Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over

Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 8:18:15 PM)
moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion?

epiphiny43 -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 8:37:05 PM)
"Gubblement", your position is fixed and obvious, any discussion is moot. Try No gubblement for a change. Of situation, and soon, your attitude and assumptions. Most places it quickly becomes Lord of the Flies, with much better weapons. Body count skyrockets, 'freedom' being the first casualty. Religion recently used to be an internal conversation between you and your Maker, or whatever you figure is in charge of your immortality. Now that extremists are hijacking most religions, it's whatever some con man (Delusional or deliberate) promotes to his Koolaid drinking AK/IED equipped retard assassins. Public behavior (Contracts, particularly) is subject to civil and criminal law, determined by whatever powers that be politically. We presently flatter ourselves this is by public vote in representative legislatures elected by some responsible portion of the citizenry, interpreted by the duly appointed courts. (See: US Constitution) Easy to work out in mono-cultural societies, a 'work in progress' in rapidly evolving technological multi-cultural civilizations.

KenDckey -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 8:39:35 PM)
Moral Law You can't kill You can't steal Legal Law Oh same thing. Therefore under the seperation doctrine killing and stealing are legal. Govt gets to decide if it wants to adopt the moral law for whatever reason.

MrRodgers -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 8:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Morals are of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of one's conduct with the distinction of [it] being right or wrong. Often described as ethical. Ethics are conducting oneself under the principles of morality, pertaining to what is right and wrong...in that conduct. People, govt. and religion all at times, often act immorally and without ethics. Next question. Everyone takes upon themselves their own decisions as to what is moral as well as collectively...govt. and religion. For example: For govt. (as reflected by the legislature and exec. who sign such laws) to actually codify that to merely buy and sell a piece of paper with some realized or assumed underlying value or some form of property, to sell it at a profit in one year, have that profit called something other than income and to be taxed at 20% at the federal level justified by a necessary incentive..... .....while that same govt. codifies that for a person to labor 40, 50 or 60 hours or more per week, realize a salary of high enough value, call it income and to be taxed at around 40% as not therefore, requiring the same or greater incentives...is immoral. The question as posed is a non-sequitur at least insofar as all moral questions are not always and need not be religious. See above.

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:09:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Morals are of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of one's conduct with the distinction of [it] being right or wrong. Often described as ethical. Ethics are conducting oneself under the principles of morality, pertaining to what is right and wrong...in that conduct. People, govt. and religion all at times, often act immorally and without ethics. Next question. Everyone takes upon themselves their own decisions as to what is moral as well as collectively...govt. and religion. For example: For govt. (as reflected by the legislature and exec. who sign such laws) to actually codify that to merely buy and sell a piece of paper with some realized or assumed underlying value or some form of property, to sell it at a profit in one year, have that profit called something other than income and to be taxed at 20% at the federal level justified by a necessary incentive..... .....while that same govt. codifies that for a person to labor 40, 50 or 60 hours or more per week, realize a salary of high enough value, call it income and to be taxed at around 40% as not therefore, requiring the same or greater incentives...is immoral. The question as posed is a non-sequitur at least insofar as all moral questions are not always and need not be religious. See above. Well to be a religion it has to be a matter of conscience that one uses to govern themselves followed by a connected set actions. If I correctly understand what you are saying, I think what you posted is a matter of equity which would be under their jurisdiction. How did you conclude it was moral?

joether -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:11:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Ah yes, good old 'sovereign citizen' bullshit.... Let me explain it to you.... We live in an area of land called 'The United States of America'. In this area, is a nation. This nation has a document call the US Constitution. This document provides the initial framework for the nation to operate. And that started a long time ago (before you were born in fact). Since that time, the country has added and removed concepts as different generations try to solve the problems faced. Within the massive and complex framework of knowledge that is currently known as 'The United States of America' in 2015, is the concept that judges can rule on moral questions. Sometimes the courts get it right and sometimes they do not. If your demanding they are perfect like the bullshit in the Holy Bible; then you'll explain to me why there are two different methods the planet was created in Genesis. And the many other contradictions found beyond that. The Christian religion is not perfect or correct; since that would imply its 'OK' morally for priests to abuse small children! Is abusing small children 'OK'? The courts and most of the nation say 'NO'! Yes you have a freedom of religion, but not a freedom to sacrifice virgins. You have a freedom of religion, but not a freedom to burn down political, philosophical, or religious institutions. You have a freedom of religion, but not a freedom to kill people whom oppose your views. If you do not like the United States of America and the government we have; renounce your citizenship and get the fuck out of our nation!

