“Luigi Novi: Second, the same question applies: in what way is that statement an “absolute”? What exactly is the definition of “absolute” that you’re using? You refer to his phrasing the statement in the certain terms of “is” instead of the probabilistic terms of “might be,” but what does that have to do with the definition of “absolute”? “Absolute” means “total” and/or “without exception.” What does the issue of certainty have to do with the issue of completion, totality or lack of exception?”

Uh-oh, please tell me we didn’t just start “that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is!”
‘Is,’ being a statement of fact and… (I don’t know, how would you say it… current condition?) tricky concept to articulate… in any event, it’s a statement that something most specifically ‘is,’ a concept not allowing for wiggle room or ‘maybe,’ only IS. Therefore, it’s absolute. It absolutely IS, not ‘might be’ or ‘kind-of like.’ To make a statement that anything IS anything requires making an absolute statement.


“Luigi Novi: Maybe I’m missing your meaning here, but I don’t see how someone stating that they are a good person because they don’t hurt other people is a definition based solely on a moral system exclusive to just that one person, since it governs his interactions with other people, and most others would agree that it is correct, including yourself. An aversion to hurting others and tendency toward helping them seems to be a bit more universal than just R. His definition of a good person is based on fundamental principles that most everyone recognizes, particularly in Western culture.”


So, not everyone recognizes it, yet it is a widely recognized standard. Okay… but what is it’s source? In the end, that moral system is still objective to him (it’s a standard which applies to everyone, and he recognizes that) or subjective (ah, this is a good system, I’ll recognize it in my personal reality.) And, it’s origin is also objective or subjective… where does the definition of ‘good’ come from? It’s either an absolute truth that society recognizes, or a human-created morality that caught on with the masses. But if it’s the latter, what good is it? It was once again created by someone based on their personal thoughts and feelings, and therefore not necessarily reflective of reality, and if it’s not an absolute and doesn’t apply to everybody, then it really has no application beyond the ‘personal morality’ because it doesn’t apply to anyone that doesn’t agree with it.


“Luigi Novi: But haven’t you claimed that your interpretation of Christ is the only correct one? When Pat Robertson “speaks for” Christ, isn’t he pretty much doing the same thing? Isn’t any distinction between what the two of you are saying pretty much just semantics?”

The difference is, I’m not claiming an ‘interpretation’ of Christ… I’m saying that what Christ said… His own ‘interpretation’ if you will, is logically the only thing that can correctly represent Him, and neither Pat Robertson nor I are qualified to do so. I’m not trying to ‘interpret Christ,’ I’m saying that only Christ is properly qualified to do so. And, His positions are the only ones that reflect true Christianity, because anything that comes from the rest of us is just unqualified interpretation.


“Luigi Novi: And those Christians might disagree with you that their beliefs most certainly are Christian “teaching.” Thus, he didn’t necessarily slander what you believe, but what they believe (though I’m sure R disagrees with much of your own views of Christianity, such as your views on gay marriage).”

But that would be those Christians’ INTERPRETATION, not what the Bible actually says. They may create their own ‘Straw Men’ (and for that matter, so might I,) but that doesn’t mean that either of us have legitimate Biblical teaching, nor is it right to attack Christianity as laid out by Christ based on our misinterpretations of it.


“Luigi Novi: Religion is not an objective guide either. It’s dictated by the personal experiences you had being raised or indoctrinated in that particular religion, which is different for people of each religion, and is therefore subjective. “Objective” and “subjective” refer to how predispositions can bias a person. A Christian is biased by vitue of his Christian upbringing, as are Jews by the Torah, Muslims by the Koran, and people of every other religion from their own.”

Skipping the absolute statement that starts off the paragraph, you’re missing the point. Or maybe I’m missing yours… I can’t quite understand what you’re trying to define ‘religion’ as here, but nonetheless, the Biblical law is an objective standard regardless, because it is not a personal set of guidelines but an exterior set, not subjective to the whims or changes of an individual, and set forth as a standard which applies universally, not just individually. A ‘personal morality’ does not have these characteristics because it is subjective.
Now, if I understand what you’re saying, then yes, most, if not all believers will create their own set of ‘personal moralities’ to complement, or even replace this. But that doesn’t make it right, nor detract from the original law or existence of absolutes.


“Luigi Novi: Theists, after all, can shift their beliefs on what the Bible or Christ’s teachings “really” are.”

Yes, but unlike relativism (and I’m glad to know we agree on that, at least,) a change in your opinions does not represent a change in truth, because that truth is objective and external to your opinions. In relativism and personal moralities, truth is fluid and subject to a change in opinion… with a subjective system, truth changes it’s opinion on a subject whenever you do. With an objective system, the truth remains constant no matter how your individual opinion changes.


“Luigi Novi: R bases his morality on what harms and doesn’t harm others.”

Which, if there is no absolute truth, he, himself, defines. So it’s still a subjective definition to guide a subjective morality.

“Luigi Novi: So long as that remains the criteria, and one upon which most people agree on (which I think they do), then it’s fairly objective—at least within the group that adheres to those criteria.”

True, but both qualifiers (FAIRLY) (WITHIN THE GROUP) point out that it is not truly objective, nor is it even completely objective within the group, and therefore it’s still subjective. Even if it WAS objective within the group, that would still require an acceptance of absolute truth that the objectivity was based on!


“I also do not believe in moral absolutism either, since you can just as easily ask a damning rhetorical question about that system too: Namely, Once it is determined that one has the absolute and final answers to moral questions, why be tolerant of those who refuse to accept the Truth?”

Well, that’s where an objective system based on the Bible comes in so handy: because that is one of the requirements of absolute morality based on the objective truth!
The thing is, that question is based upon an assumption of what that absolute truth IS… assuming that the absolute truth does not include tolerance, compassion (trying to spread that truth to others instead of condemning them for not knowing it), etc… which is completely dependant on what the nature of absolute truth IS. Fortunately, with God’s system, (which obviously I believe is the only Truth,) this questions is already resoled since those things are a part of the Truth.
This does bring up an interesting question, though… what is it you think of between moral relativism, and moral absolutism? And are there any elements of that that don’t boil down to pieces of one or the other?


“Luigi Novi: A pretty funny statement, since the phrase “to me” is an announcement of its subjectivity! What exactly do you think the word “subjective” means? Subjective means “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.””

I think you misunderstood (or I used bad grammar). The meaning of that phrase was “The Bible is not subjective to me (my person or my opinion), not ‘To me (in my opinion), the Bible is not subjective.’” In other words, I was saying that the Bible was not subjective to Zarm’s interpretation. In retrospect, I can see how ‘to me’ could have multiple meanings, but I think you misunderstood which meaning it was.


“Luigi Novi: The Bible is not external, as its validity is a question of belief that is only held by that belief’s adherents, and not fact.”

It’s validity (or how many people accept it as valid) is separate from it’s external, unchanging nature- just because not everyone makes the subjective choice to believe it doesn’t make the laws contained within subjective.


“Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about a particular “someone.” We’re talking about the general statement “Killing is wrong.” Is that an absolute? No. Therefore, we have an example of a moral principle that is not absolute, but only generally true. The bottom line remains that “absolute” means without exceptions. Because most moral principles are only generally held to be true by most people, and have exceptions, then they are not absolute.”

There is still a moral absolute at work here, you just try to invalidate it with an illogical application. The statement “All people are right-handed” is patently untrue, but it doesn’t make those people who are right-handed ambidextrous, it just means that the standard applies individually instead of globally. It does not mean, however, that there is no standard. So “Killing is wrong” is not a viable absolute. Same thing with “Spaghetti is always purple.” That doesn’t mean that there are no absolutes, just that this is not one of them. And there are still absolutes for judging whether an individual plate of spaghetti is, indeed purple or not. So just because “Murder is wrong” is an absolute and “Killing is wrong” isn’t, that doesn’t mean that there are no absolutes, it just means that the blanket statement “Killing is wrong” isn’t one.


“Zarm: Yes, but his definition of ‘reasonably’ is based on the positions he agrees with, therefore the term can be used to blanket a position as ‘unreasonable’ just because he doesn’t agree with it. For example: People that bomb abortions clinics I think can both agree are ‘unreasonable’ (and, downright evil).
Luigi Novi: You just admitted that your own definition of what is unreasonable is what you don’t “agree” with. Looks to me that your distinctions with respect to such terms follow pretty much the same criteria as R’s.”

I agreed that we both shared the same opinion on it, and could probably agree. I never said that you shouldn’t have an opinion about something, sheesh! I said that we could probably both agree on the nature and the term, fine. So we could agree. So what? That doesn’t have a bearing on the rest of the argument… which I suppose is, once again, another permutation of the threads topic, using personal opinion to determine fact. (It seems unreasonable to me, so you’re a taliban. (And by the way, unless R has said otherwise, I presume it was being used in the same sense I was using it- the terrorist aspect only- whether that’s accurate to the taliban’s nature or not.))


“Luigi Novi: It’s what he thinks of people who do not respect the equal rights of other people.”

As HE DEFINES IT! As I’ve said repeatedly, there are no right restrictions here, just an argument over what one right constitutes. Well, fine. If I feel that he’s trying to take away my right to have marriage sacred (because since I define it as a right, it apparently automatically becomes one…), I can start calling others with his opinion Taliban, too?

Look, I really don’t care much about the term anymore, honestly. But this principle behind it, that because you’ve decided that rights are one thing and I’ve decided their another, I’m automatically trying to take them away (and there’s no possibility that you’re just trying to create them) is more than a tad annoying. Once again, there’s a double standard… if you say ‘this A is a right and you’re trying to mess with it,’ then I’m a bigot for trying to mess with your right. If I say ‘no, this B is a right, and you’re trying to mess with it,’ then I’m a bigot for trying to force my beliefs on you!
By the way, looking back to that parenthetical note above… why should I be wrong in stating that the ‘right’ to marry whoever you love regardless of gender is not a right unless that right is objective? If it’s subjective, then you (by which I mean moral relativists, not you Luigi) have no right to tell me that it’s a right, because it’s only one in your personal morality, which applies only to you. Once again, ‘rights’ don’t work unless they’re objective, not subjective.


“Luigi Novi: He does not refer to proponents of the Commandments in courtrooms as such because he disagrees with them. He does so because those people do not respect fundamental principles of equality like Separation of Church and State. Turning this into “doesn’t agree with” is dishonest.”

That is not a fundamental principle, and not in the Constitution. And how is ‘Separation of Church and State’ a principle of equality? I suppose equal discrimination against religion to keep government a separate entity could be considered ‘equality,’ but then why is equal rejection of a non-one man/one woman relationship for marriage unacceptable?
But once again, it IS a matter of agreement… you consider equality a fundamental principle, and therefore worthy of name-calling when someone doesn’t respect it. I consider keeping marriage sacred between one man and one woman a HIGHLY fundamental principle… so why is it that I (or people with that viewpoint) could be called a ‘Christian Taliban’ for that, but those individuals on your side, that do not respect that fundamental principle of my beliefs, are not open to the same treatment? Because it’s based only on what you (or, in this case, R) consider a ‘fundamental principle,’ and therefore subjective, based on agreement, and used to discredit at will.


“Luigi Novi: Again, why are you shifting the criteria R and I are talking about to the Straw Man ones that you’re talking about? Neither R nor I said anything about “strongly adhering to a religious belief.” You are deliberately watering down the criteria I offered for the definition of the term. Why is this? The term “extremists” is used here to refer to those who do not respect the rights of others, and try to violate those rights. Doesn’t that describe bin Laden? Are you saying that you don’t think bin Laden and the hijackers are extremists? Do you honestly believe that R or I think that they are extremists simply because “Oh, they just strongly adhere to a religious belief”? By describing them with such flowery, PC language, you’re watering down the term to mean just about anyone.”

Wha…? Ohhh… I see. I kind of switched gears mid-post again. No, I know that neither you nor R said any such thing… that was an unrelated rant on the use of the word ‘extremeist.’ I do think that Bin Laden was an extremist, but I don’t think that that in itself was a bad thing. Having an extreme devotion to a belief is not in itself a bad thing… what makes the difference is the beliefs that one has an extreme devotion to. That was my definition, and my objection to the term being used as a negative term.
However, on research, that’s not the exact definition. The definition “a term used to describe either ideas or actions thought by critics to be hyperbolic and unwarranted.” Is once again a subjective usage based on agreement- exactly what I was saying.
However, I can’t find any definition that implies ‘those who do not respect the rights of others.’ The closest I can find is “often used to identify aggressive or violent methodologies used in an attempt to cause political or social change,” which I certainly agree would apply to Bin Laden. However, this is also an objective definition (with the exception, of course, of the objective definition of ‘aggressive or violent methodologies’) is also more useful to the discussion because it has a meaning that is not based on disagreement with ideologies. So in that way, I guess it’s acceptable.


