Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:50 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:Second, the key here is this: Our rights are INNATE. We do NOT need any constitutional amendments to define our rights -- they are innate. In other words, any and all two consenting adults are innately free to engage in any contract they want. Given that the majority often digs in and refuses to grant rights to minorities, there are times when constitutional amendments are necessary (freeing salves, women's right to vote, etc.) But in principle, all gays ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to marry. All women ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to vote. All slaves ALWAYS had the right -- innately -- to be free. The fact that government stood in the way of these things? THAT'S what the SCOTUS is tasked with defining.


This is true only in the sense that the Constitution defines the rights of it's people. But if the content of the Constitution were different, that might not be true. Our rights might be much more limited. You can only infer "absolute" rights by appealing to a divine power and we certainly don't want to do that.

The right of any adults to marry anyone of their choice be it race, color, creed? Innate. We're free. The question is not our rights, it's the government's liberty to block our rights, and the SCOTUS decided -- rightly -- that the government has NO COMPELLING INTEREST in blocking an INNATE RIGHT.


Again, this is true only in the sense that the Constitution can be interpreted that way. Were it written differently, such notions might be complete fantasy.

Since the government is not a "thing" -- but instead is made up of people who are to enforce or execute the governmental role, anyone who enters into government service LOSES THEIR INNATE RIGHTS. No longer is Kim Davis a "free citizen" -- she is a duly elected representative of the government and thus obligated and REQUIRED to never block anyone's INNATE RIGHTS.


There's no truth to this at all and I have no idea where you would get this idea. Not only does every government employee still enjoy every right protected by the Constitution, but they are also held to every valid law and the constraints of the Constitution. This is the essence of the Davis case. She still has every right as a citizen to disagree with same sex marriage, to oppose it, to protest it, to try every legal way she can imagine to defeat it. BUT, she is an elected official and was REQUIRED to take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, ironically with her hand on a Bible and swearing to god most likely. She broke that oath of office. She lied. She broke the law and for the purpose of imposing her religious beliefs on others. I can't see any justification for defending someone like this. In cases where one's religion is wildly out of sync with society, I can't imagine Rian or anyone but those extremists taking up for Davis. But since her position against same sex marriage is the vogue with many Christians, she enjoys some level of support. But it's that agreement only that fuels this support. Had she refused to issue a marriage license to a couple that had been previously married and divorced on the grounds of her Catholic beliefs, she be a laughing stock right now and Rian must know this.

Her own rights are voluntarily suspended if she chooses governmental service. No one is forcing her to do this job and she is not constitutionally guaranteed this job. And the w


No, this is not correct at all. Where are you getting this stuff? Please demonstrate that this is true. And if it is true, what rights are suspended? Your right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers? Your right to life, liberty and happiness? Yes, she can quit any time she likes, thus PROVING her rights are not suspended. What you may be trying to say is that she does not have the right to break any law that she personally disagrees with and that is correct, but it's no more correct than a group of blacks breaking a local law limiting their right to vote. You break any law and you are subject to the penalties, REGARDLESS of the law's constitutionality. Your only recourse is to challenge it legally.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:56 pm

Particles wrote:Well, how did the Obergfell decision overstep any so-called boundaries?

I pretty much concur with Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion, but I'd rather not get into details of that now; I'd like to finish up the Kim Davis discussion parts first. Sorry! just not enough time!

Simplyme wrote:What if your conscious calls you to behead people who disagree with you? I wonder how laid back and supportive you would be about that?

I think it's wrong, and I would fight to incarcerate those people (if they were in the US), but I still think people should do what they think is right. If it's against what society thinks is right, they'll be controlled. What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.

Seems to me like your knickers are in a knot! It's funny you can't feel it, because, I for one, can see it.

I don't know what tone you're giving my post, but it seems to me that you're more wrought up about it than I am.

It makes me sleep better at night knowing that they're people like you out there.

I'm glad you appreciate my open-mindedness and tolerance!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:43 pm

Rian wrote:I think her position would be wrong, but I would support her acting on what she thinks is right. I'm pretty much a freedom-to-act-how-your-conscious-calls-you-to kind of person, because there are so many things that really, no one can come out and claim that they are right and others are wrong. I tend to think that recently, the judiciary has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond what the FFs envisioned, and that it's safer for things to auto-correct by society. It may be slower, but I think it's surer. It troubles me that ONE PERSON (i.e., a judge) has the ability to radically change such major things in our country.