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:28:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Moral Law You can't kill You can't steal Legal Law Oh same thing. Therefore under the seperation doctrine killing and stealing are legal. Govt gets to decide if it wants to adopt the moral law for whatever reason. ah ha! thats got it! We certainly dont have anything to do with that decision! Ok so its time to post kant who helped to shape my process of distinction on these subjects when I was into this sort of thing about 100 years ago LOL. While in no way a fully worked out biological theory per se, Kant connects his account of biological cognition in interesting ways to other important aspects of his philosophical system. First, natural organisms are essentially teleological, or “purposive.” This purposiveness is manifested through the organic structure of the organism: its many parts all work together to constitute the whole, and any one part only makes sense in terms of its relation to the healthy functioning of the whole. For instance, the teeth of an animal are designed to chew the kind of food that the animal is equipped to hunt or forage and that it is suited to digest. In this respect, biological entities bear a strong analogy to great works of art. Great works of art are also organic insofar as the parts only make sense in the context of the whole, and art displays a purposiveness similar to that found in nature (see section 7 below). Second, Kant discusses the importance of biology with respect to theological cognition. While he denies that the apparent design behind the purposiveness of organisms can be used as a proof for God’s existence (see 2g3 above), he does think that the purposiveness found in nature provides a sort of hint that there is an intelligible principle behind the observable, natural world, and hence that the ultimate purpose of all of nature is a rational one. In connection with his moral theory and theory of human history (see sections 5 and 6 below), Kant will argue that the teleology of nature can be understood as ultimately directed towards a culmination in a fully rational nature, that is, humanity in its (future) final form. 5. Moral Theory Kant’s moral theory is organized around the idea that to act morally and to act in accordance with reason are one and the same. In virtue of being a rational agent (that is, in virtue of possessing practical reason, reason which is interested and goal-directed), one is obligated to follow the moral law that practical reason prescribes. To do otherwise is to act irrationally. Because Kant places his emphasis on the duty that comes with being a rational agent who is cognizant of the moral law, Kant’s theory is considered a form of deontology (deon- comes from the Greek for “duty” or “obligation”). Like his theoretical philosophy, Kant’s practical philosophy is a priori, formal, and universal: the moral law is derived non-empirically from the very structure of practical reason itself (its form), and since all rational agents share the same practical reason, the moral law binds and obligates everyone equally. So what is this moral law that obligates all rational agents universally and a priori? The moral law is determined by what Kant refers to as the Categorical Imperative, which is the general principle that demands that one respect the humanity in oneself and in others, that one not make an exception for oneself when deliberating about how to act, and in general that one only act in accordance with rules that everyone could and should obey. Although Kant insists that the moral law is equally binding for all rational agents, he also insists that the bindingness of the moral law is self-imposed: we autonomously prescribe the moral law to ourselves. Because Kant thinks that the kind of autonomy in question here is only possible under the presupposition of a transcendentally free basis of moral choice, the constraint that the moral law places on an agent is not only consistent with freedom of the will, it requires it. Hence, one of the most important aspects of Kant’s project is to show that we are justified in presupposing that our morally significant choices are grounded in a transcendental freedom (the very sort of freedom that Kant argued we could not prove through mere “theoretical” or “speculative” reason; see 2gii above). This section aims to explain the structure and content of Kant’s moral theory (5a-b), and also Kant’s claims that belief in freedom, God, and the immortality of the soul are necessary “postulates” of practical reason (5c). (On the relation between Kant’s moral theory and his aesthetic theory, see 7c below.) a. The Good Will and Duty Kant lays out the case for his moral theory in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (also known as the “Second Critique”; 1788), and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). His arguments from the Groundwork are his most well-known and influential, so the following focuses primarily on them. Kant begins his argument from the premise that a moral theory must be grounded in an account of what is unconditionally good. If something is merely conditionally good, that is, if its goodness depends on something else, then that other thing will either be merely conditionally good as well, in which case its goodness depends on yet another thing, or it will be unconditionally good. All goodness, then, must ultimately be traceable to something that is unconditionally good. There are many things that we typically think of as good but that are not truly unconditionally good. Beneficial resources such as money or power are often good, but since these things can be used for evil purposes, their goodness is conditional on the use to which they are put. a. Human History and the Age of Enlightenment The goal of humanity is to reach a point where all interpersonal interactions are conducted in accordance with reason, and hence in accordance with the moral law (this is the idea of a kingdom of ends described in 5b above). Kant thinks that there are two significant conditions that must be in place before such an enlightened age can come to be. First, humans must live in a perfectly just society under a perfectly just constitution. b. Political Theory Kant fullest articulation of his political theory appears in the “Doctrine of Right,” which is the first half of Metaphysics of Morals (1797). In line with his belief that a freedom grounded in rationality is what bestows dignity upon human beings, Kant organizes his theory of justice around the notion of freedom: “Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law” (6:230). Implicit in this definition is a theory of equality: everyone should be granted the same degree of freedom. Although a state, through the passing and enforcing of laws, necessarily restricts freedom to some degree, Kant argues that this is necessary for the preservation of equality of human freedom. Among the freedoms that ought to be respected in a just society (republican or otherwise) are the freedom to pursue happiness in any way one chooses (so long as this pursuit does not infringe the rights of others, of course), freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. These last two are especially important to Kant and he associated them with the ongoing enlightenment of humanity in “What is Enlightenment?” He argues that it “would be a crime against human nature” (8:39) to legislate religious doctrine because doing so would be to deny to humans the very free use of reason that makes them human. Similarly, restrictions on what Kant calls the “public use of one’s reason” are contrary to the most basic teleology of the human species, namely, the development of reason. Kant himself had felt the sting of an infringement on these rights when the government of Friedrich Wilhelm II (the successor to Frederick the Great) prohibited Kant from publishing anything further on matters pertaining to religion. http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:42:28 PM)
@Joe, you might want to reread the op. this is not about sacrificing virgins, or sovereign anything, or abusing children, or the christian religion. None of which I can see a bonafide connection to the issues I posted. Your post is such a tangent there isnt even anything I can debate with you. Maybe take off the red white and blue tinted glasses and read the op again, then give it another shot?