“Luigi Novi: Nope. You’re deliberately ignoring what I wrote above about the Lemon Test, and how it is used to distinguish between “morals” that can properly become laws in the U.S. and those that can’t. If a law does not have a secular purpose, it should not become law. Who am I to say this? Well, I guess I’m someone who respects S.oC.a.S., and understands what the Lemon Test is.”

Good for you. Me, I have no respect for it, that’s true… because it’s a corruption of the first amendment, and not a Constitutional concept at all. The constitution only respect the creation of endorsement of an official government religion.
Still, my point is that you have no right to discredit in opinion in the legal process just because it comes from religion- I never said anything about laws establishing a religion, just the idea that one gets their ideas for a law from the Bible. And never tried to imply (whether I succeeded in doing so or not) that the laws should have ‘no secular purpose,’ as per the Lemon Test. Merely that the fact they were religiously inspired should not be a source of bias against them.


“Zarm: Isn’t the lack of any known ‘peer planets’ sufficient to say that we are without peers unless we discover otherwise?

Luigi Novi: No. It is enough to say that we don’t know one way or the other if we’re unique.”

Zarm: Fine, would a better way to say it be “To the best of human knowledge, we are unique?”
Luigi Novi: No. An accurate way to say would be “We do not know if we are unique.” Did I not make this clear enough? Did you not understand this point?”

No, but I see your statement as a biased way to state it… implying that we have no knowledge in the area at all. However, my counter-phrasing implies the truth… that based on the knowledge we have, we are unique, and any unforeseen discoveries in the future don’t affect that we are unique as far as we know. What is incorrect with my way of saying it?


“Zarm: The difference between the two is that the Christian ‘truths’ are designed as universal, while ‘individual morals’ are by their nature are by their nature individual, and therefore can’t apply individually.
Luigi Novi: Non-Christians don’t believe that Christian truths are designed to be universal, and even if they were, that doesn’t mean the “design” was successful. Waterworld and Ishtar were “designed” to be successful. But they weren’t, as people didn’t buy it. So too do non-Christians not buy into Christian truths.”

Yes… but once again, those who choose to buy into or a believe a set of beliefs does not change whether that belief system is objective or subjective by nature.


“Zarm: Who chooses to accept them is beside the point… one has the ability to apply universally, while the other can’t without violating itself.
Luigi Novi: As I explained above, I think the basis that R gave for his morality is universal. Again, don’t most people think that not hurting others and trying to help them when possible are universal?”

The basis, perhaps. (Partially because that basis is a set of good and evil which seems to require an absolute standard to exist.) But if the morality is personal, then by it’s very nature it is not universally applicable. And just because a large number of people agree on a set of subjective beliefs doesn’t make them objective beliefs, it just means that a lot of people have similar subjective beliefs.


“Luigi Novi: Seriously, though, where did he say this? I tried using my browser’s Find feature to search for the phrase “the truth is in everybody as the source for any one truth”, and the first place it appears is in your post above. (I’m assuming there’s a paraphrase, but I’d like to read what he actually said.)”

He said “Well as anon*.* so eloquently put it the truth is found within everybody as that is the source for any one truth.” At the top of his November 10, 10:15 post.


“Luigi Novi: Okay. I’m sure many of the seminal scientists in history were Christians, but how exactly is that relevant to anything we’re discussing here? Many were not Christians, after all. What’s your point?”

I was responding to the accusation that Christianity was anti-science. I wasn’t trying to make any point related to moral relativism.


“Luigi Novi: And if you want examples other than him, there’s Giordano Bruno, there’s the manner in which anesthesia was opposed because the Bible prescribes women to suffer pain in childbirth, there’s the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opposition some have to genetic engineering such as cloning etc.”

While I agree about the childbirth thing, and agree that the church of the time wrongly persecuted Bruno, but you know that I obviously disagree about the Monkey Trial… seeing as I am still convinced that Evolution is scientifically unfeasible. I know that’s a different board, but nonetheless it is not a belief based in science, not religion. Also, the ethical issues of genetic engineering and cloning are not confined to Christians by a long shot- and yes, there are places where ethics infringe on science… that’s why we use animal testing to begin research and not human testing all the way through, so citing an issue where ethics and science clash, even in the atheistic world, as a source of Christian anti-science is just untrue.
And yes, I’ll admit that there have been some mistakes, but then again the same thing could be said for secular scientific authorities as well. This doesn’t change the fact that these are the exceptions, not the rule.


“Luigi Novi: What do you mean “his definitions”? There aren’t any “his definitions.” Those against gay-marriage generally oppose it on religious grounds, as do those who try to push creationism in public science classrooms, who don’t respect SoCaS, and so forth.”

Not true. There are numerous, Lemon Test-abiding reasons of health and social impact upon which this is argued as well. Creationism I’ll give you. Disrespect for SoCaS, as I already said, is very much a legal and discrimination issue, not just a religious one… after all, those who disrespect SoCaS tend to have the utmost respect for the actual first amendment… no one wants an official government religion, or a government endorsement of a specific religion… just freedom for religion to be expressed as free speech… not enforced or sponsored by government, but not restricted from expression, either.


“Zarm: No, I don’t believe that it does give contradictory ‘cues,’…
Luigi Novi: I don’t care. You told me to take my cue from the Bible. I say, I don’t like those cues, so no.”

Fine. I was just saying that your dislike doesn’t make them contradictory. But, no… that doesn’t mean you have to like them or agree with them.


“Luigi Novi: No, that’s not quite what a Straw Man is.”

From Wikipedia: “To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.”
“One can set up a straw man as follows:
1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.”
And while I admit, as we discussed earlier, that some of those descriptions may be accurate about certain Christians, the accusations against Christianity itself a very much a part of the 4th definition.


“Luigi Novi: And I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “that’s the problem with individual morality,” since you made this in response to my statement that I’m not interested in taking my cue from the Bible.”

Right… I’m not sure why I said it that way either. I should have said “The problems with individual morality is…” and not implied a connection to the previous statement.


“Zarm: No it isn’t. It is, by it’s nature, only applicable to him. It’s based off of a system that society deems acceptable, but, in the end, it’s still just his system.
Luigi Novi: That’s a contradiction.”

Not at all. The position may be inspired by a societal belief, but the position is still self-created and subjective.


“Zarm: No it isn’t. It is, by it’s nature, only applicable to him. It’s based off of a system that society deems acceptable, but, in the end, it’s still just his system.
Luigi Novi: That’s a contradiction.”

Yes, but maximizing happiness and well-being based on what? Your subjective definition which doesn’t apply to others, or an objective definition of what happiness and well-being constitutes?


“Zarm: There are terrorists out there, as I said before, that would call minimizing harm in direct conflict with maximizing happiness.
Luigi Novi: And we would oppose them. For the most part, I think most of human culture sides with our view, so I think we’re winning, wouldn’t you say? ”

Yes, thank God. But the point I was trying to make there is that a subjective definition is useless for individuals like that, and in a personal morality system their actions are justified because they are acting to maximize their happiness and the happiness of other terrorists. This isn’t good, obviously! But, it’s also completely reasonable and defendable if all of these definitions and moral systems are personal and subjective.


“Zarm: The very idea of minimizing harm requires a definition of ‘harm,’ which is either objective or subjective.
Luigi Novi: Harm is not subjective. There are objective standards for when you violate someone’s rights or harm them physically. You’re saying that if you were standing at Ground Zero after 9/11, and saw someone’s hand on the ground, that the issue of whether that guy was harmed would be subjective?”

No, I’m not saying that at all… I believe there ARE objective standards. Nut in a subjective, personal morality, or moral relativist position, harm can be completely subject to what the reality creator decides as ‘harm.’ That’s why the moral relativist system doesn’t sync up with real life… because such ludicrousness is reasonable and possible within that system!


“Luigi Novi: Perhaps I’m still not getting you. Most of those billions believe the same basic things—the “broad strokes”, that is—of right and wrong, especially in Western culture. Thus, those principles are not useless.”

But they’re still useless to those outside that number, and are not completely objective. The only way to apply them outside of that agreeing number is by force, meaning that you’re applying your morals (which millions and billions agree with, granted) on the other individuals without those morals ever actually applying to them, because they choose differently.


“Zarm: Okay, first off… under-represented in prisons? I’d like to see those statistics!
Luigi Novi: You’re saying you’re actually surprised to hear that? Are you genuinely under the impression that nontheists are more lawless than theists????”

Very much so… who’s more likely to commit the crime… a guy who thinks He should obey God’s law and is accountable to right and wrong, or a guy who thinks that everyone is a worthless blob of protoplasm, life is meaningless, and there’s no hope or consequences? Sure, there are exceptions both ways, sometimes massive ones… but I would be genuinely surprised if people in the former category outnumbered those in the latter, based on the view of life and crime that each would hold.
Interesting statistics… however… http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html, as well as it’s links.


“Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about objectivity vs. subjectivity here. We’re talking about whether atheism leads to anarchy.”

Oookaaayyyy… well, maybe you are. But I wasn’t. I was talking about how lack of absolute truth and/or moral absolutes, carried through to it’s logical conclusion, leads to anarchy.
So please don’t take offense at my ‘insults,’ I never offered any.


“Zarm: Interesting… but how can you define it as a great use of your time if your time and your life are meaningless?
Luigi Novi: My time and my life are not meaningless. Those are your words, not mine. But hey, thanks for insulting me.”

No, I wasn’t (at least not intentionally). I was referencing an earlier post… but I do apologize, as that was anon-etc, and, I believe, R’s position, (that life was ultimately meaningless because we’re random blobs of protoplasm) not yours. No slight intended…


“Zarm: Also, if you bought into the model above (which as I stated earlier, is not exactly foolproof), then you’d be rather shortsighted in regretting the time spent in preparation before you reached the end and found out what you’d prepared for waiting for you or not anyway.
Luigi Novi: In other words, anyone who doesn’t have your religious beliefs is shortsighted. Me, I just thought I had different beliefs from you, and the right to make my own choices in life as to how to devote my time and energy. Guess that doesn’t fit into your worldview.”

Don’t twist my words… I just said, in relation to the Pascal’s Wager-ish debate above, that it would be rather short-sighted to regret preparing for the end of life when you haven’t reached it and don’t really know what your preparations meant… you can certainly regret it, it just seemed to me silly to regret it when you don’t know the result of your preparation yet. Which I would say to any preparation, be it religious or non-religious in nature.


“Zarm: If someone were drowning, I would consider it the only responsible thing to do to throw them a life preserver whether they want it or not…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about someone drowning. We’re talking about a non-believer who is dying and does not want anyone cramming religion down his throat.”

From your position. But from the priests POV it is very much someone drowning, about to lose their last chance for life (or, in this case, the after-life). Would it not be, as you put it ‘morally indefensible and utterly repugnant’ to stand by and do nothing if that was your belief? That it was indeed a life and death decision? Forcing it on them? No. But showing up to talk about it when invited by the hypothetical friend? The only morally repugnant actions would be the physical attack that responds to such an action!

“Luigi Novi: To compare the very personal nature of individual spiritual beliefs to something like drowning is profoundly dishonest. Funny how you so strenuously object to “Christian Taliban” but advocate forcing religion on someone (while arguing simultaneously that there both is and isn’t “forcing”).”

I said that there is no such thing as forcing religion on someone. I also said that forcing someone to hear about something is a completely different matter.
And by the way, if indeed there is a literal and OBJECTIVE difference between Heaven and Hell, then drowning, the imminent risk of losing life for good, would be a most appropriate metaphor!


“Luigi Novi: The friend should’ve known, and R could’ve made his wishes known to the priest when the priest showed up. If the priest ignored him then he was wrong.”

True, but we never established that the priest knew this… and by the way, this debate is rather silly. Although honestly, any position that advocates physical violence as a response to talking about religion is a pretty poor one to use terms like “morally repugnant” in the first place!


“Zarm: Nonetheless, you asked who made the decision, not who should have made it.
Luigi Novi: No, I asked “Who are you or some priest to make the decision about someone else’s “soul”, or what constitutes “help”?”.”

