quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

You seem to believe that in order to be legitimate, an opposing argument must accept the definition of religion that you have presented. But the definition you've offered is worthless. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether or not any of us stops to think about it, or could coherently articulate it, we all develop a philosophy of life based on our own unique experiences, and order our actions accordingly. Thus by your definition, everything we do is a "religious" act, and therefore our behavior (no matter what it might be) is protected from civil sanction by the Free Exercise clause.

In order for an argument to be legitimate it must be on point and rebut the definition I posted not accept it.

It seems my post was somehow taken out of context and you forgot to include the rest in your quote:
In order for an argument to be legitimate it must be on point and rebut the definition I posted not accept it.

Thats right and when you put moral aspects of your personal philosophy of life into action it is your religion.

In the narrow sense a religious act is based on a moral, in the broader sense a religious act is a matter of conscience in support of your best interest.

So your conclusion that it is anything and everything according to the definition I posited is not the case.

Fine. Done. Rebutted as worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thats right and when you put moral aspects of your personal philosophy of life into action it is your religion.

Yeah, no. The definition you posted doesn't say squat about morality.

K.

quote:


Critical Thinking‎ > ‎Anatomy of an Argument‎ > ‎Deductive Logic Arguments‎ > ‎Naked or Bare assertion fallacy

Name of fallacy
Naked or Bare assertion fallacy

Aliases
Type Deductive Logic Argument, Formal Argument

Description A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.

Example Simon says that Jack eats ice cream
Simon says that Simon is not lying
Conclusion: Therefore, Jack eats ice cream

Form Argument of the form:
Fact 1: X claims statement A
Fact 2: X claims that X is not lying
Conclusion: Therefore, A is true

Treatment Dealt with by showing that the assumption to truth is not justified.

This brings us to the next fallacy: argument by dismissal. It sounds something like this: “Well, if you don’t like it, you can move to Russia!” This is a fallacy because it completely dismisses an idea without explaining why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


To my thinking, the Free Exercise clause does not and cannot place religion above secular law because doing so is blocked by the Establishment clause. To enshrine in law the right of a Christian county clerk to refuse to faithfully discharge her duties if the petitioners are gay, or the right of a Muslim truck driver to refuse work assignments if the cargo contains alcohol, constitutes a recognition in law of these religious tenets and thereby an enforceable establishment of religion which imposes upon all who do not share those beliefs a compulsion to respect them under penalty of law.

K.

"the Free Exercise clause does not and cannot place religion above secular law"

But is did. Twice.

Your first problem:

First it denied the gays religious right to marriage since its conception,

Second when it denied the kliens religious right to refuse to accommodate the commission of a crime against their God.

In each case the gubblemint chose one religion while denying the other.

Both parties have been damaged by the government and its operatives and left without remedy.



Your second problem:

The right to exercise religion is enshrined in the SUPREME law of the land.

The right to exercise religion is contract law which is secular law.



Your third problem:

You need to explain how laws created UNDER the constitution which you are incorrectly contrasting as secular law, stand above the SUPREME law they are created UNDER? Pay particular attention to the words supreme and under

I assume you see the gross contradiction in your premise here?


Next it would not violate the establishment clause only if:

1) the states got out of the marriage licensing business.
2) the states gave both parties equal remedy in the law.

When there is unequal remedy either to the gays or to the christains or atheists whatever religion is irrelevant the state establishes a religion by denying remedy to one party at any given time.


For Davis:
The laws of the county are created UNDER THE SUPREME LAW not above it.

First: Davis obligation to protect the laws of her God predates her oath to the state.
Second: Davis's rights is enshrined in the SUPREME LAW
Third: Davis her oath does not require her to rescind her religious obligations.
Forth: There is no evidence Davis rescinded her religion or her obligation to her religion or her God.

There fore you need to show that the supreme law is SUBJECT to the administrative law created under it. Again a gross contradiction in terms.



Lastly honoring everyones religion does not establish a religion. That is absurd on its face. It does the exact opposite and fulfills the requirements of the exercise clause.