joether -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne @Joe, you might want to reread the op. this is not about sacrificing virgins, or sovereign anything, or abusing children, or the christian religion. None of which I can see a bonafide connection to the issues I posted. Your post is such a tangent there isnt even anything I can debate with you. Maybe take off the red white and blue tinted glasses and read the op again, then give it another shot? Your asking what 'right' the government has over deciding moral questions. I explained that. They have a right to decide over moral questions. As they apply to current laws. Which is why gay people are allowed to get married within the United States of America.

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/14/2015 11:59:31 PM)
Joe, first, NO I would never ask what 'right' the government has to do anything because the government has NO RIGHTS, they have granted enumerated authority. Next no you did not. Men and Women have rights. Men and women reserved those rights within the commercial contract we know as a constitution. So that said here is: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html would you please put your finger on the part that authorizes the gubblemint to judge religious matters? I dont recall ever seeing that. your addition of gay people allowed to get married changes nothing unless you can show me a referendum where the people of the states voted that they could not, or some other evidence that gay people were prevented from getting married by anyone but the gubblemint. Where was the gubblemint authorized to disallow their marriage in the first place? So back to the above, I posted a copy of the constitution for your convenience, please put your finger on the part that authorizes them to judge religious matters or create their own secular religion?

NorthernGent -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 1:23:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Again, as we discussed at length on the other thread, the fault here lies with the people not 'the government'. The government exists only to exercise the requirements of the people. The government, or the law courts, have been left with no choice in the matter of the cake or the B&B situation in England. They have been asked to decide between the positions of an individual business owner and a discrimination claim, and as there is a precedent in law regarding discrimination it seems to me that they are left with little choice but to come down on the side of the discrimination claim. As ever, the fault lies with people taking petty squabbles through the law courts. No case then no decision for 'the government' to make. In these cases, the government have gone with the general requirements of the people, with discrimination codes enshrined in law due to a groundswell of support for it among the people. What else can the law courts do?