This boggles my mind. Aaron had said the same thing until he really began to think about it. So, you are basically saying that you are comfortable with the idea of anarchy, lawlessness? And not the kind where people protest in opposition to bad laws, but one where the actual representatives of government break laws that are put in place to protect civil rights. To me that is a scary proposition.

And it's 9 judges, not 1. Your comfort level on this issue likely rises solely from the fact that you disagree with the decision. Any way, this is how it is done in our country. Our system is not perfect but it's far better than most and far, far better than many previous governments. And these sort of decisions are inevitable if we want a free society. The Constitution doesn't and can't speak to every imaginable human situation. Eventually these things have to be decided by people put in place to do just that.

I think in her situation, I would have resigned. However, I support her doing what she thought was right to do. And I think it's hypocritical if people on one side of an issue will promote civil disobedience in support of it, and then decry civil disobedience used against it.


I don't believe you have really thought this through because you are on her side on this issue. If it were a more unpopular issue or something you totally disagreed with, I don't think you would say this. And you haven't demonstrated that anyone has acted hypocritically in this way. I explained why what Davis did isn't really an example of "civil disobedience" and I'd like to hear your views on that. If she was protesting some law that actually deprived her of a civil right, then I might be a supporter, but that is not the case here. Davis still enjoys every right she did before this ruling and still does today. The ruling did not affect her personally; it affected the legality of gay couples getting married. Now its her job is to issue them a piece of paper saying that they meet the legal requirements for marriage; but it does not require her to approve of it or support it. There's quite a big difference. So there is no hypocrisy going on here that I can see but if you have an example that we can evaluate, please post it, preferably with references or links.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Thu Sep 24, 2015 9:07 pm

Rian wrote:I think it's wrong, and I would fight to incarcerate those people (if they were in the US), but I still think people should do what they think is right. If it's against what society thinks is right, they'll be controlled. What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.


No, the alternative is to obey the law, particularly when you are a government official. I would say it's doubly bad when a government official breaks a law because it has the potential to undermine the public's trust in the government. I suppose you could say that you supported Nixon's use of his position and power as President to illegally spy on his political opponents because he really believed that "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal". Right?

I want to talk more about your perception that some hypocrisy is going on regarding the judgement of when civil disobedience is acceptable. I believe you have grossly misjudged this concept. Personally, I never condone the use of law breaking for any reason. But I have full sympathy for people in some situations, such as during the civil rights era. However, you have to understand that a lot of what occurred during that time wasn't even law breaking but just behavior that was not acceptable by the standards of white Southern society. Blacks gathering to march down the street and protest wasn't law breaking at all. When the whites gathered to tell them to stop "making trouble" and go home and the blacks then refused, I think that can justifiably be defined as "civil disobedience" (again, not really breaking a law here). There was no Supreme Court ruling involved here; no years-long political debate as we have seen in the case of same sex marriage. There were perhaps a handful of local ordinances and a whole lot of local customs. There were state and local laws that suppressed the black vote as well, and blacks tried repeatedly to satisfy them and even to get around them. Sometimes just showing up to vote drew such ire from the white people that violence broke out in the form of an attack on the black people. So please don't equate anything this disgusting Kim Davis has done with anything during the civil rights era and claim that we are hypocrites. When you can come up with something more substantial, I'll be willing to consider it.

So was George Wallace justified in his efforts to physically prevent blacks (using his Gubernatorial power to command state police) from enrolling at the University of Alabama? Does it matter that he thought he was doing the right thing? Absolutely not! Why? Because he was governor of Alabama and as such had taken an oath of office to uphold the law, not enforce only the laws he "believed were right". If he wanted to stomp around the campus on his free time carrying signs of protest, that would have been acceptable and I would support his right to do that. But misuse his position as an elected official? In my mind there are few things as loathsome as this in our society.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:44 am

I thought of another situation that should be considered here. What if a teacher here in the U.S. who is a Muslim decided that she should take a few minutes of her time with the students each day to teach them about Muhammad and Allah, perhaps even leading them in an Islamic prayer? This would be a clear violation of church/state separation and I have no doubt that this sort of action would result in enormous backlash from the mostly white & Christian population. But there is essentially no difference in this situation and what Davis has done. So what I'm pointing out here is that one's beliefs about religion or morality or just a general sense of what is "right" is no justification for breaking the law, particularly when there can be victims involved, those people affected by this breach of the law. And while I can understand that people will agree with the positions being taken, I don't understand how they can support a government official when they refuse to uphold the law. So compare and contrast this situation with the kind of situation I described during the civil rights era and my belief is that the difference is quite clear.

