tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8688956548577778855..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: SCOTUS and OderbergEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59772802639952248062014-07-09T16:06:01.635-07:002014-07-09T16:06:01.635-07:00Mr. Green: They didn't fool me nor you.
Maybe...Mr. Green: They didn't fool me nor you.<br /><br />Maybe our fellow countrymen haven't been inoculated with enough Thomism to make proper distinctions.<br /><br />I thank God I was raised in the day and age where we were forced to define our terms.Miriam McCuehttp://www.flamingoart.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32804133400473996182014-07-08T13:08:30.619-07:002014-07-08T13:08:30.619-07:00Jeremy Taylor: How is the distinction being made? ...Jeremy Taylor: <i>How is the distinction being made? As far as I can, secular or irreligious norms and worldviews are the same level of discourse as religious ones.</i><br /><br />It's easy: instead of talking about "philosophies" or "worldviews", talk about "religion" instead — you can pull this off because for the vast, vast majority of people their worldview is a religion. Then when you want to make an exception for secularism, suddenly get pedantic and point out that it isn't <i>actually</i> a religion, so you don't have to abide by the rules. Child's play!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91469669593601152402014-07-08T12:23:33.400-07:002014-07-08T12:23:33.400-07:00But why shouldn't publicly funded schools have...But why shouldn't publicly funded schools have curricula/textbooks/teachers who are approved by parents, in accordance with their right to free exercise of religion? Timotheos suggested that this could be considered tantamount to state 'establishment' of religion. But to the contrary: how does enforcing an anti-religious or a-religious orthodoxy in public schools amount to anything but state prohibition of free exercise of religion?DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85009380148651939432014-07-08T11:29:02.072-07:002014-07-08T11:29:02.072-07:00Jeremy Taylor:
I think that this dilemma makes p...Jeremy Taylor: <br /><br />I think that this dilemma makes public schools impossible.<br /><br />Either each teacher has her own world view informing her teaching & imposes her assumptions on the students, or a higher authority imposes a world view on the teacher & students.<br /><br />There is no such thing, nor even a logical possibility, as a neutral school system, for every person and organization is informed by some view, be it secular, Catholic, etc..<br /><br />My solution is to take education out of the hands of the public sector & leave it in the hands of parents or guardians.<br /><br />I did not know how this is to be funded, but probably that can be figured out with some reasonable intellectual and work.Miriam McCuenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15438825013604828682014-07-08T09:11:55.505-07:002014-07-08T09:11:55.505-07:00@Don Jindra:
"I am not religious, yet I think...@Don Jindra:<br />"I am not religious, yet I think I have perfectly valid reasons to object -- better reasons than Hobby Lobby. Yet will the SCOTUS hear my objections? Probably not. I've become a second class citizen in their eyes."<br /><br />I agree, and I don't see how that can be justified.<br /><br />"I will be forced to pay for contraceptive coverage that I sincerely believe will tend to erode personal responsibility. I'm disappointed in the so-called conservatives who think this decision is a victory for liberty. Unless *everyone* is allowed the same exemption, it's anything but."<br /><br />Well, I still think it's a plus for <i>liberty</i>, per se, but it's a liberty that needs to be consistently applied. Why does the state have an interest in protecting freedom of 'religious belief,' but not in protecting freedom of belief in, e.g., one's 'personal moral code'? It seems completely arbitrary.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78000421113201451582014-07-07T18:59:41.442-07:002014-07-07T18:59:41.442-07:00@DNW
Why should anyone care if you are upset; mild...@DNW<br /><i>Why should anyone care if you are upset; mildly, or otherwise? </i><br />It was meant as a joke. Mr. JH was being a jackhole and getting everyone riled up so I was trying to lighten the mood a little.<br /><br /><i>By the way, the non-trolls here will recall that the Humanist Manifesto did itself refer to the religion of secular humanism. </i><br />Nominalist or not, I’m at least smart enough to stay far away from any group subscribing to a “Manifesto”. For whatever reason nothing good ever comes from those.<br /><br />@DavidM<br /><i>I can accept all that as being somewhat grounded in reason, but it still seems to presuppose some determinate concept of a religious belief as such.