NorthernGent -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 1:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Oh, and the premise in the OP is flawed. They haven't made a moral judgement based upon religion. It's a pragmatic course of action: the individual versus the group. They've come down on the side of the group as recent history tells them that's what the people want.

joether -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 2:03:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Joe, first, NO I would never ask what 'right' the government has to do anything because the government has NO RIGHTS, they have granted enumerated authority. The federal government does have rights. They are just not the same rights as you or I know them. Our rights stem from the Bill of Rights, the numerous laws to follow (i.e. the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1996). Their rights are much harder for many Americans to grasp, sadly speaking.... The government does have the right to take you into custody if you endanger yourself and/or others. To collect taxes. To determine whether a chemical compound is safe for human consumption. And a pile of other rights. They also have limitations, just like us mere mortals. Yet their limitations are different in how they are handled. Some of their limitations are due to the Bill of Rights (i.e. the 4th amendment) and ones that stem from how the US Constitution was written (i.e. how U Supreme Court Justices are approved). Many Americans also forget that the US Government is composed of US Citizens. From the FBI to the EPA. Many US Citizens work tirelessly at tasks for a wide range of reasons. Some do it for duty, others for pay. Some do it for both. There are people in the IRS that do their work not for the pay or fame; but to make sure that Americans are not screwed on their taxes (cus people do get their math wrong and claim more than they owe). Yeah, the public sector fucks up just like the private one. Your welcome to define it like you see it; but you'll run the risk of people like me taking you to task for the definition. Its not like we hold a special day to remember those whom died in the line of duty at the CIA or Dept. of Transportation. Yet without their sacrifices, would our nation be what it is today? quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Next no you did not. There have been many moral questions that have faced the court systems since the nation came into existence. The latest is whether a bakery shop can discriminate over religious grounds towards a gay couple. The court ruled that the bakery did not have a 1st amendment protection. So the bakery took the case to the next level. And that court recently sided with the lower court. The court has decided on a wide range of moral questions. From abortion to whether a convicted criminal should be allowed a sex change with tax dollars. The stuff in between those two concepts is pretty heavy with tough moral choices. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Men and Women have rights. Men and women reserved those rights within the commercial contract we know as a constitution. Actually its US Citizens that have rights. So do immigrants (illegal and not). Visitors to the nation. Even terrorists.... The US Constitution is not a commercial contract; its a legal document that creates a framework for a future existence of a nation. There are plenty of sovereign citizens sitting in prisons across the nation right now that believed (foolishly) that the laws of the land did not include them nor could be used against them. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So that said here is: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html would you please put your finger on the part that authorizes the gubblemint to judge religious matters? I dont recall ever seeing that. Try reading Article 3 REALLY carefully..... But in 2015 we do not just deal with the US Constitution, but all the laws that are current on the books. Which means that over time, the powers and abilities of the courts have expanded to handle a wider range of issues and problems then what was originally considered by the founding fathers. Or are you going to make an argument that the founding fathers had perfect understanding of the totality of the United States of America's existence from then until the point it is no more? Good luck on that argument.... quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne your addition of gay people allowed to get married changes nothing unless you can show me a referendum where the people of the states voted that they could not, or some other evidence that gay people were prevented from getting married by anyone but the gubblemint. What was DOMA again? DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT? Look it up. It has nothing to do with keeping divorce rates down in America..... And all the little 'DOMA' like laws across the nation? The action of marriage does not only hold a religious component, but a financial, social, and even psychological component. That many right wing religious nuts tried to convince people that the Bible states marriage is only between a man and a women. Does that mean Atheist can't get married? How about those of different religions? Of different skin color or age? The courts decided on each of those too.... But that marriage allows for many things beyond a religious component was at issue. Something all the religious right wingers tried to down play in court battle after court battle. And they lost after it was pointed out that marriage has financial, social, and psychological benefits that have nothing to do with a religious component. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Where was the gubblemint authorized to disallow their marriage in the first place? So back to the above, I posted a copy of the constitution for your convenience, please put your finger on the part that authorizes them to judge religious matters or create their own secular religion? Let's see, a little known document called 'The Declaration of Independence'? Followed by the Articles of Confederation? Then the US Constitutions? After that, the many laws created by Congress whom were elected by....THE PEOPLE. That's right, WE the People, decided that the government can is authorized to handle moral decisions. There was no secular religion created. The concept of being secular came into being because the founding fathers understood quite well when a government was partially or wholly owned by a religious group (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition) could create harm towards individual citizens. The concept of 'Separation of Church and State' came into existence as a means to explain the concept further. I'm rather surprised I have to even explain this stuff. Since most learn about the founding father's views on religion in the 4th grade. I mean, holy shit, RO, this is stuff you could have looked up before hand. Why not answer your own question on 'Where in the US Constitution does it allow the Supreme Court to decide on issues of the day?' Since a casual check would have determined the answer of 'Article 3'. That I gave a further and logic answer to sum up, that events have taken place since that document's creation that allows for expanded use of the courts to handle decisions. I almost feel like I'm insulting your intelligence and education just explaining stuff you should have known ahead of time. I mean, what IS your educational level for real? And when did you obtain this level of education? I've known people that are highly intelligent yet do not have anything beyond a high school diploma. And individuals whom are dumb as boards yet can spot the best poker faces and call bullshit! Yet most of these people understand the concept I'm explaining here. They might disagree here or there on minor issues; but the grand majority they would not disagree upon. Your disagreeing with me on the majority of items here.