True. But it doesn’t sound like either I or the priest made that choice. The friend did. He may have been in the wrong about that (based on a subjective system ONLY, not an objective system in which help is help, no matter how it’s individually defined- which is not to defend the friend,) but the priest didn’t do so, except perhaps the general principle that trying to save someone from Hell could be considered ‘helping’ them…


“Zarm: Yes, but you advocate physical violence as a response. Therefore, you ‘living in peace and harmony’ system is a load of bunk, and morally inferior in the area of ‘Doing good, as defined by not harming others.’
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I have not advocated any such thing (only stated the wrongness of what the “friend” and the priest were doing), forcing religion on someone is not “living in peace or harmony”, nor “doing good.” It is your advocacy of having a priest do this that is “bunk.””

I did not advocate forcing religion on anyone. I advocated allowing the priest to do what he was invited to do or politely refusing, not responding with violence, which is beyond excuse!


“Zarm: But he also issued the New Covenant, overwriting those contradictory rules.
Luigi Novi: Then why did he admonish to adhere to the OT? And just out of curiosity, can you point to where in the Bible it is made clear that the OT was overridden?”

First question: Because obviously not everything is overridden. You can put a patch on the tire, but you still need the tire… you’re just covering over the sections that are no longer workable.
Second question: Not at the moment, no… I’m just about halfway out the door to leave right now. But I’ll take a look…

Okay, I have to agree with Matt… I have to cut down on my time here because this is taking all of my time. So I’ll try to be a lot quicker from now on. (Emphasis on try)

Ok there are a multitude of reasons why an aethiest would be able to be a good (meaning doing the least amount of harm (harm being defined as direct or indirect physical, mental or emotional injury)) person without the "christian" morals. Secular laws, personal preference and attitude, profitibility (not only of money but goodwill and friendship as well as positive karma for those who believe in that)of being considered good, and the general preference for conflict avoidance that most rational people have.

As for the ten thousandth time it feels like a christian talibaner is not someone I disagree with. I disagree with many things in religion. Wearing your religion on your sleeve by interjecting amens and hallelujahs into everything you say, wearing jesus tshirts and buttons as well as about 4 differnt holy symbols on your person. That however is not behavior that is christian taliban level.

Christian taliban level is deciding that your religous code and way of life is superiior to anyone else's way of life and therefore they should live their life the way you decide. To this end you try to change laws to enforce your religious moral code and your moral code only. Regardless of the secular or popular attitudes or even the legality of said laws. Outlawing nude breasts at the beach, censoring songs or books, wanting to ban books, wanting to remove science from the science lab, wanting to ban same gender marriage are all behaviors of the christian taliban when they actively try to change the laws or actively try to force someone to live by their religious moral codes.

Further a true and good friend who actually cared about a person and respected that person would under no circumstances bring a priest to them unless they requested it. Doing so would be an insult and affront of the gravest order. And would be an attempt to force a person to that religion.

Further your god blew an excellent chance when i flatlined. Think about it. Here is an aethiest entering into the realm of the beyond. A personal welcome, glimpse into the possible future and a stern but loving warning to change my ways as I was sent back would most certainly have had an effect on my behavior and beliefs. As there was nothing (I repeat that nothing, even under hypnosis, can be recalled or memory of having experienced) that happened during the time I was flatlined all it did was reinforce for me the nonexistence of an afterlife or any supernatural supreme power. If and when I do permanently die I will do so unrepentantly aethiest and proud of it.

Although I will give you that my anger was misplaced in my example and it is the alleged friend who deserved to be thrashed for bringing a priest. Unless of course for some odd reason the priest is not there in their official capacity and is one of the circle of friends or family that I would like to have around me in my final moments.

Further though when a law is based soley on religious moral codes that is a clear SoC&S issue as it is an attempt by the christian taliban to get the government to recognize, endorse and support their religious view above and superior to all other views. This is why laws should only have a secular origin and reason.

Further I am quite insulted by your attitude that being an aetheist will causes a person to become a criminal and rape, plunder, pillage and murder. I have been an aethiest for 14 years now as I stated. In that entire time I have never raped, plundered, pillaged or murdered. By my personal code of honor, morals a raptist should be hung to death. (and not by the neck either!) Considering there are multiple pasages in the christian bible where god or jesus exhorts their followers to kill, rape, pillage or otherwise commit atrocities by your logic it would be just as likely for a christian to rape, plunder or murder.

Further I doubt and dispute your claims that there are more aethiest in prison than not. And stating quotes and statistics from a prochristian website is not exactly fair and unbiased reporting.

From the Federal Buerau of Prisons own website: Current toal federal prisoners (acknowledged): 188,286 As for a breakdown based on religion they do not have one available on their website. So I went to the state of Ohio Dept of Rehabilitation and Corrections website. They compile their statistics by the month so for the month of October Total Prisoners are 44,583. Unfortunately they do not also keep track of things such as the religion of the inmate population. So I turned to Google to search for relgion in prison or other variations: Most of what I have found from both governmental watchdogs, and pro and antireligion groups have stated this: That the population in prisons are predeominately relgious. Either having found it in prison or having been that way before prison. So at best saying there are more people in prison because they are aethiests is rather difficult to proove to at worst a total malicious lie.

Yes I did and have and will continue to say that I believe the gods and the relgions are all inventions by primitve humanity to try and understand the world around them. that in their ignorance of natural laws and science they ascribed supernatural and "divine" reasons for things. That religion grew from the invention or development of morals and as a way of codifing the cultural beliefs of a socity. (so morals came before religion) With the development of language and communities religion gave a sense of identity and differentiation between the primitive cultures. Even with the comming of christianity religion still serves that basic function.

Now as for your anti-same-gender-MARRIAGE arguments. I say pish on them. They are the same old trite BS that is ignorance and hate wrapped in the flag of "tradition" Denmark, germany and several other countries have a form or type of same-gender marriage and have not had their countries self-destruct or opposite gender marriage suddenly become outdated.

The argument that it is somethign special or sacred I will agree with. But that specialness and sacredness comes from the poepl within it. How do you feel about people who get married and then divorce? Or only stay married because they ahve kids or it is more profitable for them to stay married?

Marriage is only for procreation. So only fertile people can get married or be married? Well then any impotent or sterile male or sterile woman should not be allowed to get married either.
And besides with 6 billion people on the planet we could use a bit of slow down to the population growth.

There is more but that is as has been stated a subject for another board.

I am sorry to all for this throught stream wandering and meandering so much as well as going on for quite a bit.

Okay, guys. There are exactly two posts on this board. I had to press "page down" no fewer than 22 times to scroll all the way to the bottom. The thing about taking it down a notch? I wasn't joking. You've managed to create a discussion that only you guys are interested in, or even capable of following.

I tried seconding this notion yesterday but my post was... eaten? Or something? But yeah, the whole argument reminds me of a joke from The Verboten Show: "One day, they'll create a post so long, it will destroy them all!" Seriously. Condense. Or take it to e-mail.

Ok sorry. I just get a bit carried away.

Yeah. I am sorry as well. Like I've said I type thought streams instead of postings. Unfortunately sometimes if it is somethig that has gotton me wound up a bit it takes a while to run out of steam. I will try and get things condensed a bit more.

Matt, I am planning on responding to Zarm's post with my "compressed" format of responding in generalized paragraphs, instead of to each quoted passage (as with my red quote-and-response format), but R seemed to do just that, and so I don't know what else he could do to "take it down a notch." Yeah, it'd be nice if posts interested more people than less, but ultimately, each person has to speak their mind, and in reading R's post, I couldn't find anything superfluous that screamed out to be edited out.

Zarm: Okay, first off… under-represented in prisons? I’d like to see those statistics!
Luigi Novi: You’re saying you’re actually surprised to hear that? Are you genuinely under the impression that nontheists are more lawless than theists????”
You're talking proportionally, right? Because there's no way that there are more non-theists in prison than theists. Just by sheer numbers.

I still find it highly doubtful that proportionally more non-theists are arrested and imprisoned than theists.

R: Further a true and good friend who actually cared about a person and respected that person would under no circumstances bring a priest to them unless they requested it. Doing so would be an insult and affront of the gravest order. And would be an attempt to force a person to that religion.
Personally, I don't see the act itself of bringing a priest to be that great of an insult. In that case I think that the friend who brings the priest has only their dying friend's interests in their mind. If the dying individual asks that the priest leave, and they refuse to honor his or her wishes, that would be an insult and an attempt at forcing religion.

R: Further your god blew an excellent chance when i flatlined. Think about it. Here is an aethiest entering into the realm of the beyond. A personal welcome, glimpse into the possible future and a stern but loving warning to change my ways as I was sent back would most certainly have had an effect on my behavior and beliefs.

It is my belief that whatever created us, whether it be an all-powerful entity, a Bang, and/or something else, gave us free will. We choose our path and yours has led you to being an atheist. From what I've read, you lead a good life with a set of ethics that works for you and as you said, helps and doesn't harm yourself and others. Why would an apparently good and wise God want to change that?

Hope you don't mind my completely subjective arguments.

Zarm from your own site

Still, if one accepts as accurate the estimate that 0.209% of federal prisoners, this is still an incarceration rate only one half of their numbers in the general population.

Than they go on and try to say that non-religious people (i.e. those who believe in God and self identify as some type of Christian) are higher represented in prison than general society. However I have a problem with that statistic because it doesn't account for age, gender and family status. Personally most single guys that I know with are not married and don't like with their parents don't regularly go to church, participate in religious activity or read the bible (hence they would fit Gallop's definition of "non-religious). QUICK: What population is way over-represented in prison? Answer: unmarried males.

So basically it looks to me that while many "christians" in prison didn't really practice their religion, but apparently believe in God enough to claim a religious belief, the actual population of people who self-identify's as atheast (having no belief in a higher power or a place for religion in their lives) are 0.209% vs .5% in the general population. This should at least dispute Zarm's assertion that atheasts have no concept of right and wrong without being told that God will punish them.

I finally got ahold of my preacher brother in law who works for the state of Ohio. He has stated that devout or conirmed aethiests are rather limited in the prison he works at. And since he is the prison chaplain and works with the parole board on who has redeemed themselves or not he should know. Just for some anecdotal evidence.

An insult is something personal and individual. So bringing a priest to me when i lay dying would be somethign i find insulting regardless of how good the intentions of the person doing so. Just like calling me a geek because i'm smart or a redneck because i am one are not insults.

Josh as for what you say about the god/goddess and all I'll grant it is possible. But still at least a hey how ya doing keep up the good work might have been nice,something at least. But oh well. And thank you for the compliments. I do try to stay on the good side of the force, i hav emy moments but so do we all.

And no I don't mind. Jump in all you wish.

Doesn't prison seem like a conducive environment for religion, though? Wouldn't that make sense?

Heck yeah. A captive audience whose very freedom and lives depend on whether or not they have repented for their crimes and sins. Whats not to like about it from the religious convertor's point of view.

I was referring to the general feeling of the environment. You're reminded of your crime everyday. You're looking for hope and purpose.

Actually prison is a conducive environment for religion. They are called "Jailhouse Christians" since they are in there 24 hours a day for God knows how many years/months they decide that they found God and are going to do the Good work when they get out of jail. The problem comes in when they get out and see their old crack dealing, robbing assulting buddies who want to hang out agian, that temptation along with the fact that many plces won't hire an ex-convict often lead them back down the wrong path agian.

(Note: I'm gonna have to lengthen this one with some extra lines because the page keeps de-formating my paragraph indentations...)

R, I never said that a person couldn’t be good without being a Christian, or having Christian morals… however, you have trouble being ‘good’ as a moral relativist, because ‘good’ is either an absolute that contradicts your relativist system, or a relative definition that only applies to you, and therefore can’t really be claimed to be ‘good’ for anyone else. One way or another, being ‘good’ doesn’t do much for relativists.

And believe it or not, I agree with you. Reaching out to try to share the Gospel with others is about the highest calling that a Christian can have… but showing off your religion or wearing it on your sleeve is annoying to me as well- not only does it tend to alienate people, but it devalues those who take their faith seriously because of what it means to them personally, not how much they can show it off.

You continue to assert that Christians are wrong in believing the way that they believe in living in the best way to live, trying to ‘force’ their morals on others, etc. How are you doing any different? Once again, that’s what lawmaking is about… turning what you believe to be right for the people into law. Sure, there are limits on this, Ala the Lemon Test, but when it comes down to it, how is it different than gay marriage proponents trying to force their morals on us? Or (to use an example from Washington state, where I am) people who believe in higher gas taxes trying to force their morals on people who don’t, and vice-versa? The honest truth is, Christians are not trying to do anything different from everybody else, saying “This is what I believe is best for the people, I think it should be made into law, let’s put it up for the people to vote on it.” The only difference is, their opinions come from a religious source, so it suddenly becomes a bad thing for them to say this, while people who get their ideas of what would be best for the people from a secular source are apparently laudable in their efforts!

