It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
Now the high court of California has made gay marriage into a right that is immune from restriction by the majority of citizens in the state. We already know what California citizens think about gay marriage: they oppose it. A referendum outlawing gay marriage was passed with the support of the state's voters.
How, then, can a court invalidate the referendum and over-rule the will of the people? Basically through a kind of legal fraud. The court has to pretend that there is a right to gay marriage even though it is nowhere evident in the state constitution. Read the constitution, hold it up to the light, squeeze lemon juice on it--you won't see a right to gay marriage in there. It is simply not an enumerated right, nor is it a right that can be clearly derived from other enumerated rights.
Here we see liberal jurisprudence in its arrogant willingness to subvert the will of the people in order to achieve its ideological agenda. This has nothing to do with whether you think gays should be allowed to marry. If you think they should, go ahead and vote for candidates who support gay marriage. But you should still oppose the manufacture of bogus rights in order to reach a result that democracy would not by itself allow.
Attempting to insulate themselves from the political fallout, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they oppose gay marriage. The real question, however, is what they would do to express this opposition. What would a President Obama do, for instance, to protect traditional marriage? Here the answer appears to be: nothing!
In the past Democrats have always appreciated courts doing their dirty work when it comes to issues like abortion, pornography, prostitution and gay rights. This way Democrats can advance their permissive agenda without having to take political responsibility for voting against the values of a majority of voters.
I know that there are gays who desperately want gay marriage, and in a way I'm happy for them. But at the same time I'm sad for constitutional democracy, which suffered a grievous blow at the hands of the California high court.
Reader Comments ( Page 86 of 86)
1276. Peter: You still have not answered if you find it morally objectionable to toss puppies off of cliffs and have fun doing it.
PV: Since it was the result of the soldier's evolved natural instinct to do so, the act was natural and was entirely consistent with actions found in the rest of the animal kingdom.
So you are saying that you PerVerted don't think it morally objectionable to toss puppies off of a cliff for fun. Wow.
As I said before you have confirmed again and proven that you are a depraved individual. Your own comments convict you of being morally bankrupt.
Your extremist moral relativist position PerVerted is horrific. It's sad that you view the world that way.
Peter at 10:45PM on Jun 5th 2008
1277. Peter: You still have not answered if you find it morally objectionable to toss puppies off of cliffs and have fun doing it.
PV: Since it was the result of the soldier's evolved natural instinct to do so, the act was natural and was entirely consistent with actions found in the rest of the animal kingdom.
So you are saying that you PerVerted don't think it morally objectionable to toss puppies off of a cliff for fun. Wow.
As I said before you have confirmed again and proven that you are a depraved individual. Your own comments convict you of being morally bankrupt.
Your extremist moral relativist position PerVerted is horrific. It's sad that you view the world that way.
Peter at 11:07PM on Jun 5th 2008
1278. Peter: As has been said before you paint the worst picture possible of atheists.
PV: I accurately paint them as unavoidably stuck with moral relativism.
Actually we are ALL stuck with morals as determined by each individual. That is a fact of Nature that not even your claims of god can change. If you want to call that extreme moral relativism then go ahead.
You seem to fear moral relativism - why?
The fact is is that *individuals* make moral choices, not bibles nor mythical gods.
The fact is that our species has lived individuals making moral choices (what you seem to want to call extreme moral relativism) since the dawn of time and we've not yet destroyed ourselves. Although there is no guarantee we won't destroy ourselves it is proof that most humans don't go around becoming all out war machines committing horrific acts against everyone in their sight. We'll leave that for moral absolutists and evil vile BELIEFISTS like followers of Jesus, Bush, Cheney, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Iran, Israel, etc...
If you choose to use a moral code that you believe came from your mythical god that's fine go ahead. If by doing so you cause harm to others then you should watch out as they well fight back if they can.
In order for you to have your assertion that here is a divine law giver of morals you'll need to PROVE the existence of your mythical god; then you'll need to prove that the laws given come from your mythical god and not from some wayward control freak priests.
Oh, wait, there is no proof of your mythical god and thus no proof of your objective moral code. Funny that.
Oh, what ever the proported mythical god laws are is tricky since there seems to be a lot of confusion even among christians as to what the laws of god are, and that is not mentioning ALL the other religions on Earth who have a god giving them different moral laws. They can't all be right now can they if they are objective laws from god? I suppose of course that your laws are the correct ones perverted.
