---

Is your main concern here that you feel religion in school ought to be a local decision and not a federal decision? There are issues where I assume that you are okay with federal control, right? For example, the legalization of race based slaver. Should local governments be able to legalize race based slavery if the majority of its residents want it? Why or why not? We accept that federal government has a domain of control

---

Great example. It was actually outside of the federal government's control to take away race based slavery. It was also outside the federal government's control to keep other states from seceding. Hundreds of thousands of men died in order for these two powers to be given to the federal government. If you're arguing that the law should be reducing government overreach, you're relying on the best example of government overreach we have. What is more "mind your own f***ing business" than allowing the states to leave when they didn't like the conditions of the union anymore? No fault divorce, am I right?

Now I'm perfectly fine with the end result despite the illegality of it's origin. Why? Because it is objectively right. Not because it simply lines up with my personal opinion. Enforcement at all levels is going to be tyranny, just to varying levels of degrees. If we are going to impose morality upon the nation, I'd prefer it to be an objective one. If we're going with subjective morality, then local is far superior because it damages are localized. If race based slavery is not objectively wrong, then how disgusting are we for slaughtering over half a million young men to get rid of it? Where do we get the right to destroy the economic foundation of half the states in the country simply because we don't like it?

Quote:

---

The idea that we would protect all of these things at the federal level and let local governments willy nilly discriminate, or worse, people of the 'wrong' religion seems odd to me

---

Instead we let the federal government discriminate against all religions, which benefits the irreligious the most by default? This is why I think school vouchers are a good thing. Why should I pay money to an institution that is hostile to my religion, regardless of whether or not I utilize it's services? This is a service that was mandated when religion was allowed in schools. We were paying for something we wanted. The federal government took away a part of it that we wanted against our will, but left the payments in place against our will. What would you call that?

Quote:

---

They are working toward the same objective, but with different application of 'endangerment'

---

Exactly. You are able to distinguish between objective law and application at the legal level. Why can't you grant this as possible at the moral level?

Quote:

---

If tomorrow, 95% of Americans voted to make Donald Trump king, then, as far as I'm concerned, he should be king.

---

But when the majority vote to outlaw abortion, homosexual marriage, etc, they shouldn't get what they want?

Quote:

---

This gets back to what we feel the role of government should be. Do you want a government that reflects the values of the people (even though those values can change over time)? Or do you want a government that is held hostage to external rules even if those rules not longer represent the people in the country?

---

I do want a government that reflects the values of it's people. The unfortunate problem is that over the past 100 years or so, the government has continued to enforce values on the people that the people did not want and did not agree with. You should be siding with me on this one, but it would go against a number of the policy wins that the left has had through the courts, which you won't want to do.

Quote:

---

The second the government takes a stance on what a marriage is or is not, you've put it in the public domain. We've spent 10 pages talking about how laws and governments are not neutral. And so, a government that recognizes only heterosexual marriages has taken a non-neutral stance and has already 'entered the bedroom'. Government isn't 'forced into the bedroom' just because gays want equal rights. Early Americans and Christians forced it when they gave government power to recognize some marriages, but not others. Your position above is against everything you spend the last 10 pages arguing, no?

---

On the contrary, this proves my point. I'm aware that the initial position taken in America was not a neutral one. You agree that the creation of same sex marriage was also not a neutral one. That has been my main point all along: there is no neutral law. You agreed with this, just as I agreed there a varying levels of control that are closer or further from neutral.

Quote:

---

The second you say that government should recognize heterosexual marriages, but not same sex marriages, you have made it the government's power to redefine this sacred religious institution as it sees fit.

---

I didn't want the federal government to do this at all. Leave the states to do what they do, as they did in the beginning. Every state where they attempted to legalize it, it failed. The will of the people was clear. But come Obergefell, now the state's no longer had the right to define marriage as they saw fit. Now the federal government DOES tells us what we do and don't have to recognize. It is an additional power to fedgov. You could argue DOMA took a federal position on the matter for tax purposes, but states were still capable of choosing their own definitions. Now they can't.

Quote:

---

Christians get framed as the bad guys here because we are a country of "Mind your own F#%& ing business". Personal liberty and distrust of authority are inseparable from the heart and soul of the culture of this country. Gays are not trying to pass laws that invalidate Christian marriages. It is the Christians trying to invalidate gay marriages. Whether you like it or not, in this scenario, the gays are the ones minding their own business.

---

And this is the irony. You are appealing to the federal government forcing all states to change their marriage laws as "minding your own business". Do you see how crazy that sounds? A new right that had been voted against time and time again being forced upon all those states that voted is "minding their own business"? No. The government is being used as a moral agent. It always has, and always will. The question is "whose morality?"

So what do I want the government to do? Ideally it would be trying to instill values that align with objective morality. As we've essentially agreed above, application can be a tricky thing, but that doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist. And just because one side claims an objective morality while the other doesn't, it doesn't mean the other side isn't attempting to force their morality on our side. If the federal government is going to override the will of the people to do what is "right", then I'd really like to know where they get their sense of "right" from.