</i><br />Of course it helps if the beliefs are already a traditional part of a long-standing religious practice, but there are some common themes that are invoked even when they aren’t. Supernatural forces and entities are one common theme, so is salvation and cosmic unity, glory or transcendence in an afterlife.<br /> <br />Despite those interesting questions about religious belief, I'm still committed to asserting that corporations have no <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/corporations-still-not-people/373889/" rel="nofollow">personal rights</a> and are nothing more than state chartered legal fictions. Some more legal citations for your perusal:<br /><br />"Whenever a corporation makes a contract, it is the contract of the legal entity, of the artificial being created by the charter, and not the contract of the individual members. The only rights it can claim are the rights which are given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state.” (Bank of Augusta v Earle, 1839).<br /><br />"...the term "citizens," as used in the [privileges and immunities] clause, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only such attributes as the legislature has prescribed..." (Pembina Consolidated Mining Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1888).<br /><br />Justice Hugo Black, in dissent - “Certainly, when the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted for approval, the people were not told that the states of the South were to be denied their normal relationship with the Federal Government unless they ratified an amendment granting new and revolutionary rights to corporations. This Court, when the Slaughter House Cases were decided in 1873, had apparently discovered no such purpose. The records of the time can be searched in vain for evidence that this amendment was adopted for the benefit of corporations.” (Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 1938)<br /><br />Justice William Rehnquist - “State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.” (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978).Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30566014089612705292014-07-07T18:48:04.151-07:002014-07-07T18:48:04.151-07:00This case was not about contraceptives per se, but...This case was not about contraceptives per se, but four which may cause abortion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32912028321270271212014-07-07T18:11:17.447-07:002014-07-07T18:11:17.447-07:00I agree that Hobby Lobby shouldn't be forced t...I agree that Hobby Lobby shouldn't be forced to include contraception in its health care coverage. But I disagree that religion should be singled out as the sole legal means for avoiding that coverage. If I understand the effect of this decision, a person without that religious objection will have no right to object. I am not religious, yet I think I have perfectly valid reasons to object -- better reasons than Hobby Lobby. Yet will the SCOTUS hear my objections? Probably not. I've become a second class citizen in their eyes. I will be forced to pay for contraceptive coverage that I sincerely believe will tend to erode personal responsibility. I'm disappointed in the so-called conservatives who think this decision is a victory for liberty. Unless *everyone* is allowed the same exemption, it's anything but.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35229021485125943612014-07-07T16:31:42.332-07:002014-07-07T16:31:42.332-07:00DavidM,
I agree, if, for example, religion is ban...DavidM,<br /><br />I agree, if, for example, religion is banned from being preached in public schools but another, secular normative perspective or worldview is not, this makes little sense to me. How is the distinction being made? As far as I can, secular or irreligious norms and worldviews are the same level of discourse as religious ones. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26437355457798221052014-07-07T10:12:13.286-07:002014-07-07T10:12:13.286-07:00@Step2:
"In Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S....@Step2:<br /><br />"In Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707, (1980), the Court stated religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection (Id. at 714). Furthermore, in U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), the Court declared in applying the Free Exercise Clause, courts may not inquire into the truth, validity, or reasonableness of a claimant’s religious beliefs." <br /><br />I can accept all that as being somewhat grounded in reason, but it still seems to presuppose some determinate concept of a religious belief as such.<br /><br />"The restrictions on what qualifies as a religious belief are, in my opinion, much less vague than attempting to determine what counts as one. A belief is not religious if it is essentially political, sociological, or philosophical or based merely on a personal moral code."<br /><br />So what standards are used for distinguishing a 'religious belief' from, say, a 'personal moral code' (or from an 'essentially political/ sociological/ philosophical' belief)?