Whose to say which mythical god's laws are the objective ones? Got you there! QED.
It comes back to the basic question: what is your scientifically supported proof that god exists?
Failure to answer that puts your silly notion of an objective moral code from your mythical god in disrepute as it has been for many thousands of years.
The fact is that your fear based god's moral code is itself just one of many relativistic moral codes - albeit one that pretends that it's objective.
Oh, those crimes (genocide, murder, rape, killing for fun, etc...) are morally objectionable since my evolved morals informs me that they are wrong.
Yes, there are others that won't see murder as wrong; others like Bush (41 & 43) [a christian], Clinton (42 and likely 44vp)[a christian], the Castro brothers [communist cult crusaders], leaders of Israel [jewish], leaders of Iran [muslim], etc... all these people think murder is just fine if it suits their needs.
Yes, morals are relative. There is nothing we can do about that other than to create agreement on what the best moral codes are that we can create to cause the least harm in the world. That is the harsh nature of objective reality. Live with it or go stick you head in the sand of your bible.
You simply make your life and the lives of those who are harmed by christian morals worse by hiding behind the false protection of your god of iniquity with his really high quality morals (cynically written in case you didn't get that).
Oh, wait, here is one of the nice morals of PerVerted's god, or is that of the perverted god of the christians.
Luk 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk019.html#27
If you can't understand nor stand the old language here it is translated into modern English:
Luke 19:27 "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me."
"What is the measure of a god? Is it the scope of god's power or how god chooses to wield that power? Would a god who is prepared to lead us on the path of enlightenment so contradict the divine benevolence by destroying all those who refuse to believe in him? Why must those who refuse to believe burn in the pain of hell for all eternity? " - Teal'c
So I suppose that you'll have to drag myself, Dennet, Hitchen's, Dawkins, Harris, and millions of other atheists in front of god where ever he is located and kill us in front of him. Just remember that we have tools to defend ourselves.
Oh, wait you're not doing that for some reason. Oh wait, your moral relativistic code which might have originated with the bible (I doubt that origin but that is another conversation) has EVOLVED to the point that you don't kill unbelievers. Wow. Disobeying god though, so you'd better watch out as I'm sure he send you to a hell where you are the nice little puppy that gets thrown off of the cliff time and time again for fun by the US Soldiers.
Jesus to PerVerted: you are a sinner for not carrying out the word of god. You shall be condemned forever to burn in hell as a little puppy... well you know the rest... off you go... toss... splat... toss... ouch... spalt... toss... splat... ... toss... splat... toss... infinity... or at least till the universe freezes over...
I judge your god's morals to be immoral. Luke 19:27 is but one example. It is another reason that I reject the silly notion of your mythical god. I spit upon your mythical god, but not on the works of art when I see them as some of them are quite beautiful.
Peter at 11:34PM on Jun 5th 2008
1279. Peter: Your extremist moral relativist position PerVerted is horrific. It's sad that you view the world that way.
PV: The atheist Bertrand Russell rightly noted that you must admit that you have nothing to say to the Nazi (or the slaveholder, or the pedophile, etc.) but, "I happen not to approve of your actions, but I can't say that they're 'wrong' in any sense that goes beyond my disapproval." I'm urging you to be a consistent atheist like Bertrand Russell.
Peter: Oh, those crimes (genocide, murder, rape, killing for fun, etc...) are morally objectionable since my evolved morals informs me that they are wrong.
PV: But the man down the street's evolved morals inform him that they are right. So, your moral choices are entirely whatever you want them to be and are not objectively required for other humans or other human societies. Say goodbye to objective human rights!
Peter: I judge your god's morals to be immoral.
PV: Whatever judgments you make about any other being's morals are relative and non-transferrable. You hate killing puppies and think it's wrong, but another person or culture may decide that killing puppies is right. It's a draw!
Peter: You seem to fear moral relativism - why?
PV: Because the moral relativism of atheism cannot produce objective human rights, and governments that can't posit nor defend objective human rights are doomed to the mass murders and abuses of humans (e.g., Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). That's precisely why atheists must never again be allowed to have state power. The American concept of "inalienable objective human rights" is both theorized and defended on religious grounds, as Thomas Jefferson himself noted.
The logical result of atheism is that the Nazis were right in their moral code, the Stalinists were right in their moral code, and the KKK is right in its moral code, and the Americans are right in our moral code, etc. etc.