You need to explain how honoring everyones religion of every faith or belief system without denying either party remedy 'ESTABLISHES' a religion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I said it was based on morals several times as an addendum since that was only the snippet proving that even atheists, 'everyone' has religion and how to distinguish between philosophy ethics and religion. You are trying to argue a nonissue I presume to dodge my previous post immediately above which rebuts virtually every point you tried to make.

Religion is based on morality? Therefore even Atheists have a religion? You want to go with that?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I said it was based on morals several times as an addendum since that was only the snippet proving that even atheists, 'everyone' has religion and how to distinguish between philosophy ethics and religion. You are trying to argue a nonissue I presume to dodge my previous post immediately above which rebuts virtually every point you tried to make.

Religion is based on morality? Therefore even Atheists have a religion? You want to go with that?

Thats right, in fact morality is a core element of religion. Do you wish to argue it is not and do you wish to argue atheists have no morals?

Don't fuck with me, Real0ne. Bifurcation fallacies are the intellectual equivalent of Alphabet Blocks, and I didn't come here to relive Kindergarten. Morality consists in conformity to the rules of right conduct. Anyone can and probably almost everyone does have rules of conduct that they consider to represent moral behavior. But that has nothing to do with religion. The purpose of moral behavior in religion is to bring oneself into harmony with some supreme truth, moral conduct being only one part of that endeavor.

K.

Nope I have no reason what so ever to fuck with you man. bifurication? Not. On the other hand over generalization fallacy is intellectual equivalent of 'all for one one for all' distinctions, in which case this is the problem with your post.

You see what everyone with only a couple exceptions fail to grasp are the subtle but critical distinctions that are required when discussing this particular topic. Frankly its a bit complicated to sort out, but once done its easy.

You see what I would imagine everyone to be confused about with my position is that I can truthfully say that gays have their rights and they deserve to be protected by the gubmint since that is why the assholes were created to begin with, and at the same time I can say the kliens [Christians] have their rights and they deserve to be protected by the same gubmint since again that is why the assholes were created to begin with,

Now what we can do is fuck around with that grey area where ethics and morals overlap, and put atheists or gays on either the ethics or the morals side of the equation, while the christians go on the morals side in this battle.

That said where the confusion comes in is that ethics deal with social systems, or [allegedly democratic] rules of conduct while morals deal with Religion, the individual rules of conduct based upon what is right and what is wrong according to their personal beliefs that transcends positivism.

Here is a little chart for your convenience that clarifies the distinctions:





You see there is no bifurcation there is a distinct (though subtle) difference between social code and morals and morals apply to religion, postivism applies to [allegedly] democratic public behavior and liberty applies to the ability (broadly) to exercise private activities in public, and exercising your religion is the ability to choose right and wrong based on your individual 'morals'/belief system and act or refrain from acting accordingly.

For instance the legal system is based on positivist ethics, religions are based upon right/wrong.

Yeh I hear self proclaimed atheists pontificating their moral choices all the time.

The courts are all to quick to rule on the positivist side of the coin while [accidentally] not considering the moral side which is what is protected in the 1st amendment right to exercise religion which often is in direct conflict with the ethics side. As Mr rogers brought up in another thread that the Mormons rights were violated and remain violated as a result of gubblemint polygamy laws banning them from exercising their religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

there is a distinct (though subtle) difference between social code and morals... exercising your religion is the ability to choose right and wrong based on your individual 'morals'/belief system and act or refrain from acting accordingly.

Despite that morality and ethics are often and widely used interchangeably, I would agree that differing connotations have become attached to those terms. What is ethical can reflect culture, custom, and law, while what is moral reflects a fundamental principle that transcends culture, custom, and law. Or in other words, what is considered ethical can be local to a time, place, or group, but what is moral transcends them. Unfortunately for your thesis, if we rely on that distinction then the essence of what is moral lies precisely in the fact that it is not simply a matter of individual belief.

K.