<br /><br />"I’m mildly upset about being recruited into the “religion” of secular humanism because the name is extraordinarily boring. If you are going to force me to adopt a religion at least don’t put me to sleep. The Church of Righteous Smooth Troubadours has a much nicer ring to it."<br /><br />Heh. Good one. I too am mildly upset about having secular humanists 'recruited' into a 'religion.' 'Religion' is already loaded with enough bad connotations.(But of course the point stands that the state has even less business establishing SHism than it has establishing a particular religion.)DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75793594791819123782014-07-07T10:03:37.530-07:002014-07-07T10:03:37.530-07:00"I’m mildly upset about being recruited into ..."I’m mildly upset about being recruited into the “religion” of secular humanism because the name is extraordinarily boring."<br /><br />Why should anyone care if you are upset; mildly, or otherwise?<br /><br />By the way, the non-trolls here will recall that the Humanist Manifesto did itself refer to the religion of secular humanism.<br /><br />Classic comedy is watching nominalists plead on behalf of "humanity".DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7087581158571926672014-07-06T15:36:07.401-07:002014-07-06T15:36:07.401-07:00John,
If fairies don't exist, it certainly se...John,<br /><br />If fairies don't exist, it certainly seems like trolls do.<br /><br />Buy a work on classical logic or critical thinking. It appears you cannot make an argument without committing multiple gross fallacies. <br /><br />Try not to bother us with your facile, drooling nonsense until you have learnt some basic logic. You posts are worthless and not even worth refuting.<br /><br />Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84895555213304994722014-07-06T15:33:09.370-07:002014-07-06T15:33:09.370-07:00Please refrain from providing comestibles to dwell...Please refrain from providing comestibles to dwellers underneath water-crossing conveyances. Scott W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81140396999948825092014-07-06T07:32:37.228-07:002014-07-06T07:32:37.228-07:00My apologies, the above comment was intended for J...My apologies, the above comment was intended for John not Jeremy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64410118068088846362014-07-06T07:31:30.581-07:002014-07-06T07:31:30.581-07:00@JeremyH
So Jeremy do you believe it is irrationa...@JeremyH<br /><br />So Jeremy do you believe it is irrational to believe that God created the world and that anything worthy to be called God would at least need in principle such power?<br /><br />Oddly enough, it was the ancient pagan sky faery worshippers who most ridiculed the Virgin Birth. But if it is not ridiculous to believe that the universe might require some cause to explain it, then why would that which had the power to create the universe be incapable of causing a virgin to become with child?<br /><br />Something cannot come from nothing. If ever there was just nothing, then there would still be nothing. But this is evidently false. So there must have always existed something and never nothing. Now even if we grant that there must always have been something, we still need to explain change and motion. For just because there is something, it does not follow that this something necessarily changed itself or something else. But obviously at some points things began to change and enter into motion. So now we need some ever existing something combined also with a cause of motion or change.<br /><br />The above is evident to reason. Even a child could come to see it the soundness and necessity of the reasoning. The thinking is in fact scientific. Yet you imagine as if this sort of thinking is some form of lunacy.<br /><br />Jeremy, in fine, your personal religion is oddly enough causing you to become perilously close to thinking that thinking itself is stupidity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55608346767084745942014-07-06T07:12:49.533-07:002014-07-06T07:12:49.533-07:00Jeremy, you asked which Christians here are repud...Jeremy, you asked which Christians here are repudiating the Virgin birth?<br /><br />Well, I would suggest the sane ones are. But that would automatically disqualify most Christians on this blog, apparently.<br /><br />And the main resource for believing that your God is in the same category as sky fairies is your ancient book of myths that you call a Bible. <br /><br />Oh, and listening to Christians praise their personal sky fairy for personally entering the uterus of a young girl in ancient Palestine and implanting his special 'seed'. And Jeremy, do you suppose that God entered Mary's reproductive system through her vagina, or her belly button?<br /><br />And Crude, you apparently attended the Kirk Cameron school of theology and auto mechanics.<br /><br />Keep up the good work! You may just get your GED yet!!<br /><br />(You do know what that stands for, right?)