Kirata -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 4:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? From whence comes this assumption that "moral decisions are religious"? There are a number of things, murder, theft and dishonesty figuring prominently among them, that are considered unacceptable in virtually all human societies, and for the suppression of which a sufficient defense exists independent of religious or statutory law because, simply put, nobody wants to become a victim of murder, theft or dishonesty. Such universal human sentiments constitute a lex naturalis over which neither the state nor religion should hold sway. K.

Kirata -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 4:27:14 AM)
Edited to delete: Nevermind, can of worms. [:D]

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 6:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? From whence comes this assumption that "moral decisions are religious"? There are a number of things, murder, theft and dishonesty figuring prominently among them, that are considered unacceptable in virtually all human societies, and for the suppression of which a sufficient defense exists independent of religious or statutory law because, simply put, nobody wants to become a victim of murder, theft or dishonesty. Such universal human sentiments constitute a lex naturalis over which neither the state nor religion should hold sway. K. I posted a couple snippets from the philosopher emmanuel kant to sort of lay a bit of groundwork to illustrate how a few of the distinctions are laid out and how the conclusions are derived. It starts out with moral theory and acting in a moral manner which kant ties in with reason. quote: 5. Moral Theory Kant’s moral theory is organized around the idea that to act morally and to act in accordance with reason are one and the same. In virtue of being a rational agent (that is, in virtue of possessing practical reason, reason which is interested and goal-directed), one is obligated to follow the moral law that practical reason prescribes. He argues that it “would be a crime against human nature” (8:39) to legislate religious doctrine because doing so would be to deny to humans the very free use of reason that makes them human. Similarly, restrictions on what Kant calls the “public use of one’s reason” are contrary to the most basic teleology of the human species, namely, the development of reason. Kant himself had felt the sting of an infringement on these rights when the government of Friedrich Wilhelm II (the successor to Frederick the Great) prohibited Kant from publishing anything further on matters pertaining to religion. http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5 I am not sure what you are arguing since as far back in time as I have seen philosophy has always considered the exercise of religion the resulting actions of 'conscience' based on right and wrong. Have you commingled politics with religion under one umbrella? Natural Law (redirected from Lex naturalis) Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Natural Law The unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government. The term natural law is derived from the Roman term jus naturale. Adherents to natural law philosophy are known as naturalists. Naturalists believe that natural law principles are an inherent part of nature and exist regardless of whether government recognizes or enforces them. Naturalists further believe that governments must incorporate natural law principles into their legal systems before justice can be achieved. There are three schools of natural law theory: divine natural law, secular natural law, and historical natural law. Divine natural law represents the system of principles believed to have been revealed or inspired by God or some other supreme and supernatural being. These divine principles are typically reflected by authoritative religious writings such as Scripture. Secular natural law represents the system of principles derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason. Historical natural law represents the system of principles that has evolved over time through the slow accretion of custom, tradition, and experience. Each school of natural law influenced the Founding Fathers during the nascent years of U.S. law in the eighteenth century and continue to influence the decision-making process of state and federal courts today. Divine Natural Law Proponents of divine natural law contend that law must be made to conform to the commands they believe were laid down or inspired by God, or some other deity, who governs according to principles of compassion, truth, and justice. These naturalists assert that the legitimacy of any enacted human law must be measured by its consonance with divine principles of right and wrong. Such principles can be found in various Scriptures, church doctrine, papal decrees, and the decisions of ecclesiastical courts and councils. Human laws that are inconsistent with divine principles of morality, naturalists maintain, are invalid and should neither be