[xSuspensionx]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It was not an insult to you (unless you are inferring that I called you a liar)... and while it might be interpreted as an insult to your post, that's fair ground... nor do I know what you are referring to as the first insult, nor does it matter.

I'm sorry that you took the statement as an attack on your person, it was not. You know full well the road that bringing me to a trading of insults is; you also should have a good idea that I don't use such subtleties in insulting.

I'm not quite sure, as I cannot read minds, but I think that mustbenothing intended to say that you were about to insult him, as your statement "Careful, John" seemed to indicate that if he were to continue you would insult him.

It seems that mustbenothing was reading into your post. You have probably said something with similar logic behind it before, just my idea of what mustbenothing meant by "insult".

[Travis]

Jerry, if you already answered this just copy and paste: Isn't wanting murder to be outlawed an imposition of morality? You asked what reason there could be for prohibiting certain kinds of sex other than moral reasons; well I ask what reason there could be to prohibit murder other than moral reasons.

[joelsdad]

[QUOTE=JerryLove]Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.


In this it is from a moral or religious reason, but definitely not from a Christian reason. there is no prohibition in the bible for married couples to engage in any sexual act as long as it is mutually acceptable..



I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals.

Even amorality is a set of morals. Proposing any law at all, even one that beneficial for all in society is imposing a morality on someone. Sorry Jerry but amorality is a morality, Just as the Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that Atheistic humanismis a bonafide religion.
.



.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, if you already answered this just copy and paste: Isn't wanting murder to be outlawed an imposition of morality?

It's an issue of justification. If I outlaw murder solely on the grounds "it's wrong", then I am imposing a moral... if I outlaw it "to protect myself from being murdered", then it is not.

I suppose there is an entirely different, but far more slippery, view that one could take... That we have a minimalist set of communal morals (for example, that people have rights that should be protected), and I'm objecting to the addition of morals that I don't feel are basic and communal... and I generally agree with the Declaration of Independance on establishing what those basic rights are.

That said, I do see a distinct difference between protecting a right and imposing a moral... and while I can see the argument above (that protecting a right is a moral), I don't agree with it on a practical level.

You asked what reason there could be for prohibiting certain kinds of sex other than moral reasons; well I ask what reason there could be to prohibit murder other than moral reasons.

Protecting rights. Prohibition of sexual acts does not protect a right.

In this it is from a moral or religious reason, but definitely not from a Christian reason. there is no prohibition in the bible for married couples to engage in any sexual act as long as it is mutually acceptable..

Well, that really takes the wind out of the "cause it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality... unnatural sex is OK?

That said, and granting your premise (that the Bible does not prohibit sexual acts between concenting spouses), that just means that the Christian view is not Biblically justified... not that it's not held by many Christians as a Chrsitian view.

I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals.

No, I have not argued that morality laws are immoral.. I've argued that they are bad laws... and I've argued that not all worldviews would impose their morality on others by making them.

Even amorality is a set of morals. Proposing any law at all, even one that beneficial for all in society is imposing a morality on someone. Sorry Jerry but amorality is a morality, Just as the Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that Atheistic humanismis a bonafide religion.

I see a distinction between a law founded on moral groudns, and a law founded on (say) practical grounds.

And 1962 is hardly a good year in the American judicial archives.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's an issue of justification. If I outlaw murder solely on the grounds "it's wrong", then I am imposing a moral... if I outlaw it "to protect myself from being murdered", then it is not.

So why do you have the right to protect yourself from being murdered?

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) I've said... over and over and over... that I'm discussing the IMPOSING of MORALS

(Me) Here is what I said originally:

"There are certainly degrees of "persecuting" that could be debated, but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case."

By the definition you use for the word 'impose,' my statement is false.

By the definition I was using for the word 'impose' (i.e., cause to accept), my statement is true.

[JerryLove]

So why do you have the right to protect yourself from being murdered?

All rights have a single source... the power to take them.

In this case, my society has granted life as a right... I also personally protect that as a right.

[joelsdad]

Protecting rights. Prohibition of sexual acts does not protect a right.

But who in your society decides what is right and what is not. What standard of morality or right and wrong is used by atheists to determine what restrictive legislation to put on society. Is it might makes right? 50%+1? Some philosophical retort? Why is murder wrong in your atheistic society?" What is the standardf that makes it wrong?

[JerryLove]

But who in your society decides what is right and what is not.

Society et al (from where power is derived).