<br /><br />Christians, please enjoy your special day where you give thanks to the invisible sky force that turned himself into a man two thousand years ago so that his own creation could hang him to a tree and savagely beat him to death to atone for your terrible sins.<br /><br />Isn't that beautiful!!??? <br /><br />And, moe importantly, isn't that RATIONAL!!?<br /><br />John Holmesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14570928930067237662014-07-05T19:44:29.339-07:002014-07-05T19:44:29.339-07:00But if you're going to have a law specifically...<i>But if you're going to have a law specifically protecting exercise of religion, then 'religion' has to mean something specific.</i> <br /><br />In Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707, (1980), the Court stated religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection (Id. at 714). Furthermore, in U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), the Court declared in applying the Free Exercise Clause, courts may not inquire into the truth, validity, or reasonableness of a claimant’s religious beliefs. <br /><br /><i>If it can be interpreted to apply to anything, absolutely any belief anyone holds, then it doesn't mean anything.</i> <br /><br />The restrictions on what qualifies as a religious belief are, in my opinion, much less vague than attempting to determine what counts as one. A belief is not religious if it is essentially political, sociological, or philosophical or based merely on a personal moral code.<br /><br />I’m mildly upset about being recruited into the “religion” of secular humanism because the name is extraordinarily boring. If you are going to force me to adopt a religion at least don’t put me to sleep. The Church of Righteous Smooth Troubadours has a much nicer ring to it.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83496609199388366102014-07-05T17:32:17.346-07:002014-07-05T17:32:17.346-07:00John Holmes,
Which Christians here are repudiatin...John Holmes,<br /><br />Which Christians here are repudiating the virgin birth? Your argument, to be generous and call it such, appears to be just a question begging appeal to your own idea of naturalistic good sense. It is supremely unconvincing. You ridicule with no attempt to give a proper argument.<br /><br />And you'd have to be woefully ignorant of traditional Christian and Classical Theist thought, or a drooling moron, to think that the God of Christianity is the same as Sky Fairies. Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28094926687985741952014-07-05T11:24:54.125-07:002014-07-05T11:24:54.125-07:00@ DavidM
I stand by my comment. I agree with Bra...@ DavidM<br /><br />I stand by my comment. I agree with Brandon that what dguller is arguing demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29578730999255249172014-07-05T11:07:06.008-07:002014-07-05T11:07:06.008-07:00The problem with guys like John Holmes isn't j...The problem with guys like John Holmes isn't just that their abandonment of reason and science is so total, but that they likewise don't have the mental fortitude to keep their weird obsessions to themselves.<br /><br />Yes, John, we understand - you're angry and bitter towards God and Christians alike. We understand that this keeps you from reasoning properly about science, philosophy, culture, morality, and more. And we do sympathize with your plight, and wish you success in dealing with your defects. In fact, we don't even feel it necessary to disabuse you of your enchantment with your very magical, special world - where things exist or pop into existence magically without reason or cause or explanation, where inquiry into vast sections of the world (the origin of the universe, etc) are blocked off forever because of your opposition to free-thinking and enlightenment ideals.<br /><br />But do we really need you displaying your mental illnesses in public? What is it about the modern Cultist of Gnu that gives them this weird form of Tourette syndrome?<br /><br />As said, you can't really help yourself, John. We understand that you cling to your magical, irrational world and can't keep from lashing out at the God you hate and the people who scare you because *gasp* they disagree about things you barely understand. But even if it's hard for you, you should really try hard to muster some self-control. Reason, rationality and civil discourse is very preferable to rage, savagery, and the sort of magical, anti-scientific thinking the Gnu Atheist is known for.<br /><br />Sometime, if you're capable, you should give it a shot. :)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87298643239135244512014-07-05T10:04:16.449-07:002014-07-05T10:04:16.449-07:00@John Holmes