As for your accusation of “Regardless of the secular or popular attitudes or even the legality of said laws. Outlawing nude breasts at the beach, censoring songs or books, wanting to ban books, wanting to remove science from the science lab, wanting to ban same gender marriage...” The standards of decency on the beach are not limited to Christianity, I don’t know where your ideas of censoring and banning come from, your accusations about science are just plain ridiculous (and already answered previously), and the gay marriage is another topic, and one already discussed here: no one is trying to ban anything, it is homosexuals who are trying to create a false institution and call it marriage!

Even among all of this, what’s your point? Of the few items that actually involve law-making, the beach, gay marriage, and possibly the censorship issue, what is the big deal that makes this so wrong, exactly? How are they ‘forcing’ this on the public? Are they trying to bypass the democratic process and prevent the public on voting whether they agree about these things? Are they trying to muzzle the opposition? How exactly are they ‘forcing’ these things on the people? It seems to me that the only group that is trying to force people to live according to their own views and beliefs are the people that suggest that Christians don’t have the right to bring these things up in the first place!

I am sorry that God did not show you what you expected to see, nor send you back with any sort of warning… however, an omniscient God of the universe does not always conform to the things we expect. To deny His existence because He fails to do so? Well, obviously you’re free to believe what you will, but I would suggest that maybe He is kind of beyond small things like our expectations of what He should and shouldn’t do. :-)
(By the way… and this is just me theorizing… perhaps He didn’t give you any vision of the afterlife for the same reason that I suspect He doesn’t do much in the way of earthly miracles anymore; “Blessed are you, Thomas, who have seen and believed. Blessed more are those who do not see, and yet still believe.” But, hey… I’m not going to try and guess God’s motivations- I have better ways to waste my time. :-) )

When have Christians tried to get the government “to recognize, endorse and support their religious view above and superior to all other views?” In other words, what exactly are you thinking of about these Non-Lemon-Test laws, (with the possible debatable exception of free-speech issues like the ten commandments monuments)?

“Further I am quite insulted by your attitude that being an aetheist will causes a person to become a criminal and rape, plunder, pillage and murder.” Look, I don’t want to sound accusatory, but you seem to keep running my words under the filter of your ‘Christian Taliban’ beliefs and coming up with an attitude that isn’t there. I never said that. I did say, however, that an atheistic (and more specifically, moral relativistic) viewpoint is the more likely one to produce someone without hope and willing to break the laws that mean nothing to them. And yes, I think that is true. But becoming an atheist automatically makes you a criminal? Of course not, that’s absurd!

“Considering there are multiple pasages in the christian bible where god or jesus exhorts their followers to kill, rape, pillage or otherwise commit atrocities by your logic it would be just as likely for a christian to rape, plunder or murder.” Okay, I had to re-write my response about this statement a couple of dozen times so it wouldn’t get me banned. This is such an outrageous lie I don’t even know where to begin… other than historical passages where God told Israel to go to war IN THAT SITUATION (also, not murder, but war), when does God EVER tell his followers to rape, plunder, or murder? EVER? It doesn’t happen! That a slanderous lie, and I am insulted that you would perpetuate it!

About the prison population statistics: You yourself admit that there are a good many who come to find religion while ALREADY IN PRISON, after they have been incarcerated, as is discussed below. The totals there (how many are already theists when incarcerated vs. how many became theists while incarcerated) would indeed be of interest to me. I agree that there are also probably plenty of religious people who commit crimes. And yes, I would be surprised if it’s a higher percentage than non-religious people in reality. But I admit that it’s certainly not impossible… having religion certainly doesn’t make you perfect. Once again, our two experiences with communities may be the source of our disagreements: I can’t imagine the religious people that I know committing a crime (well, okay, probably speeding… that’s like, the quintessential human sin :-) ), but the people you describe certainly seem far different from the ones I’ve met. So, I’ll give you the fact that it’s possible the numbers are higher… I guess it depends on whether my religious/atheist acquaintances or yours represent the average, I guess.

About God being an invention of man, I understand what you’re saying as your belief, but you also have no proof for that, and stating it as an absolute truth is not only groundless, it once again undermines the moral relativist position.

As for your pro-same-gender-marriage arguments, I say ‘pish’ to them. They’re the same old trite PC that is denial and unreality wrapped in the flag of “equality.” Marriage is Scandinavia is dying, and same-gender ‘marriages’ have indeed been doing great damage to the family structure. (By the way, the pro-gay-marriage side continues to talk about this being about nothing more than ‘ignorance and hate.’ Why, then, are we having a factual, non-vitriolic debate about the issue? Is it possible that maybe our side understands the issue completely, without and hatred or intolerance, and STILL think that gay marriage is a bad idea? Perish the thought!)

How do I feel about people who get married and divorce? I hate it. Unless the relationship is abusive of dangerous, the two need to try to work things out in my book. Divorce is doing terrible things to marriage as well.

And please, don’t use the ‘sterile people shouldn’t get married’ argument, which is so old and stale it is practically fossilized. How over-used, pointless, and irrelevant to the discussion is it? It gets dragged into debates like this one as a counter to an argument I didn’t even make!

And then I-… oh, wait, that’s it. Darn, I was getting all worked up for a rant… after all, I’m only at 3 pages. :-) Hmmmm… maybe there’s something to this shortening thing after all… I'm not a very good self-critic, but I'll see if I can't cut it down a little more next time.

You continue to assert that Christians are wrong in believing the way that they believe in living in the best way to live, trying to ‘force’ their morals on others, etc. How are you doing any different?

The liberals are saying we want these things to be avalable to people. If 2 men want to get married they should be able to. That doesn't change anything for us straights, even the christians. You and I are still free to marry women, weather or not 2 guys can do it too.

Censorship was touched upon. Once agian saying I don't like these books and don't want to read them is fine but censorship is saying I don't like what these books have to say and you can't read them either if you so choose to.

Zarm I am 32 years old. In my years i have been around the block a time or two and have learned that many of the "truths" i knew at 20 where wrong. That what is good for me or you may not be good for someone else and vice versa. That homosexuals are just people trying to live their lives the best they can. A lot of things that as time and maturity and experience showed me a difference and I kept an Open mind about things I broadened my point of view. Too many of the christian taliban judge the world through the narrow minded and closed minded filters of their religion, por at least their interpretation.

I mean you will not apparently accept that for me my definition of good or harm works and is effective for me and is valid. Not that I care or am concerned with your approval. And good is good. What difference does it make if I define it one way and you define it another if the end results are similar enough to be the same. but your morals and your views are just as valid as mine and mine are just as valid as yours. They are both the product of our opinons and our beliefs and what we have experienced. It all comes down to from whose point of view are we referencing things.

I am saddened that you do not see the threat and problem with having laws based on one narrow religious interpretation. By permitting a law that is based soley on the enforcement and encforcing of a religious based moral that is recognizing and placing that religion's moral code above everyone elses. That is forcing that religion on someone else. Why does religion and religion nuts always have to try and force their morals on others. Why cant the christian taliban just stick their noses out of other people's lives. the standards of decency are quite relative and mainly it is uptight anal retentive prudish christian taliban types who get all bent out of shape over a pair of naked teats. As for what is on the radio change the channel, no one is forcing you to listen to it. But by making a law that is based on the religious moral code of one particular relgious interpretation that is forcing others to live by your religious code whether they wish to or not and it is an unconstitutional recognition of religion. How would you like it if islamic groups managed to get passed a law bannign pork? or catholics got passed a law bannign meat on fridays? And reasonable rational people who are trying to get same gender marriage laws passed and repeal many of the archaic and unconstitutional religious laws repealed are doign so not so that they can force others to live according to their lifestyle. No-one as ever said that they want a law so that you zarm will be forced to be a part of a same gender marraige aor give up your bigendermarriage. All that has been said is that the law must recognize the equality and validity of a same gender marraige in all aspects the same as a bigender marriage as from a civil law standpoint both marraiges are equivalent and the same.

Now further the anti-same-gender-marriage laws are based solely on the religous morals of the christian taliban. I say urinate on them and your arguments against same-gender-marriage as they are just the same old ignorance, lies, hatred and fear wrapped up in sanctimonious pious hypocracy hiding behind holiness and sacredness of marriage. And while the sterily issue may not have been your particular argument it is one that the christian taliban has used many times over. Marriage is only for procreation, thats why my brother in law and his wife do not sleep in the same bed to prevent impure thoughts that could lead to sex other than for procreation. They are nut jobs. But they helped promote the marriage ban in ohio throug the fear and bully tactics of the christian taliban. Even though good people fought against it.

And it is not a lie there ARE passages in the bible that deppict and encourage that sort of behavior. Anon*.* posted several of them. (I am at work or I would post some myself) ScottN poinjted out how the bible promotes terrorism and bioterrorism as well. And as for killign all the firstborn that was justifiable? How loving and merciful to kill innnocent children.

Well I have others thigns I want to do before my lunch is over so I will end this here. There is much more I want to say but I am beging to doubt the point of continuing this discussion. You will not acknowledge the possibility even that anythign i have said might be valid. You have filtered everything through your religion and you accuse me of filtering and distorting things when i use the christian taliban's arguments and rhetoric right back at you.

. R, perhaps I’m not clear on this: I’m not trying to disparage your personal beliefs in any way… as the thread topic is ‘Moral Relativism,’ I’m merely trying to argue that point, and it just so happens that yours are the only case studies in morals that are being posted here. :-)
. It sounds like you have a good life, and I’m not trying to put down your beliefs; I’m just trying to point out that the system used to make them is flawed: you chose one way, but it’s equally easy for someone else to choose another, far more harmful way and be completely justified based on personal morality.
. For example, here in Washington state, we just this weekend had a young man ‘looking for attention’ walk into the food court of Tacoma Mall and start shooting up the place with an automatic weapon. Six were injured (one still critical) and three others were taken hostage for about three hours. Now, based on moral relativism or even personal morality, there’s nothing to say that he was wrong to do so! In fact, he’s just as good a person as you or I, because he’s following what’s right to him… it turns into a jumbled mess, and you can’t nay-say anything unless some absolutes creep in sooner or later. And just like the issues that I point out based on your ‘personal morality,’ I’m not saying that these things are wrong… I think it’s correct and perfectly justified to call that shooting a terrible and heinous action; but you can’t unless you admit that there ARE absolutes somewhere along the way. Otherwise, no matter how far you boil it down, personal or relative morals just don’t cut it for being able to make statements of right or wrong. Whether it ‘works for you’ or not is irrelevant- my point is that personal or relative morals can work, at maximum, ONLY for you- and that’s no way to run a society, or a Real World.
. As for your statements about law, I continue to ask you: how are you different, just because your ‘narrow point of view’ is non-religious in nature? What if the rest of the people share a different standard than yours about decency? And once again, I ask you… unless someone is trying to bypass the democratic process or create a law with no secular purpose whatsoever, how is anyone forcing their views on the people by letting them vote on whether they see it as a good thing or not? Isn’t that what voting as about? I can’t see how you can continue this double standard: “What I believe is fit for law, no matter who agrees with it. But you Christians aren’t fit to make laws because not everyone agrees with you!” Well, so long as the law has a secular purpose, let it get to the polls, and the people can decide. No forcing, no fussing. Where’s the problem there?
. You complain that such laws only enforce one set of religious morals… well, I have news for you: laws work that way. They only enforce one set of morals. It may be a broad set, it may be a narrow set. It may be a set that religious people hold, it may be a set that secular people hold. It may intersect more than one group. But sooner or later, the law just says one thing. Typically, that ‘one thing’ is held by the majority of the voters; that’s why the law passes. (Unlike, I might add, gay marriage activists who are trying to get the courts to pass all of their laws and bypass the people’s choice entirely! You want to talk about forcing your beliefs on people? There’s your forcing beliefs!) So who are you to say ‘your ideas can’t come up for voter consideration because your religion inspired them?’ There’s no valid reason for your position unless the law actually tries to enforce a purely religious edict. (No meat on Fridays, no more pork, etc.) But the potential laws you’re complaining about aren’t those; they have a secular and worldly basis. So where is the great harm here?
. And, as you say “No-one as ever said that they want a law so that you zarm will be forced to be a part of a same gender marraige ... All that has been said is that the law must recognize the equality and validity of a same gender marraige in all aspects the same as a bigender marriage…” Well, what if I don’t recognize the validity or equality of it? Are you trying to force your morals onto me, R? :-)
. Seriously, though… while some may naively claim that ‘gay marriage’ will only affect
Homosexuals, it’s just not true. There WILL be a cultural impact, and that will affect everyone- and believe it or not, there are ‘reasonable rationale people’ who believe that, too.
. And no, the opposition to gay marriage is NOT based solely on religious beliefs- we’ve been over this already. There are social reasons, health issue reasons, and yes, even non-religious moral issues, that shape this debate as well. So trying to claim this a non-Lemon-Law trying-to-enforce-my-religion thing is just a falsehood. And once again, as you continue to reference “lies, hatred and fear wrapped up in sanctimonious pious hypocracy,” the only place I see the lies, hatred, and fear coming in is your attitude towards Christians! You keep talking about this as a hate issue (perhaps from your ‘reasonable and rational’ comments above, you simply can’t imagine a view in which people could oppose something without hating it,) but you fail to actually see the argument as it is. This is not as issue of hatred (at least on the Christian side,) it is an issue of what’s best for marriage and for the country. So our opinions on what that would be are shaped by our religion. So sue us. There are still plenty of social, health, and other secular issues to influence this decision, and religion is in no way the only reasoning in this argument.
. Your lies about the Bible continue… anon*’s posts about the Bible were ridiculous and thoroughly discredited, and your statements are false as well. Yes, the Bible records multiple instances of immorality- Arbraham, Lot, and King David to name a few. But in every case these are sins to be repented, not behavior that is encouraged! Once again, the Bible records the deaths of the first-born, at the hands of the Lord. But nowhere does it encourage this behavior- there’s a stark difference between “God saw fit to do this” and “You are now permitted or encouraged to go out and take that choice into your own hands!”
. I also continue to doubt the point of continuing this conversation… are we even talking about Moral Relativism anymore? (It’s funny how much discussion it’s generated when it was essentially debunked in the post that started the conversation!) I have acknowledged plenty of thing’s you’ve said MIGHT be valid- I just don’t agree that many of them ARE.
I don’t know how I can keep from filtering everything through my religion, as the thread has generally degenerated into a series of accusations against my religion, but I’d like to think I’ve kept mainly in the area of logic when it comes to the actual issue of the thread, moral relativism- I continue to assert the need for moral absolutes from a standpoint of objective necessity, not a religious viewpoint. And I continue to accuse you of filtering and distorting things when you throw the ‘Christian Taliban Rhetoric’ back at me because that rhetoric is itself a distortion and an untruth, mis-representative of the Bible and mis-representative of my personal beliefs and those of the Christian population that I’m in contact with. How would you have me react to them? Try to argue the distortions and valid points? Admit the cutting reality of your pointed remarks when they’re attacking something tangential and often opposite of my own beliefs?
. I’m simply trying to deal with the absolute truth here… a luxury I have to work with, since I believe it actually exists. :-)