Whatever else is said, I want to voice that I think this is a good conversation to have and it is very enlightening to hear the thoughts of everyone involved.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:55 am

Keep The Reason wrote:The SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitutionality of our laws. That's their job. The Legislature makes laws, the Executive branch implements, the judicial decides if a law is adhering to our principles of rights. It is decidedly NOT meant to be a "majority rules" scenario because the majority is generally not inclined to care about the minority. That is why our government works, the minority position is DEFENDED by our core principles.


After reading this for the 10th time, I wanted to point out how true this is and that our 4th President, Madison, was particularly insistent in how important this is. He repeatedly spoke out on the dangers of a "majority rule" scenario in our country regarding civil rights and he worked hard to put mechanisms in our government to guard against this very situation (a religious disagreement). I truly believe that if Madison were alive today, he might be appalled at the idea of two men marrying, but he would resoundingly reject behaviors such as Davis's as illegal and dangerous to society.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Keep The Reason » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:08 am

I'll answer the innate rights thing because it's misunderstood and then take my leave of the discussion.

I'm not saying that innate rights are objectively granted by some fiat or external agency (though subjectively I believe we should all act as if they are regardless of where we are in the world), I'm saying within the social contact that is the founding documents of the USA those rights are deemed innate and self evident.

Spongebob correctly assessed that.

He incorrectly assesses the idea that a government employee isn't getting their rights limited in practice once they become a government employee. What are we talking about here when we say "government"? If government is not about human beings applying it, it's just an abstract word. Yes, you can believe your religious tenets personally, but you cannot always act on those beliefs in your capacity as an agent of governance. You sacrifice that freedom of religious pursuit the moment you become a government representative in terms of applying it unfettered.

That's what this entire debate is about. Davis doesn't lose her rights to disdain ssm, but she absolutely does lose her right to demand through her office that others be denied it.

Other examples of this would be a teacher in s public school. The teacher represents the school which is public and a recipient of government support and involvement, which in turn is fettered from proselytizing any religions. Hence, as a private citizen a teacher may lead any and every prayer group they want in private life (their right to do so is innate, see above) but that right is now limited on school property and the teacher is not permitted to lead any prayers at all. Change this to a private school, and the moment you unlink from the government such binders are instantly removed and the same teacher can lead any prayer they want.

This is the entire heart of the mater. Davis is a government agent and her right of religious freedom in application via her governmental office is by definition limited. The Constitution doesn't limit us as private citizens, it limits what the government (which is people enforcing and / or upholding it's dictates, on other people ) is permitted to do.

I am very much a Madisonian, as the Federalist Papers which he coauthored really defines the idea that the Constitution is meant to hobble the government which is people having power over other people, and this inclines the government (via those people who enforce it) to tyranny. Davis is undermining our constitution because she is a government agent and she is insisting her religious rights trump her governance, when such rights are specifically shackled. Again this is the heart of the entire dispute, and yes what she is doing is dangerous, absolutely illegal, and deserving of fairly firm consequence. She wants to not obey the law? Then resign your post. Otherwise, she is the tyrant here.

I'll be stepping away from the CL from this point forward, ironically because I am Madisonian in inclination. Thanks.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10531
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:31 am

Keep The Reason wrote:I'll answer the innate rights thing because it's misunderstood and then take my leave of the discussion.

I'm not saying that innate rights are objectively granted by some fiat or external agency (though subjectively I believe we should all act as if they are regardless of where we are in the world), I'm saying within the social contact that is the founding documents of the USA those rights are deemed innate and self evident.

Spongebob correctly assessed that.

He incorrectly assesses the idea that a government employee isn't getting their rights limited in practice once they become a government employee. What are we talking about here when we say "government"? If government is not about human beings applying it, it's just an abstract word. Yes, you can believe your religious tenets personally, but you cannot always act on those beliefs in your capacity as an agent of governance. You sacrifice that freedom of religious pursuit the moment you become a government representative in terms of applying it unfettered.

That's what this entire debate is about. Davis doesn't lose her rights to disdain ssm, but she absolutely does lose her right to demand through her office that others be denied it.