enforced nor obeyed. St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and philosopher from the thirteenth century, was a leading exponent of divine natural law. According to Judeo-Christian belief and the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, were delivered to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. These ten laws represent one example of divine natural law. The Bible and Torah are thought by many to be other sources of divine natural law because their authors are said to have been inspired by a divine spirit. Some Christians point to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which was applied by the ecclesiastical courts of Europe during the Middle Ages, as another source of divine natural law. Before the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, Europe was divided into two competing jurisdictions—secular and religious. The emperors, kings, and queens of Europe governed the secular jurisdiction, and the pope presided over the religious jurisdiction. The idea that monarchs ruled by "divine right" allowed the secular jurisdiction to acquire some of the authority of religious jurisdiction. Moreover, the notion that a "higher law" transcends the rules enacted by human institutions and that government is bound by this law, also known as the Rule of Law, fermented during the struggle between the secular and religious powers in Europe before the American Revolution. For example, Henry de Bracton, an English judge and scholar from the thirteenth century, wrote that a court's allegiance to the law and to God is above its allegiance to any ruler or lawmaker. The influence of divine natural law pervaded the colonial period of U.S. law. In 1690 English philosopher John Locke wrote that all people are born with the inherent rights to life, liberty, and estate. These rights are not unlimited, Locke said, and may only be appropriated according to the fair share earned by the labor of each person. Gluttony and waste of individual liberty are not permitted, Locke argued, because "[n]othing is made by God for man to spoil or destroy." In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, borrowing from Locke, wrote that "all men are created equal … and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights … [including] life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson identified the freedom of thought as one of the inalienable rights when he said, "Almighty God has created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint." In Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 (1888), the Supreme Court recognized the importance of the divine influence in early U.S. law, stating that the "right to pursue happiness is placed by the Declaration of Independence among the inalienable rights of man, not by the grace of emperors or kings, or by the force of legislative or constitutional enactments, but by the Creator." The U.S. Constitution altered the relationship between law and religion. Article VI establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion, which means that a law may not advance one religion at the expense of another or prefer a general belief in religion to irreligion, atheism, or agnosticism. Although the Supremacy and Establishment Clauses seemingly preclude the judiciary from grounding a decision on Scripture or religious doctrine, state and federal courts have occasionally referred to various sources of divine natural law. For example, in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S. Ct. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1987), the Supreme Court said that "the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the inalienable rights of man were rooted in Him." In McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 6 U.S. 280, 2 Cranch 280, 2 L. Ed. 279 (1805), the Supreme Court relied on the Bible as "ancient and venerable" proof that expatriation had long been "practiced, approved, and never restrained." that said I dont understand the question? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata From whence comes this assumption that "moral decisions are religious"? K. Care to be more specific or have I overlooked some subtle point you are trying to make?

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 6:48:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Oh, and the premise in the OP is flawed. They haven't made a moral judgement based upon religion. It's a pragmatic course of action: the individual versus the group. They've come down on the side of the group as recent history tells them that's what the people want. Thats confusing since it combines moral judgment with political judgment. Care to sort that out for me? If not a moral judgment then what? I assume you are talking about the gay rights to marry, or the cake maybe? Marriage in so far as the state is concerned deals or used to deal with dowry etc under the common law, therefore a perfectly legitimate secular jurisdiction with that respect. Dowry has been abolished long ago so where is the state jurisdiction originating?