What standard of morality or right and wrong is used by atheists to determine what restrictive legislation to put on society.

It's intuitively obvious that "right" covers the ability to do something (weather it be work, or own a gun, or simply live). Trying to come up with a syntax that needs to begin "I have the right to have you not do X" is not "rights" in a painful obvious way.

Is it might makes right?

Yes.

Why is murder wrong in your atheistic society?

It depends on your use of the word "wrong". It is disallowed because it is deemed desierable (indeed, the point of forming communities) to protect the collective "me".

[Travis]

Personally I don't even think "might makes right" is needing of a refutation. Virtually anyone, atheist and Christian alike, knows that such a notion is utterly absurd and renders all laws arbitrary and leaves everything permissable as long as you have the power to do it.

Question: Is it right for a middle aged man to viciously rape a prepubescent girl? Remember, might makes right--what is she going to do to stop him? And if you appeal to society in this, then I ask what about a situation in which a society thought it fine for this to occur. Let's say the vast majority of people thought that grown men raping little girls is great. Is it right? What about Nazi Germany? Might makes right. Their actions were permissable.

And this leads us back to our discussion, Jerry. If we Christians can have Christian laws enacted, what claim do you have against it? If we can muster the power to do it, it's right according to how you define right.

[JerryLove]

Personally I don't even think "might makes right" is needing of a refutation. Virtually anyone, atheist and Christian alike, knows that such a notion is utterly absurd and renders all laws arbitrary and leaves everything permissable as long as you have the power to do it.

So, is it your claim that it is mere coincidence that right and wrong are decided by the mightest being in your beliefs (God?). Seems to me that you determine right from wrong by the dictates of the one with the most power.

Question: Is it right for a middle aged man to viciously rape a prepubescent girl? Remember, might makes right--what is she going to do to stop him? And if you appeal to society in this, then I ask what about a situation in which a society thought it fine for this to occur. Let's say the vast majority of people thought that grown men raping little girls is great. Is it right? What about Nazi Germany? Might makes right. Their actions were permissable.

The rape is wrong because a more mighty entity (the government) says so, the Axis was wrong because a more powerful group (the Allies) says so. You draw your mral compas from what a more powerfulg entity (God) has dictated.

On what moral justification did God kill the babies of the hittites? Or the Egyptians? or the world in the flood? On his own authority. And from wence did that authority come? From himself. Why can't I give myself the same authority? Because I lack the might to do so.

And this leads us back to our discussion, Jerry. If we Christians can have Christian laws enacted, what claim do you have against it? If we can muster the power to do it, it's right according to how you define right.

I claimed it was a bad law. but more importantly, it simply makes my case about imposing your morals on others (you do remember the topic right?)

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The rape is wrong because a more mighty entity (the government) says so, the Axis was wrong because a more powerful group (the Allies) says so.

Now answer my question: What if the Axis had been more powerful? Would it have been right. Yes or no.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I claimed it was a bad law.

How do you justify calling anything bad if the majority is in favor of it?

[JerryLove]

Now answer my question: What if the Axis had been more powerful? Would it have been right. Yes or no.

It would have been their right, yes.

How do you justify calling anything bad if the majority is in favor of it?

Because it directly fits my definition. I did not say "a good law is on which is supported", I said "a good law is one which protects me".

There's "bad" and "good",
There's "moral" and "immoral"
There's "right" and "wrong"
There's "right" and "not right"

At minimum, there are four *different* comparisons there... in reality, there are more than that.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am typically using the follwing:

"good and bad" is a definitional matter. Food which nourishes is "good", food which makes you sick is "bad".

"moral and immoral" is subjective. To a Christian, they are whatever they feel God has arbitrated... to a non-Christian, they come from other sources.

"right and wrong" I have not used too much here. Probibly most important as "acceptable by convention or law" and "unacceptable by convention or law". Therefore following te speed limit is right, not following it is wrong.

"right and not right" differentiates the "rights of [people]" from things which are not rights. There is an intuitive understanding betweeen a right "the right to wear plad" and a non-right "the non-right to make you recite poetry"... though in the end, all rights are held and handed out soley by the entities with the power to enforce their will to do so.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It would have been their right, yes.

Because it directly fits my definition. I did not say "a good law is on which is supported", I said "a good law is one which protects me".

Well it protects me, therefore it is a good law.

[JerryLove]

Well it protects me, therefore it is a good law.

What does it protect you from?