Have a relative weekend, Peter. Embrace the logical conclusions of your atheism. Embrace moral relativism fully, Peter. Quit imposing your personal arbitrary moral judgments on others, whether those others are rapists, murderers, puppy-killers, Nazis, or Stalinists. They're all just moral beings following their particular brand of morals.
You may have the last word, as I'm outta here for the weekend.
preteristvision at 1:28PM on Jun 6th 2008
1280. PerVerted your entire notion of a divine absolute moral law as given by your mythical god rests upon faith and belief alone with no hard scientific evidence for the existence of god nor of the divine absolute moral laws you assert.
The use of the word "creator" in the US Constitution is quite unfortunate and without evidence is simply another instance of faith based nonsense.
Rather than what was written, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", the following would be just as fine and powerful: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Laws of Nature with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No need to invoke an unproven god. In fact each reference to god or creator weakens the document by taking it away from objective reality.
Without proof of your mythical god your beliefs and faith are all you got. That is not enough to sustain an ethical system nor a moral system.
As has been pointed out here quite extensively the morals presented in the bible are not moral by today's standards.
As has been pointed out here an extreme moral relativism isn't what a vast majority of people in the world use to guide their own moral choices.
As has been pointed out here and elsewhere it's impossible to know which set of 'absolute morals' from the various gods humans have invented (so far at least 10,000+ and counting) are the true 'absolute morals'. Since it's not possible to determine which 'absolute morals' are the correct set of morals it's ridiculous to assume that any of them are. The very fact that multiple different religions with mutually exclusive moral codes claim to have 'absolute morals from their mythical god' itself is a excellent piece of evidence that the mythical god doesn't exist and that the claimed absolute moral codes are just another relativistic moral code with nothing absolute in them.
Essentially belief in any god is delusional. Essentially belief in any moral god based upon a delusional god is delusional. What is required is proof of any absolute morals.
The only hope for any proof comes in the observation that billions of humans make moral decisions every day without the need to consult bibles nor gods. We have evolved a moral capacity much like our language capacity. In as much as language has a linguistic grammar our moral capacity has a moral grammar. Biological evolution is the only possible place where an objective moral could exist, if it exists. Well get to more on this later, but the point is that as real beings in an objective universe humans demonstrate moral decision making capabilities providing the evidence that this form of decision making had an evolutionary purpose - whether it's the survival of the selfish gene or of the family unit or of the tribe or of the nation or of the species. It's also clear from direct observations - that anyone can make - that humans have the ability to override their instinctual morals - if they can be called that - and make decisions that are informed by intellectually developed and refined moral and ethical codes. It's also apparent that there are people who take the path of conflict on purpose, such as Bush, Cheney, Castro, et. al. and commit the worst atrocities.
It is also apparent that no moral command in any holy book has stopped these atrocities from being committed. Quite the opposite in fact as the bible clearly orders that followers of god and jesus commit horrific acts to satisfy their god and jesus otherwise the followers will burn in hell fire for all eternity.
What is clear is that the whole topic of morals and ethics has a lot of development yet to occur.
It's also clear that to the conduct of human affairs we must take into account the objective reality that not everyone has the same moral code and that some have no moral code to speak of when compared with our own. It's clear that we can work to live in peace or work to die in conflict. The choice is ours. What do you choose?
The only hope for a moral code based in objective reality rests in science. More on this later.
PerVerted, you've simply put forward your extreme black and white views of divine absolute morals contrasted with a horrific vision of extremist relativistic morals. The reality is neither. Now I know that you'll rail against that and that's fine since you don't seem to take objective reality into account when you spout flawed philosophies that also fail to account for the real world. Objective reality trumps our views of it and our constructed knowledge in fields like philosophy.
So believe what you want. Keep spewing the hatred implied by a divine absolute moral code if you wish. Keep asserting that reality doesn't care about our morals and that it's ok to commit horrific crimes. While it's true that objective reality doesn't care it's not true in the sense that there isn't any 'caring' in objective reality OTHER THAN THAT of living feeling beings. The place in objective reality where morals exist is within living caring beings - human beings for instance. We care. Well, some of us do anyway.
Your moral choices do matter to other living beings regardless if they don't matter in the overall scheme of the grand scales of time. We humans care and if that is as objective as morals will get it's what we've got.
Peter at 9:43PM on Jun 9th 2008
1281. EVOLUTION IN ACTION PROVES CREATIONISM FALSE!!!
"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events."
"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Peter at 8:00PM on Jun 10th 2008