(2 pages! It's getting better! Sorry about the periods-for-paragraphs thing; the formating on this page hates me. :-) )

And no, the opposition to gay marriage is NOT based solely on religious beliefs- we’ve been over this already. There are social reasons, health issue reasons, and yes, even non-religious moral issues, that shape this debate as well.

I still haven't heard a cogent summation of these non-religious reasons. Could you post them on either the GLBT issues or the SoCaS boards, so they can be discussed there?

Thanks.

I have deleted the last two posts from Anon because they were way off-topic. Anon, take it to the appropriate board, okay? Thanks.

I only have a few minutes here so I'll be brief:

One no I am not trying to force my moral on to you. Lets use the same-gender-marriage example. If steve and tom want to get married and want it legal to do so that is not forcing their (or my) morals onto you because they are not saying you cannot have a bigender marriage or are prohibiting you from anything. So regardless of your personal feelings their morals are not being shoved on you in anyway shape or form.

But by you and others like you using scare tactics and lies (which these alleged secular reasons for wanting to deny same gender marraige are because they have never been proven, are easily debunked, and in general are very, very, weak) to deny steve and tom from getting married and sharing their lives and commitment and having all the rights and responsibilities inherent in marriage are forcing your morals on them. By denying them the ability to live their life the way they choose to do so you are saying that your way of life is better than theirs and you know how they should live their life.

And I most certainly can say objectively and subjectively that what that guy did in the mall was not good. He harmed people. So by either subjective or objective moralities he did not behave in a good manner.

And as for the hate thing. I have most certianly seen a lot of hate from the christians when it comes to this. I have even heard many of them use the phrase or word "hate" itself. Lets see there is also the christian taliban leader Phillips of Westboro and his God Hates Fags website. It is possible to disagree with somethign without hating it. So far though I havent seen much of that in regards to same gender marraige and the christian taliban.

And as for what I would like you to do. Maybe open your mind a little bit. Stop fighting against same-gender marriage. Maybe not embrace or support it, But at least stop fighting it. To recognize and realize that homosexuals are just as human and just the same as you or me and want to get through their lives with the least amount of trouble and conflict possible. That would be nice. That would be nice for the christian taliban to go away and let people live their lives the way they want to. As long as they do not harm someone which there is secular laws for.

Which does bring me to the laws. All laws should be based soley and only on secular reasons. That is what the founding fathers wanted when they created this country. With a government free from religious infection. When they declared it a secular country. This country was not founded on christian anything.

And the bible does hav epassages in it with god telling his people to go kill somone, to take and kill the children, god hardening the heart of someone so that his people will hav eto fight them. I've read the bible cover to cover and it has a lot of sex, drugs, violence and evil within its covers.

Ok so much for being brief but it is better than the usual epics.

Oh and please do post your list of secular non-religious reasons why same-gender marriage should not be permitted. I want to see them. So far like I said I havent seen anything other than shallow excuses to try and hide the hatred and lies and religious reasons.

Awww man Luigi you couldn't have just thrown those posts over to the appropriate place instead of dumping them.

And since I only look at the last day I don't know where the appropriate place is. Is there a topic board for bible discussion?

. You claim that your position is not equivalent to mine because you're not trying to shove any morals at anyone, but in the case of same-gender marriage, you are supporting trying to change national law, which would indeed be just as much as a shoving-your-morals-on-me issue as Christians arguing the reverse- because you are trying to affect something on the national level that we both have beliefs about.
. And who said anything about denying Steve and Tom from living their lives the way they see fit? No one’s trying to prevent that… just trying to say that what they’re doing isn’t Marriage. There’s a big difference there, but it’s just a part of the insane leftist propaganda that suggests that any opposition to gay marriage is a hate-and-fear inspired attempt to wipe out homosexuality, or some nonsense like that. No one’s trying to prohibit their freedom to practice what they choose, or to use their terms, ‘tell them how to live their life.’ But recognizing that not all relationships are equal is just a part of reality, not an attempt to ban those relationships.
. I’m glad we agree about the mall shooter… so you will agree that there is such a thing as an objective standard of right and wrong, then?
. “It is possible to disagree with somethign without hating it. So far though I havent seen much of that in regards to same gender marraige and the christian taliban.”
. Well, maybe you need to look harder then. Just like the incidents on the evening news getting reported while the thousands of people with a normal, safe, and pleasant day just aren’t newsworthy, the worst elements tend to scream the loudest, but that doesn’t mean that they’re truly representative of reality. I think you’ll find that the Christians who hate Homosexuals are indeed in the extreme (if vocal) minority… especially because that once again flies directly in the face of Biblical tenet (love you neighbor as much as you love yourself,) no interpretation necessary- not that people are perfect in following that by a long shot, but nonetheless, I think you’ll find that the sensationalized gay-bashers do not represent the average Christian.
. I’m sorry, R, but I don’t see ‘opening my mind’ and abandoning my morals to be related… I’m certainly willing to do the former, but whether you or the secular world agrees, I personally do see marriage as something sacred, not just to my religion but also to our culture, a specific one man/one woman relationship that is foundational and essential to our societal structure, and I still strongly believe that cheapening, weakening it, de-valuing it, or claiming that it’s something it’s not will have a negative impact culturally.
. That doesn’t mean I don’t see Homosexuals as human, or hate them, or fear them. But whether you’ll admit it or not, gay marriage would have a cultural and legal impact that would affect more than just the two who want their relationship called something it’s not… it would affect everyone. That’s the problem. And unless the Christian Taliban, as you call them, makes up at least 54% of the US, then the opinion is apparently held by more than just them- this is simply not just a religious issue.
. I understand that Homosexuals want their relationship to be categorized as a marriage, but honestly, that’s not what Marriage IS in my belief- a very specific term to describe the unique relationship between one man and one woman. Does this mean the homosexual relationship is worthless? Of course not! Does this mean that it isn’t Marriage? Yes, it does. And as long as I continue to see the necessity of true marriage for the culture and the structure of family in our society to survive, I can’t, in good conscience, support gay marriage or give it my tacit support by simply falling silent. However, as I’ve said before, if they’ll try to stop ramming their beliefs down OUR throats by going to the courts and taking the decision away from the people, then I would have no problem with that. Put it to a vote, and let the people decide. And let both sides ABIDE by the decision.
. R, I’m sorry that you do not understand history, but the founding fathers were deeply religious people who often started government session with prayer. I think they would consider the attitudes you’re spewing towards them the ‘infection,’ not the beliefs that they held dear. The founding fathers moved to protect religion from government, where it had been abused in England, not bar it.
. Finally, yes, the Bible does have passages in which God orders many things that are brutal by our standards today. For example, the Egyptian first-born, a strike with 9 warnings at least preceding it, a rather bloodless tactical strike compared to a non-selective all-out war, and an almost poetic justice for the Egyptian’s similar actions years before… with the exception that the Egyptians solely targeted infants in their slaughter. These are historical recordings, not endorsements of the activity. You’ll find that in each case, the authority to decide such things is solely God’s, and not any of his followers’. So the Bible neither commands Christians to go and do these things, nor supports/allows them to do so- so how you can say it ‘endorses’ these things, I do not know. Yes, there is a lot of sex, drugs, violence, and evil- recorded, but not supported. (Well, okay, with the exception of violence- wars happen. But still, your judgments are far from accurate and unbiased…)
. Well, once again, we’ve spent about three sentences on the actual thread topic in both our posts combined. But at least we’re dialoguing… :-)

Anon, I already did that last time, and I've admonished people numerous times to keep it on the same board.

And yes, there is an appropriate place for Bible discussion: Religious Musings.

Zarm, as a friendly suggestion, could you put blank lines in between your paragraphs? Thanks.

Well of course I would agree with you that it was wrong for the guy to shoot up the mall and the people in it. That was harming people so that was not good. And I will agree with objective in the face of the term as in that the various subjective morals align forming the appearance of an objective definition. (everyone in their individual cars goign the same way makes the appearance of an objective agreement for everyone to go the same direction)

And how would that be shoving my morals when we (those fighting against the CT)are not saying you have to live by them or denying you anything? Your life would be effectively unchanged. And yes you are denying them living their life as they would not be able to have the same benefits of marriage as I or other heterosexuals enjoy (as well as the requirements and responsibilities) Next thing you know they will say that GLBT cannot be a foster or adoptive parent.

It is a difference of opinion on what is the definition of marriage. I see it as a civil contract and you don't. So much the worse for the country that a compromise cannot be acheived. And I have seen many heterosexual relationships that are less special, less worthy and less "sacred" than some of the samegender relationship I have encountered.

Then I must not be getting around too many average christians. The majority of the individuals I encounter, from all walks of life, use langauge and rhetoric that would make the Klan proud in their description of homosexuals and the same-gendermarriage issue.

Since the courts are the last refuge for true independence free of the scare tactics , lies and bullying that goes on during elections to prey on people's ignorance and personal biases that is the only recourse left for justice. And as for that 54% there was a recent poll done here in Ohio, and I forget the numbers, but it was a significant one. That regretted voting for issue one and would not do so again. The reasons given where ranging from not understanding the ramifications to not having voted their feelings but what amounted to peer pressure.

Lets see I spent 4 years in college with multiple history courses at various levels (as well as paying very close attention in high school and having an excellent history teacher), am involved in historical studies on an ametuer/hobbist level, throuhg my civil rights studies I have paid very close attention to the writings of the founding fathers and have this to say. They where most certainly not "christians" in the modern sense of the word. They where DEISTS. Something totally and absolutely differnt. And as for this being a secular country that was declared in the Treaty of Tripoli. So from what I have studied and learned I feel that the founding fathers would be more approving of my work and be more proud of what I am doing than they would of the christian taliban and would probably be just as condeming of them as I have been. Especially sicne thomas jefferson rewrote the christian bible to remove all references to Jesus' divinity or had you not encountered that before? And they also made movement to protect the government from religion. They understood the two should be kept as far apart as gas and a match.