Other examples of this would be a teacher in s public school. The teacher represents the school which is public and a recipient of government support and involvement, which in turn is fettered from proselytizing any religions. Hence, as a private citizen a teacher may lead any and every prayer group they want in private life (their right to do so is innate, see above) but that right is now limited on school property and the teacher is not permitted to lead any prayers at all. Change this to a private school, and the moment you unlink from the government such binders are instantly removed and the same teacher can lead any prayer they want.

This is the entire heart of the mater. Davis is a government agent and her right of religious freedom in application via her governmental office is by definition limited. The Constitution doesn't limit us as private citizens, it limits what the government (which is people enforcing and / or upholding it's dictates, on other people ).

I am very much a Madisonian, as the Federalist Papers which he coauthored really defines the idea that the Constitution is meant to hobble the government which is people having power over other people, and this inclines the government to tyranny. Davis is undermining or constitution because she is a government agent and she is insisting her religious rights trump her governance, when such rights are specifically shackled. Again this is the heart of the entire dispute.

I'll be stepping away from the CL from this point forward, ironically because I am Madisonian in inclination. Thanks.


This is a much better way of putting it and I believe this was your intended message all along. But let's do get one thing crystal clear, Davis in this case is not losing any right to deny gay people a marriage license. As a citizen, she never had that right to begin with. Even as a government official, she never had that "right" because her job is not about her rights as a person or as a government representative. The question of who can be issued a valid marriage license is one of law, not personal rights; it's written down on a document and its in black and white. It's because of this distinction that I can comfortably argue that Davis still enjoys every right she ever did enjoy. She has been denied nothing. It was never her "right" to reject a same sex couple for a marriage license even two years ago; that was the law before it was changed. It just so happens that the she agreed with the previous version of the law and now she doesn't.

In very basic terms, people holding jobs like Davis's are little more than automatons. They rarely have to exercise creative thinking or problem solving. In crude terms, a monkey could do their job. All they have to do is read and follow the instructions and it does not require their personal judgement to do this. Literally, all they have to do is check boxes yes or no. This is partly why we so often encounter rude and surly people at places like the DMV. Their job is dull, boring and completely inflexible. They get people all the time arguing with them about this or that regulation and all they can do is shake their head because they aren't allowed any flexibility in the course of their work. It is truly a miserable job and Davis appears to be perfect for the job except for this one case.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Simplyme » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:32 am

Simplyme wrote:What if your conscious calls you to behead people who disagree with you? I wonder how laid back and supportive you would be about that?

I think it's wrong, and I would fight to incarcerate those people (if they were in the US), but I still think people should do what they think is right. If it's against what society thinks is right, they'll be controlled. What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.


Your answer here scares the shit out of me. I mean really scares me!!!!!!!
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6013
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:08 am

Simplyme wrote:
Simplyme wrote:What if your conscious calls you to behead people who disagree with you? I wonder how laid back and supportive you would be about that?

I think it's wrong, and I would fight to incarcerate those people (if they were in the US), but I still think people should do what they think is right. If it's against what society thinks is right, they'll be controlled. What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.


Your answer here scares the shit out of me. I mean really scares me!!!!!!!


I completely agree and in a case such as this, I don't believe we are getting a truly honest answer from Rian. What does she really mean by this? If she believes an action is wrong then how can she justify "supporting" someone for doing what they believe is "right" when it violates laws and the Constitution? To what degree does this support extend? Personally I suspect we may have hit a wall where Rian knows this is an untenable position but refuses to reverse herself because somehow it looks bad if she does. This is tantamount to saying that she believes people should do anything their conscience guides them to do and let the chips fall where they may and I am not convinced she truly believes this. I'm not disagreeing with the "do what you think is right" idea, but there has to be a point where you weigh that against the law and society. Consider this; if "thinking" people do not do this, then this is where civilization ends and barbarianism begins.

Like I said earlier, Aaron went through a phase like this but eventually reconsidered because, well, that position is pretty contradictory to the Constitution.

What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.