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 7:02:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Joe, first, NO I would never ask what 'right' the government has to do anything because the government has NO RIGHTS, they have granted enumerated authority. The federal government does have rights. I'm rather surprised I have to even explain this stuff. Since most learn about the founding father's views on religion in the 4th grade. I mean, holy shit, RO, this is stuff you could have looked up before hand. Why not answer your own question on 'Where in the US Constitution does it allow the Supreme Court to decide on issues of the day?' Since a casual check would have determined the answer of 'Article 3'. That I gave a further and logic answer to sum up, that events have taken place since that document's creation that allows for expanded use of the courts to handle decisions. @joe, I prettty much stopped reading your post here: "The federal government does have rights." since you start your wall of "Gish Gallop" with an error. There is no such thing as 'founding fathers" joe, there are "constitutors". [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/bouviers1843constitutor.jpg[/img] [img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/newEnglishdictionaryonhistoricalprinciplesfoundedV2Part2CONSTITUTOR.jpg[/img] These constitutors copy pasted standing english law based upon the british bills of rights and the magna charta with little deviation to the constitution. I didnt see where article 3 is operative within the boudaries of the rights that have been reserved? Would you care to be more specific and spell out exactly how article 3 expands such that it voids the other parts of the constitution where rights have been expressly reserved meaning 'off limits' to government please?

NorthernGent -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 7:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Oh, and the premise in the OP is flawed. They haven't made a moral judgement based upon religion. It's a pragmatic course of action: the individual versus the group. They've come down on the side of the group as recent history tells them that's what the people want. Thats confusing since it combines moral judgment with political judgment. Care to sort that out for me? If not a moral judgment then what? I assume you are talking about the gay rights to marry, or the cake maybe? Marriage in so far as the state is concerned deals or used to deal with dowry etc under the common law, therefore a perfectly legitimate secular jurisdiction with that respect. Dowry has been abolished long ago so where is the state jurisdiction originating? Could be a moral judgement in the United States, wouldn't really know. But, in England it's a judgement based upon the principles of democracy. The judge in England could be a Christian, could despise gay men, but realistically he or she has no option but to come down on the side of the two gay men as there is a groundswell of support in the country for anti-discrimination measures.

Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (8/15/2015 7:21:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious? I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious? ....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from? ....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make? ....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today? ....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion? Again, as we discussed at length on the other thread, the fault here lies with the people not 'the government'. The government exists only to exercise the requirements of the people. The government, or the law courts, have been left with no choice in the matter of the cake or the B&B situation in England. They have been asked to decide between the positions of an individual business owner and a discrimination claim, and as there is a precedent in law regarding discrimination it seems to me that they are left with little choice but to come down on the side of the discrimination claim. As ever, the fault lies with people taking petty squabbles through the law courts. No case then no decision for 'the government' to make. In these cases, the government have gone with the general requirements of the people, with discrimination codes enshrined in law due to a groundswell of support for it among the people. What else can the law courts do? The point you make about quote: The government, or the law courts, have been left with no choice in the matter of the cake or the B&B situation in England. Would demand an amendment under us law, would it not? quote: it seems to me that they are left with little choice but to come down on the side of the discrimination claim. However the discrimination claim falls squarely into the reserved rights arena of religion, even if we can say not on the part of the gays, despite having made their own moral and religious determinations, certainly on the part of the christians. I do not see a standing claim on the board that religion is not personal. quote: In these cases, the government have gone with the general requirements of the people, with discrimination codes enshrined in law due to a groundswell of support for it among the people. What else can the law courts do? Properly? Recuse themselves rather than step outside their jurisdiction. That is the proper action of the court in these cases, not try and jam everything and anything under the umbrella of commercialism which in addition politicizes the matter unjustly under democracy forcing those who lose the vote to personally accommodate the religion of another despite it violates their own religion. How is this a government that 'protects' rights or EVERYONE under these conditions?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625