And as for the actual topic since everything in my life flows from my definition of good and evil and harm and help and live and let live attitude in which my life is relative to yours we are sorta on topic. Each person's life is relative to each other's. My experience i not yours and yours is not mine. You cannot see what I see and I cannot see what you see. The only thign we can do is reach a compromise where our individual subjective POV align to such a degree that it makes an illusion of an objective set of standards.

Oh and you have still yet to post this list of secular reasons against same-gender marriage or would you rather I go through and find them and post them for you? If I find the time between three different family gatherings, the day after thanksgiving sale at work festivities (I guess they are hoping people eat so much they need a new car to haul their fat butts around in) and trying to get things ready for the kid's christmas. (yes I do still sort of celebrate christmas, just a secular one as it is more of a midwinter festival like it originally was before the early christian's stole it)

But true it is good to talk and exchange information and knowledge as that is how people learn and grow and develop. Believe it or not when I was 20 I would have hated myself if me now and me then had met. I was definately a member of the christian taliban and full of preconceived notions of the world. But after growing up a bit, meeeting some homosexuals and actually talking to them, and a variety of other life experiences helped bring me to the point in my life where I am now.

And you do not have to let go of all your morals to have an open mind. Unfortunately too many people equate having an open mind with falling for anything anyone tells you. Unfortunately that is more of what a closed mind does. It blinds you to the world around you and lets people prey upon your limitations and ignorance.

You claim that your position is not equivalent to mine because you're not trying to shove any morals at anyone, but in the case of same-gender marriage, you are supporting trying to change national law, which would indeed be just as much as a shoving-your-morals-on-me issue as Christians arguing the reverse- because you are trying to affect something on the national level that we both have beliefs about.

But the diference is that the presance or absence of a law on same-gender marrage doesn't change anything about your life. The presance of absence of such a law changes a great deal about our hypothedical Steven & Tom's lives.

But the diference is that the presance or absence of a law on same-gender marrage doesn't change anything about your life. The presance of absence of such a law changes a great deal about our hypothedical Steven & Tom's lives.

Consider:

The bible's definition of marriage does not include same-sex unions.
Allowing same-sex marriage devalues the bible's definition.
This devalues the bible and by extension the christian faith.

Solution:
Call it something other than 'marriage'.

Allowing same-sex marriage devalues the bible's definition.
This devalues the bible and by extension the christian faith.

And since the US Constitution forbids the government from passing a law to support the Christian faith, this is not a valid secular reason to ban gay marriage.

Ok Luigi but where in religious discussions is there a specific bible or holy book topic. Or am I just blind. I didnt see one but I'll look again and then put the analysis there.

Yep pretty much the value of any religion is not the problem of the United States Government or Constitution. More of a problem of the religion involved in the disagreement.

Calling it anything but marriage is pointless as people will still call it marriage. Look at Kleenex and facial tissues, Coke and soda, Q-tip and cotton swabs, Marriage and civil-union.

[W]here in religious discussions is there a specific bible or holy book topic.

Here, for the Bible, specifically, or here, for sacred scriptures in general.


The bible's definition of marriage does not include same-sex unions.
Allowing same-sex marriage devalues the bible's definition.
This devalues the bible and by extension the christian faith.

The civil marriage laws already "devalue" the "Biblical definition of marriage." Unlike the Bible, they do not allow polygamy, concubinage, or sexual slavery (except as a role-play game), and they expect the partners to act fairly in the case of a divorce.

Anon: The bible's definition of marriage does not include same-sex unions. Allowing same-sex marriage devalues the bible's definition. This devalues the bible and by extension the christian faith.
Luigi Novi: Listen to what you're saying. You're saying that a religion is devalued merely by virtue of people who do not adhere to it. This is a specious argument. Are Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Islam, Judaism or Wicca "devalued" because we do not define words according to their sacred texts? The value of a religion is determined by those who follow it. Not those who do not, or by the secular laws of society. It's not like the Bible invented the concept of marriage, after all.

Ahhh I see now. I was looking in the more serious discussions and not the "lighter" topics for the bible. My bad. When I get a chance to getting around to it again I'll work up those posts again. Right now I am getting ready to go stuff myself. Peace out all!

"Zarm, as a friendly suggestion, could you put blank lines in between your paragraphs? Thanks."-Luigi Novi

No problem. Any idea why my indentations always dissapear, even when I re-type them in the preview section? I never had that problem before...


. R, The alignment of subjectives is not an objective because it is still subjective to the subjectives themselves! That is indeed the appearance of objectivity, but not the existence of such. So which is it: existence of objectives or not? After all, you just said that what he did was not good because it harmed people, which once again appears to be an absolute!

. Our impasse over gay marriage comes from your continued assertion that your actions are different because gay marriage would not affect non-gays. If you have not been reading what that isn’t true in the last 5 posts, I’m not going to bother posting it yet again. As an issue of culture and law, suffice it to say, it would affect everyone, like it or not.

. And please, don’t drag out the ‘heterosexual marriage isn’t perfect’ argument… it has all the logic of saying that a bucket is full of holes… so if we put a few more in, the bucket will mend. It just doesn’t work. Yes, Marriage is having trouble these days… partly because it is under constant fire from the gay-marriage activists! But I agree that divorce and breakups, especially those caused by selfishness or unwillingness to take responsibility to work things out are problems that need to be addressed as well.

. “Since the courts are the last refuge for true independence free of the scare tactics , lies and bullying that goes on during elections to prey on people's ignorance and personal biases that is the only recourse left for justice.”

. Thank you for going on record that you want to take democracy away from the people because you no longer think they can handle it.

. “So from what I have studied and learned I feel that the founding fathers would be more approving of my work and be more proud of what I am doing than they would of the christian taliban and would probably be just as condeming of them as I have been.” Based on your previous statement, pardon me while I go laugh out loud. The founding fathers would be disgusted at the attitude that because you think the people wouldn’t agree with your position, the choice should be taken out of their hands. That, my friend, is not America.

. You are claiming that the ‘CT’ is trying to force their beliefs on others by putting it to a vote and then you have the audacity to claim you’re not trying to force anything when you want to take away the people’s right to vote on it?!? Can’t you see the absurdity of that position?

. “And they also made movement to protect the government from religion.” Try reading that again… they made movement to protect RELIGION FROM GOVERNMENT! How could you read history for four years and come away with such a complete misunderstanding of the founding fathers? Like your views on Christian teachings, not only is what you’re saying flawed, often it’s the exact 180 of the actual positions held! Maybe that’s what they’re teaching in College these days… but that’s not the historical reality.

. The problem with your objectivity/subjectivity paragraph is this: even if (and there’s no chance whatsoever of this at present) our views did align to create ‘illusive objectivity’ it doesn’t matter… we both hold differing, mutually exclusive points of view on multiple topics, and at the end of the day, either one, the other, or neither can be correct- not both. So a set of subjective morals can go around aligning all day to their hearts content, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is still only one objective standard by which they are either right or wrong. So ‘aligned morals’ and ‘illusory objectivity’ don’t actually mean anything except that 2 or more people agree… but they don’t have any bearing on actual objectivity.


. About your final paragraph, I never said that having an open mind meant abandoning morals… merely that it seemed like you were asking me to do both and equating them as the same activity. I’m certainly willing to have an open mind- but having an open mind doesn’t change my perspectives, nor cause me to drop my positions unless I’m actually convinced that they’re wrong. Which so far, I haven’t been.


. “The civil marriage laws already "devalue" the "Biblical definition of marriage." Unlike the Bible, they do not allow polygamy, concubinage, or sexual slavery (except as a role-play game), and they expect the partners to act fairly in the case of a divorce.”

. Thank-you, Tom, for that wonderful off-topic attack on Christianity- that seems a popular sport on this thread. But I still challenge you to find where the Bible supports that- not records it.

. The biblical definition of marriage is a clearly defined, one-man, one-woman partnership of equality, love, and mutual respect- there are many in the Bible (including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, to name a few) who are recorded as stumbling sadly from that standard- but that doesn’t change the standard itself.


. Well… this was a fun day. I always enjoy multiple straw-men attacks and gross distortions on my belief system to start off Thanksgiving. Any chance the post-holiday thread could stay just a little bit on topic?

. Anyhow, I hope everyone DOES have a great Thanksgiving- we may have a lot to argue for, but Thank God that we still have a lot to be thankful for! Catch ya on the flip side!

Again, you cannot cite the Bible in any attempt to ban gay Marriage in the US. Secular reasons only.

No problem. Any idea why my indentations always dissapear, even when I re-type them in the preview section? I never had that problem before...

When multiple blank spaces appear, many discussion boards (including NitCentral) automatically "correct" the occurrence to a single space. If they immediately procede or follow a line break (the <Enter> key), they are often eliminated altogether. You can preserve your indents by using non-breaking spaces instead of regular ones. You enter a non-breaking space with the code \ch{nbsp}.

. Thank-you, Tom, for that wonderful off-topic attack on Christianity- that seems a popular sport on this thread. But I still challenge you to find where the Bible supports that- not records it.

The biblical definition of marriage is a clearly defined, one-man, one-woman partnership of equality, love, and mutual respect- there are many in the Bible (including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, to name a few) who are recorded as stumbling sadly from that standard- but that doesn’t change the standard itself.

Cite, please? (Other than Matthew 19/Mark 10 -- which does not specifically champion "equality, love, and mutual respect") Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the conditions I mentioned prevail, without negative comment.

However, as Scott mentioned, even if you could show that the Bible proscribes the ideal that you claim it does, the First Amendment prohibits favoring a Christian ideal over that of other religions, or no religion. You need to advance non-religious reasons for the law.

Where did Tom "attack" Christianity?

And where in these five posts did you indicated what the supposed effects of gay marriage would be. You never listed any. You simply asserted that there would be some, but not what those effects would be.

Our impasse over gay marriage comes from your continued assertion that your actions are different because gay marriage would not affect non-gays. If you have not been reading what that isn’t true in the last 5 posts, I’m not going to bother posting it yet again. As an issue of culture and law, suffice it to say, it would affect everyone, like it or not. - Zarm Rkeeg

The only effect on non-gays that I recall seeing in this lengthy discussion was about STDs, but you could make a case that those could be decreased by making it easier for homosexuals to be monogamous. Also, the STD rate is simply a matter of degree. I don't know that it justifies treating one group 180 degrees differently. At any rate, were there other secular reasons that I missed?

Also, if objective morality exists, it hasn't been demonstrated objectively. It's entirely a matter of interpretation (like you said about following Christian teachings). So we would have to figure out as best we could (by ourselves or through teachings of others) what those standards are and how to follow them. Wouldn't that process ultimately be subjective?

Zarm you keep saying there would be repercussions for permitting same gender marriage, but you refuse to post any. Not once in these past 5 posts have you said and enumerated what those repercussions would be. I would like to see what you are talking about so that you stop aounding like chicken little about this. Now when things calm down after the holidays (calm being a relative term in my life) I'll try and post what i understand the christian taliban's arguments to be.

Also obviously you do not understand the importance of the courts in our legal system of checks and balances. The courts are there to protect the citizens of this country from the "tyranny of the majority" imposing a law that is unconstitutional yet popular. It doesnt matter if 51% or 98% agree with a law if it is unconstitutional it is the right of the remainder to go to court and have the law overturned. Or would you rather see that right taken away from people?

And just when have I said that I want to see democracy taken away from people? That is the furthest thing from the truth and you know it. I fought long and hard against the christian taliban's lies but they had the better scare tactics, lies and coercive abilities. But the truth is that the law is an unconstitutional, discriminatory promotion of one narrow religious view of what a marriage is. That is unconstitutional. That is why people are going to court over it.

And obviously you do not understand the dividing lines the founding father put there to protect both institutions form each other. As long as churches and religion do not enter into politics they are allowed to run themselves,(within reasonable boundries) as they see fit. They do not pay taxes in most communities. There is more but I dont have the time to give you a compleate civics lesson. Suffice to say that the founding fathers declared this countries government to be a secular one. They put a line between religion and government for a reason and a purpose. They understood the dangers of combining the two of them.

As for our POV being contradictory. Yes you are correct on that. But they are not mutually exclusive as your POV works for you and is your interpretation of the world and my POV is my interpretation of the world and works for me. Therefore both are correct in as much as any relative observational point can be said to be correct. Regardless of subjective or objective it still comes down to a personal interpretation of subjective or objective in the first place and the source of that objectivity or subjectiveity in the second.