“But try as they might, they have ye...@John Holmes<br /><br />“But try as they might, they have yet to offer a remotely sane hypothesis as to how the Stone Age lunacy of blood atonement through human sacrifice is anything other than the ignorant, idiotic, barbaric, sadistic ravings of the ancient goat sacrificing religious fanatics who allowed their deluded, pre scientific minds to dream it up.” John Holmes<br /><br />Doesn’t this commit you to the view that some of the greatest minds of the West were barbaric idiots? (A position which is obviously false.) Was, for example, Isaac Newton (a believer) a great scientist or just some kind of idiot savant who wasted most of his time on alchemy? Was his a “deluded, pre scientific” mind?<br /><br />PS Again this is off topic. I’m sure there’s somewhere else around here more appropriate, perhaps where Professor Feser introduces his *The Last Superstition*.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077572827171851940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79652558053853515672014-07-05T07:56:45.765-07:002014-07-05T07:56:45.765-07:00So amusing to se 'sophisticated' Christian...<br />So amusing to se 'sophisticated' Christians attempt to argue that 'their' religion isn't about sky fairies and virgin births.<br /><br />But try as they might, they have yet to offer a remotely sane hypothesis as to how the Stone Age lunacy of blood atonement through human sacrifice is anything other than the ignorant, idiotic, barbaric, sadistic ravings of the ancient goat sacrificing religious fanatics who allowed their deluded, pre scientific minds to dream it up.<br /><br />Christian doctrine is founded upon absurd, ignorant nonsense. <br /><br />Pick any story from a Mother Goose children's book.<br />That story will be more 'rational' than anything in Christian doctrine.<br /><br />And if Christians would simply keep their beloved myths about their sky fairies to themselves, without intrusion into the lives of others, then no one would remotely care about their obsession with ancient, silly myths.John Holmesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45666781045266730122014-07-05T04:58:35.314-07:002014-07-05T04:58:35.314-07:00@Bill:
Exactly. The Rights Bureau can simply say, ...@Bill:<br /><i>Exactly. The Rights Bureau can simply say, "There is no empirical proof that any 'God' exists; therefore, any group espousing faith in such a 'God' is not a state-recognized religion."</i><br /><br />That's nonsense. There is no more central concept to religion than 'God,' and no one (here, at least - 'out there,' in whacko-land, who knows) is talking about imposing burdens of positive empirical proof for legitimating religious beliefs, as such. But if you're going to have a law specifically protecting exercise <i>of religion</i>, then 'religion' has to mean something specific. If it can be interpreted to apply to anything, absolutely any belief anyone holds, then it doesn't mean anything. And surely that was not the intent of the law (RFRA), as written (nor the intent of constitutional protections of freedom of religion). There is always a danger of politicization, judges are always flawed and fallible human beings, but if, nonetheless, you allow that the courts should be treated as juridically competent to consider things like the state of the debate over the ethics of cooperation in wrongdoing, why couldn't they also be considered competent to make judgments about the scientific standing of particular claims and differentiate properly religious from properly scientific elements of claims being presented to them? (I'm speaking in principle; as I understand it, such considerations were not relevant to the Hobby Lobby case as it was actually argued by HHS et al.)DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1738298766543278452014-07-05T01:39:24.173-07:002014-07-05T01:39:24.173-07:00@ Brandon
How, precisely, is the decision made --...@ Brandon<br /><br /><i>How, precisely, is the decision made -- counting citations, a technocratic council voting, or what? How does one protect such a process from becoming politicized, given that we know that even the FDA doesn't always avoid buckling under political pressure?</i><br /><br />Exactly. The <i>Rights Bureau</i> can simply say, "There is no empirical proof that any 'God' exists; therefore, any group espousing faith in such a 'God' is not a state-recognized religion."Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43973976000931574432014-07-04T21:16:21.656-07:002014-07-04T21:16:21.656-07:00DavidM is correct, but still, don't feed the t...DavidM is correct, but still, don't feed the trolls. Such Gnu nonsense is not even worth responding to. One of the good things about Dr. Feser's blog is the "religion is like believing in Sky fairies" brigade largely fear to tread here.<br /><br />I do love how Gnus like to pretend they are rational and logical, when they commit logical fallacies left, right, and centre. Dawkins even started a foundation of reason and science when, as David Bentley Hart quite accurately put it, the man could not reason his way to the end of a simple syllogism.<br /><br />Miriam, Kudos for mentioning Christopher Dawson.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.com