And TomM did not attack you or christianity in general from what I could see. he stated facts. Why is it anything that even sounds negative about the bible and religion is regarded as an attack? And since you keep saying that the bible records history does this mean that the bible is a human historical document and not divine?

And "marriage" is in trouble not from same-gender rights defenders but from fundies like the christian taliban not realizing that this is the modern world and that they have to change and adapt and evolve or perish.

Save a horse ride a cowboy!

Thank you everyone who defended my statement from Zarm's claim that I attacked Christianity. My own reaction to his statement was not the claim of an attack, since I knew it was nothing of the sort (although it was, admittedly, dripping with sarcasm), but the claim that it was off-topic.

While the topic has drifted toward same-sex marriage, it was not my doing, and my post was a direct response to Zarm's statement that there is a biblical definition of marriage, and that same-sex marriage "devalues" it.

The Bible does not define marriage. Marriage was not a religious institution during Biblical times. There are certain expectations that the Bible makes of God-fearing men (and women), many of which involve our relationships with other persons collectively and individually. In the course of outlining these, it does mention how men are to treat their wives. But it says nothing about how those wives are chosen in the first place. Or how many. Etc.

Marriage laws -- civil marriage laws -- first became fully formalized under the Romans. The Church did not become involved in marriage ceremonies until the middle ages. Those early religious marriage rites were borrowed from religious ceremonies blessing same-sex "brotherhood" unions, just replacing the names of pairs of same-sex partnered saints used as exemplars with names of married saints. The very earliest ones, did not even do that, since there were not enough well-known married couples among the saints.

I will, if Zarm chooses to respond, continue this in the GLBT forum.

Interestingly, in Jewish tradition, marriage is also a business transaction. A valid Jewish marriage must have a Ketubah or marriage contract, signed by both the husband and wife.

Since it is a business transaction, this is why Jews may not marry between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday (on Shabbat).

  TomM, first off, I’d challenge you to cite where YOUR accusations are shown as a model or an instruction, and not as a recording. Second off, some of the many sources include Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-40.
  And in that response I wasn’t making any statements towards law, simply responding to your… remarks. And yes, I saw them as an attack because they were once again an attempt to pin a non-biblical position on the Bible as Christian teaching, intended from the tone and content to disparage. If it was intended differently, I’m sorry… but since tone doesn’t always carry through typed letters, it appeared as an attack to me.
  And yes, I believe this entire topic does have a board or two elsewhere, the appropriate venue for this discussion.

  Nove, the subjective choice to follow a morality has no bearing on whether the morality is objective or subjective… just on whether one chooses to acknowledge/follow it or not.

  R, what’s the point of democracy if un-accountable judges can overturn any law based on their own interpretation? I believe there’s a term for this… judicial tyranny. And yes, I believe it plagues us terribly today- judges do not have the right to overturn the will of the people in my book. Period. The Constitution may have that right, but not the judges or their broad interpretations.
  Think about what you’re advocating… instead of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ imposing it’s will on the country, you have the tyranny of a single man or woman imposing their will on the entire country! How can that be a step up? Yes, I understand the necessity for a challenge to unconstitutional law; but I don’t believe that our current system ensures a fair balance… it simply allows judicial imposition of opinion.
  In any event, what about the case of the proposed marriage amendment from a while back as an example? The Constitution doesn’t speak on marriage, so the judge has no right to rule anything- the people are there to vote on what should become a part of the constitution. If such a vote comes up, would you support the judge’s right to overrule the result? If so, based on what? I think I remember having this argument on another board- the only excuse they can find is the amendment which protects pre-existing rights, meaning that by their logic, any ‘right,’ once proposed, becomes a right automatically, and is thus ‘protected’ from the people deciding whether or not it’s a right in the first place! In areas like this, it becomes a simple case of judicial tyranny… a judge with no legal support, or occasionally a flimsy re-interpretation of an amendment, imposing their own opinion against the people.
  I’m sorry, but our POVs are contradictory since my beliefs include the belief that yours, to be honest, doesn’t really work. I’m not trying to flame you here, just to explain: our POVs are contradictory (so far as I’ve seen, in many places) because they apply beyond ourselves. So, while we can argue about who is correct till we’re blue in the face and the cows come home, the fact remains that they’re mutually contradictory.
  And yes, R. The Bible is a (an?) historical document. It’s also a book of teachings. In fact, it’s many things. How does a recording of history lessen divinity or divine inspiration?


  Finally, as we continue our circular conversation on Relativism, I’ll just reiterate a previous challenge… if good and evil, right and wrong, which have already been established, exist, are they not objective? And if they’re subjective (or collective, AKA a giant collection of subjectives that agree) what use are they as moral guideposts, or for interacting with the non-subjective real world? And secondly, if an absolute statement can be made (of which there have been hundreds on this page alone) does that not mean that absolutes, AKA objectives, do, in fact, exist?

The Constitution doesn’t speak on marriage,

Please see the 9th and 14th Amendments.

For a refresher lets look at those two amendments:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems pretty simple to me. You give one group a right you gotta give it to all groups.

What is the point of democracy if people can be able to ignore the constitution, fairness equality and justice and pass laws that discriminate, enshrine hatred and ignorance in the law, and fly in the face of the constitution with no review, mediation or recourse for those discriminated against to take other than armed rebellion?

And from the way I read your statement it does sound like you would like to take away the right of people to go to court to protect themselves from attacks such as that of the christian taliban.

Speakign of which what do you have to say about the arguments I posted on the GLBT board. They are the most common arguments I have encountered from the christian taliban as to why Same gender marraige should not be allowed.

Good and evil, right and wrong are absolutely subjective to each person. Objective good and evil, right and wrong is the averaging of the collective individual POV. It is still a good (as in effective) moral compass in that each person's good aligns with each others within such adegree that harm is minamized. Also when each person realizes that in the end their own influence and power only extends as far as their reach as each individual may accept or ignore the others decisions when left to their own devices.

instead of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ imposing it’s will on the country, you have the tyranny of a single man or woman imposing their will on the entire country! Zarm

Eh? Every level of the judiciary is overseen by another level of appeal, until you get to the Supreme Court, which boasts nine members. Thus, there cannot be the "tyranny of a single man or woman" as any justice will have to be joined by at least four of their fellows to advance their position.

Zarm: judges do not have the right to overturn the will of the people in my book. Period. The Constitution may have that right, but not the judges or their broad interpretations.
Luigi Novi: Judges can overrule the will of the peopel if the will of the people is to violate the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, we'd have tyranny of the majority. It is the job of judges to interpret the intent of the Constitution. That's not judicial tyranny; it's their job.

Zarm: if good and evil, right and wrong, which have already been established, exist, are they not objective?
Luigi Novi: What does existence have to do with objectivity or subjectivity? Good and evil are inventions of humans, and even if we evolved to invent them, the question of whether a given thing is right or wrong will still be subjective.

Zarm: And if they’re subjective...what use are they as moral guideposts, or for interacting with the non-subjective real world?
Luigi Novi: The fact that they end up doing just that answers that question. The fact that our opinion that female circumscision or chopping off someone's hands for theft is morally unacceptable is subjective doesn't mean that our society doesn't run smoothly with that widely-held belief nonetheless.

Those are modern interpretations of the 9th and 14th Amendments. At the time it was written, the 9th Amendment was meant to protect the rights of wealthy, white men. The Constitution still treated blacks like 3/5 of a human being, allowed for the restriction of voting rights, and made numerous other restrictions. If you want to go by the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, they clearly felt that "certain rights" were up for interpretation.

And just because blacks and women where not guarenteed the same rights as white land owning males means that theys hould not have been guarenteed the same rights when society evolved into a better enouhg society to recognize the need to acknowledge the rights that they had been denied.

And the INTENT of the founding fathers was also to keep religion out of government since they where not christians. So how is changing that intent right by the christian taliban and acknowledging the equality and freedom of homosexuals by the defenders of freedom wrong?

And those certain rights have been correctly interpretted by the heoric judges who stand in the face of the christian taliban and do the right thing. Which is to recognize and acknowledge that homosexuals are nothign more than people guarenteed the same rights and priviledges that all other people are in this country. This country has evolved and changed since the founding father's time. It has for the most part grown into a better more free country where people are all essentially equal. And aside from groups like the christian taliban, KKK, and Neo Nazis who want to ruin, destroy and degrade those freedoms most people are good and decent who wish to minimize harm to another.

  anon-er, inflamitory name, therein lies the exact problem to which I spoke: We're not allowed to debate whether something's a right because you're trying to declare it already a right, simply because of it's conception? It's nonsensical to say, but it's true: the basic position being taken on this is 'If you think it up as a right, it's a right, and therefore protected from anyone deiciding if it's a right.'
  The Constitution doesn't speak on what the right of marriage IS... so there is nothing in the Constitution to state or deny gay marriage as a 'right,' thus making it subject to such protection. But any attempt to decide whether it is a right is attemptedly-muzzled by someone who's unilateraly decided it IS a right, and under the protection of the 14th ammendment!

  R- can't you see though, that individual aligning moralities are truly useless? So what if two people or a hundred agree? Lucky them. But what about the hundreds that disagree? Take the situation in Iraq: Obviously, the terorists planting roadside bombs have a different deffinition of good and evil, right and wrong, then I do. Our moralities do not align. So, without objective morals, how can you say that either of us (or that shooter in the mall) are right or wrong? You can't. The best you can say is 'based on my subjective morals, I think that those actions conform to my personal definition of wrong, which applies only to me.' As long as you can say 'this is right' or 'this is wrong,' there are objectives and absolutes in play.

  Luigi- How do you know that good and evil were invented by humans? That's a supposition, based on which those standards would be subjective. But truthfully, you can't prove that. As for my line of questioning, the point is fairly simple... if objective morals exist, they are superior to subjective morals, because they are not subject to the whim or changing mind of an individual- they're an anchored ship, if you will, not a dinghy out to sea. Morals, like navigation, is only usefull for the real world if there is a fixed, unchanging point to set them by.
  As for your point about agreement making them valid... what happens if tomorrow, the majority reverses it's opinion on female circumcision or chopping off someone's hands for theft? They would be, based on moral subjectivity, just as correct as they are today.
  Subjectivity by agreement is essentially a 'Whew, we dodged a bullet system.' Luckily enough, we all aligned on something you think is good. But that doesn't give it weight, substance, or validity, nor does it ensure anything when public opinion shifts. Subjective morals are like signposts in quicksand- they're only good until the ground shifts.

  R, read some more history. Maybe start with George Washington's prayer for America. The founding fathers (in the majority) were Christians. It's okay. Take a few deep breaths.
  And stop trying to tell me the 'intent' of the founding fathers when it goes against history, their beliefs, and the actuall laws that they wrote.
  Now, the problem here is the moral equivalancy reasoning. Blacks and women were legitimate minorities that were discriminated against, so homosexuals must be, too. And so is the next group that claims disenfranchisment. And the next. In fact, we can't say no... because just like a right becomes a right when it's proposed, and is autmotically protected, a minority becomes a legitimate discrminated-against minority when it's proposed as well, right?
  Think about it... Homosexuals aren't denied the vote. They aren't segregated in schooling. They're certainly not enslaved. In fact, they aren't being denied anything that is universally recognized as a right. The only thing in contest here is the same basic issue: Is the right to marriage "The right to marry any one person of the opposite gender." or "The right to marry any one person, regardless of gender." (In both cases, not already married, not a sibling, etc.)
  The problem is that- by the way, how did we get back on this topic again...?- we can't have a discussion about this because of the circular rights-logic described above.
  So before you start throwing around the KKK and the Neo Nazis, why can't you acknowledge that the only discrimination going on here is your attitude towards differing viewpoints on homosexuality? And once we've established that, maybe get the two sides dialoging about what freedoms and rights are valid, and which ones are just made up- without tyring to throw the 14th ammendment as a blanket over the whole discussion to prevent debate in the first place?
  (For the record, the UN Human Rights comission, while recognizing the critical importance of marriage and the traditional family, does not recognize so-called 'gay-marriage' as a right.)

Zarm you are the one with the education problem. Perhaps you should put down the bible and actually look up a few things.

Most of the founding fathers where DEISTS. they would be appalled at being lumped with the "christians" of today and especially the christian taliban. Do you even know what a DEIST is? It most certianly is not christian. I mean what more proof do you want than to look at their own writings. Jefferson re-wrote the freaking bible to REMOVE all traces of the divinity of jesus. Putting him equal to all other humans. Or do you deny that Jefferson did this? In the treaty of Tripoli it is declared that the United States is a SECULAR country. Not a christian country. If the founding fathers had wanted to declare this a christian country they most certianly would have reworded most of the important documents and would have taken the opportunity at that time to have done declared it for the world to see. This country has a secular government that is sperate from religion so that no one religion may gain promonince above any other. So that any one religion cannot be supportted by the government above any other. What if the catholics where the official state government sponsored religion? Would you be happy to have to live in a country with catholic laws? Or maybe jewish? Or muslim? Or buddist? Which sect of the "christian" faiths should we permit to be the state religion? Which one of the warring factions of the children of god should we allow to dictate the terms to everyone else in this country? NO it is much much better if we keep religion out of government and government out of religion. The two are oil and water, matter and anti-matter. One of the problems of the middle east is that the religion and the government are the one and the same. You allow too much religion into your government and you destroy freedom, you destroy equality and you most definately destroy peace. As persecution of any and all who will not bow down and swear allegiance to the state religion occurs.

And as for the discrimination against homosexuals, it has happened, is happening and unless forces of good fight against the evil will continue to happen. In cincinnati until last year it was legal for people to discriminate against a person just because they where homosexual. Homosexuals had no legal recourse within the city of cincinnati. Fortunately enough heroic individuals managed to get that law repealed and destroyed. So that homosexuals now enjoy the same legal protection as heterosexuals.

And no the constitution does not specifically mantion the civil aspects of marriage in and of itself. but there are many things that are taken for granted that are not mentioned directly in the constitution. One of them being presumed innocent until proven guilty, among a good deal more. This is why we need intelligent rational and independent juduicial review to interpret those articles of the constitution and its amendments as well as common law (which is where civil marriage comes from) practices. Which if heterosexuals can marry any person of their choosing then homosexuals can and should do so as well. To deny them this basic principle of freedom, equality and justice is to discriminate against them soley on their sexuality and that you dont like them. And have you even read the posting on the GLBT board or do you want to continue to avoid them because you admit that the christian taliban is lying about their reasons for hating samegendermarraige?

Equality and justice for ALL people. Not just the people the christian taliban approves of. The founding fathers placed the wall of seperation (Jefferson's own words) between religion and governtment because they coudl see the dangers having religion infect and entangle itself with government could cause. They escaped a tyrannical state sponsored church and did not want to see something like that happen again.

and individually aligning moralities are what makes a society good or evil. The basic intrinsic "goodness" of each person is brought about by three basic desires that defines good. 1: the wish to minimize harm 2: the wish to avoid unnecessary conflict and 3: the wish to help alleviate suffering of self or others. If a person follows those desires then they pass the objective and subjective reality of being good.

And I still say that your definition of good and evil are only your opinion and your interpretation of one particular religious document. They are not "universal" because not even every religion agrees with them. The three rules I just posted make more sense than all 10 of your commendments. So why continue to claim there is a universal good and evil based on one particular mythology when it just comes down to each individual human's perception of the universe. As long as each individual continues to do more positive than negative actions that is the same thing as saying they are a good person from either an objective or subjective POV. But we cannot even agree on what is a positive actions. You see discriminating against and denying homosexuals basic human rights as a positive and good thing and I see fighting and thwarting the evils of the christian taliban's attempt to discriminate as a good thing. This is why each person should not worry about what someone else is doing with their life and to concentrate on keeping their own house in order. You worry about Zarm, R worries about R and bob and steve worry about bob and steve.

And so you will quote from the UN when it agrees with you but not if it goes against you. Right. yeah.

Zarm: anon-er, inflamitory name, therein lies the exact problem to which I spoke: We're not allowed to debate whether something's a right because you're trying to declare it already a right, simply because of it's conception? It's nonsensical to say, but it's true: the basic position being taken on this is 'If you think it up as a right, it's a right, and therefore protected from anyone deiciding if it's a right.'

The Constitution doesn't speak on what the right of marriage IS... so there is nothing in the Constitution to state or deny gay marriage as a 'right,' thus making it subject to such protection. But any attempt to decide whether it is a right is attemptedly-muzzled by someone who's unilateraly decided it IS a right, and under the protection of the 14th ammendment!
Luigi Novi: In what does Anon stating his position on the issue somehow mean that it is debating the subject is “not allowed”? Of course people form their own opinions “unilaterally”. Don’t you do so with yours? Are you saying that you do not form your own opinions unilaterally? In what way is it any different for Anon to “unilaterally” decide that marriage is a right than it is for you to unilaterally decide what the definition of marriage is?

Zarm: Luigi- How do you know that good and evil were invented by humans? That's a supposition, based on which those standards would be subjective.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s based on the fact that they’re not naturally-occurring.

Zarm: But truthfully, you can't prove that. As for my line of questioning, the point is fairly simple... if objective morals exist, they are superior to subjective morals, because they are not subject to the whim or changing mind of an individual- they're an anchored ship, if you will, not a dinghy out to sea. Morals, like navigation, is only usefull for the real world if there is a fixed, unchanging point to set them by.
Luigi Novi: Again, that is not what the word “objective” means. I already had this argument with Peter Cuthbertson, and just like you, he kept tripping up on this point, and couldn’t rebut it. Why do people such as he and yourself insist on using words in a way that has nothing to do with their definition (particularly since you seem to put a lot of stock in what the “definitions” of things are)? Objectivity and subjectivity have absolutely nothing to do with whether something is “changing” or “fixed” or “universal.”

Objectivity and subjectivity refer to the degree to which a decision or viewpoint is influenced by bias or predisposition. Because morality is does not exist in nature, and cannot be discerned as a question of fact the way say, mathematics can, there is no way for one moral system to be “correct” and another to be “incorrect.” Thus, if you took a pre-WWII Japanese man who worshipped the Emperor, an indigenous native of a South American tribe, an Anglo-European Christian, an African who believed in female circumcision, and a strict Arab Muslim who believed that it was right to ban television, music and artwork, each one would naturally argue that their moral system was the “correct” one. The only way one could decide if one of these was the one correct one “objectively” would be if the judge somehow existed outside each and every one of those systems, and was totally uninfluenced by any of them (as in the case, for example, of an extraterrestrial who came to Earth to be the judge). But none of these hypothetical people exist outside of those moral systems, as they were each indoctrinated within them. Thus, their viewpoints are all going to be subjective.

Zarm: As for your point about agreement making them valid... what happens if tomorrow, the majority reverses it's opinion on female circumcision or chopping off someone's hands for theft? They would be, based on moral subjectivity, just as correct as they are today.
Luigi Novi: Correct.

Zarm: Subjectivity by agreement is essentially a 'Whew, we dodged a bullet system.' Luckily enough, we all aligned on something you think is good. But that doesn't give it weight, substance, or validity, nor does it ensure anything when public opinion shifts. Subjective morals are like signposts in quicksand- they're only good until the ground shifts.
Luigi Novi: The problem with this position of yours is that you’re confusing the descriptive with the prescriptive. Whether something is “good” or “useful” or “valid” has nothing to do with whether it is. Whether something is subjective or objective is a question of fact. But whether it is valid or useful is a matter of opinion. Attempting to connect the two is fallacious.

Apart from the question of whether moral systems or beliefs are objective or subjective, you ask about their usefulness or validity. I don’t know what you consider to be “weight” or “substance”, but if moral systems do keep us from hurting one another or violating one another’s rights, then or course they work. We evolved morality because it was good for the species, and we can observe how this works by observing pre-moral behavior among animals. (Referred to as “pre-moral” because animals, unlike us, cannot make intellectual assessments of morality.) Vampire bats, for example, exhibit food-sharing behavior and the principle of reciprocity. They go out at night in hoards to suckk blood from large sleeping mammals. Not all will be successful, but because of their high metabolism, all need to eat regularly. The solution is that the more fortunate bats will regurgitate blood and share it with their less fortunate comrades, and will expect reciprocity the next time they find themselves the unlucky ones. This helps keep the entire group alive. Other animals exhibit pre-moral behavior like this as well.

Thus, a moral system is “useful,” “valid”, and has “weight” if it helps the group survive. Public opinion may shift, Zarm, but what keeps both individuals and the group alive is pretty easy to discern, wouldn’t you say?

Zarm: anon-er, inflamitory name, therein lies the exact problem to which I spoke: We're not allowed to debate whether something's a right because you're trying to declare it already a right, simply because of it's conception? It's nonsensical to say, but it's true: the basic position being taken on this is 'If you think it up as a right, it's a right, and therefore protected from anyone deiciding if it's a right.'

The Constitution doesn't speak on what the right of marriage IS... so there is nothing in the Constitution to state or deny gay marriage as a 'right,' thus making it subject to such protection. But any attempt to decide whether it is a right is attemptedly-muzzled by someone who's unilateraly decided it IS a right, and under the protection of the 14th ammendment!

Think about it... Homosexuals aren't denied the vote...They aren't being denied anything that is universally recognized as a right.

Zarm: So before you start throwing around the KKK and the Neo Nazis, why can't you acknowledge that the only discrimination going on here is your attitude towards differing viewpoints on homosexuality?
Luigi Novi: I respond to these points here.

I realize that I never responded to the first post on this board because I never got around to it, with work and all, but perhaps I'll get to it tonight.

Hey I never said we couldn't debate these amendments or issues. What I said was "It looks pretty simple to ME". Of course what is simple for one person may not be for another.

And since morals and relationships and people getting together predate the constitution, they even predate the bible where does it say that you comming along and imposing your uptight moral view of the world makes things any better? Or that your morals are any righter than someone else's.

TomM, first off, I’d challenge you to cite where YOUR accusations are shown as a model or an instruction, and not as a recording. Second off, some of the many sources include Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-40.
And in that response I wasn’t making any statements towards law, simply responding to your… remarks. And yes, I saw them as an attack because they were once again an attempt to pin a non-biblical position on the Bible as Christian teaching, intended from the tone and content to disparage. If it was intended differently, I’m sorry… but since tone doesn’t always carry through typed letters, it appeared as an attack to me.
And yes, I believe this entire topic does have a board or two elsewhere, the appropriate venue for this discussion.

My responses to these paragraphs, as well as to another post above not directly addressed to me will be posted in the approriate fora (PM's GLBT and Judicial Bias fora and RM's Homosexuality forum)

I was looking through the July 2006 issue of the conservative magazine NewMax today, and came across this piece entitled “Celebrities Spurn Marriage,” which I admit surprised me. Are we still living in a time where we try to shame people for how they start families? I was particularly offended by the last sentence in the Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams passage. But what really took me aback was seeing, in the same issue, this article. I decided to write the following letter to NewsMax:

So let me get this straight: On pages 13-14 of your July issue, you not only shove your personal morality down others’ throats by presuming to criticize Hollywood celebs who choose to begin families in a manner not fitting with your approval (having kids out of wedlock? The horror!), but just 28 pages later, you run a column by……….Dick Morris? The same Dick Morris who not only cheated on his wife with prostitutes whose toes he sucked while letting them listen in on conversations with the President, but also……..fathered a child out of wedlock himself? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris#Scandal) Tell me, do you guys buy hypocrisy like that in a jar and consume it orally, or does it exude from within like some type of hormone?

Luigi Novi

If you’d like to send your own letter to NewsMax, you can email them at: letters@newsmax.com.

I would not care so much about the pre-marital children if not for the shall we say, generally turbulent, state of Hollywood relationships. But they're not my kids.

I'm less convinced by the inclusion of the Dick Morris article. While an interesting irony, I'm sure things like that happen all the time. A magazine printing an article by someone less than morally upright? Shocking. I suppose if we take a stand on drunk driving we shall never have Ted Kennedy write an article for our magazine. Or an article on marital fidelity means that Bill Clinton is verboten. Or an article on military service eliminates George Bush.

If the article was intended to educate people against drunk driving, then no, that would not be necessary. But if it criticized specific people for drunk driving, and only Hollywood celebs or Democrats (as if people on their side of the political aisle did not do this), then yeah, the same hypocrisy would apply. In addition, drunk driving is illegal, physically dangerous, and kills. Having kids out of wedlock is none of those things.

The same parallels could be drawn with infidelity or military service, particularly if the article engaged in finger pointing, and only with a specific segment of society, while ignoring ignoring the problem in their own glass houses.

That's a good point.

Thank you, sir.

Good and evil, harm and benefit are all in the eyes of the beholder. Everyone sees and filters the world through their own bias. True neutrality is very hard to achiev the best one can hope to do is lift the filters enough to see thigns through another's eyes.