Actually, I believe we do this as a specie more often than not. It's the basis for all of our social norms, customs, traditions and yes, laws. There is an abundance of research that demonstrates that people are inclined to "follow the herd" so to speak. Of course this isn't always the best thing to do, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It very likely has evolutionary roots. I guess the point here is that it is good to think for oneself, but we shouldn't be showing support for people who ignore laws that are there to protect society from chaos.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:18 am

For anyone who thought this issue was resolved, it isn't.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... ex_couples

I'm curious, does anyone here really believe that it is an infringement upon a clerk's religious freedom to require them to issue same sex marriage licenses? If so, why?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Particles » Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:37 am

Issuing an marriage license only amounts to verifying the information is correct. There is nothing religious about the act. Government-issued marriage licenses are not religious documents. This is not a theocracy. Issuing one cannot infringe on any clerk's personal beliefs about marriage at all, they and their churches can continue to bigoted as much as they want in their religions. To deny a marriage license is simple bigotry and nothing to do with religious freedom. The only freedom being denied is that of the license applicant. And obviously all the Davis types are dishonest because you know they don't really care about religious freedom rather than merely Christian "freedom," they would not wish to extend the same freedom to discriminate by government employees to other religions.
Particles
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2094
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: USA
Affiliation: Gnostic atheist

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby Rian » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:24 pm

spongebob wrote:
Simplyme wrote:
Simplyme wrote:What if your conscious calls you to behead people who disagree with you? I wonder how laid back and supportive you would be about that?

I think it's wrong, and I would fight to incarcerate those people (if they were in the US), but I still think people should do what they think is right. If it's against what society thinks is right, they'll be controlled. What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.


Your answer here scares the shit out of me. I mean really scares me!!!!!!!


I completely agree and in a case such as this, I don't believe we are getting a truly honest answer from Rian. What does she really mean by this? If she believes an action is wrong then how can she justify "supporting" someone for doing what they believe is "right" when it violates laws and the Constitution? To what degree does this support extend? Personally I suspect we may have hit a wall where Rian knows this is an untenable position but refuses to reverse herself because somehow it looks bad if she does. This is tantamount to saying that she believes people should do anything their conscience guides them to do and let the chips fall where they may and I am not convinced she truly believes this. I'm not disagreeing with the "do what you think is right" idea, but there has to be a point where you weigh that against the law and society. Consider this; if "thinking" people do not do this, then this is where civilization ends and barbarianism begins.

Like I said earlier, Aaron went through a phase like this but eventually reconsidered because, well, that position is pretty contradictory to the Constitution.

I think the problem here is that you and SimplyMe are reading things into what I wrote that aren't there, and missing things I did write. For example, I said I would fight to incarcerate people that were doing violent things, and that I would try to convince them to not do violent things. I didn't say that if someone said, for example, that they wanted to blow up a school, I would just mindlessly say "I think you should do what you think is right!" Again, I also didn't say "I think you should do what you think is right and I won't try to stop you"; I said that I would try to incarcerate these people. Where is the problem here?

Rian wrote:What is the alternative? To look around and try to do what others think is right? I think people should think more, and then do what they think is right.
SpongeBob wrote:
Actually, I believe we do this as a specie more often than not. It's the basis for all of our social norms, customs, traditions and yes, laws. There is an abundance of research that demonstrates that people are inclined to "follow the herd" so to speak. Of course this isn't always the best thing to do, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It very likely has evolutionary roots. I guess the point here is that it is good to think for oneself, but we shouldn't be showing support for people who ignore laws that are there to protect society from chaos.
I agree that we often do what the people around us do.

Perhaps where we differ is this: both you and I would fight to stop/incarcerate someone that wanted to blow up a school; both you and I would do everything we could to convince them otherwise if we had the chance, but at the end of the conversation, I really believe I would say "I really think you are wrong, and will cause countless damage and pain and death, and I will do everything I can to stop you, but when it comes down to it, you need to do what YOU think is right - not what others are telling you to do - and YOU are responsible for your decision." Perhaps that's where the difference is - you wouldn't say that? I guess I just have a very high regard for personal responsibility.

And again - I would do everything I could to convince them to NOT do it, and to physically stop them and throw them in jail.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Kim Davis and same sex marriage

Postby spongebob » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:35 am

Rian wrote:I think the problem here is that you and SimplyMe are reading things into what I wrote that aren't there, and missing things I did write. For example, I said I would fight to incarcerate people that were doing violent things, and that I would try to convince them to not do violent things. I didn't say that if someone said, for example, that they wanted to blow up a school, I would just mindlessly say "I think you should do what you think is right!" Again, I also didn't say "I think you should do what you think is right and I won't try to stop you"; I said that I would try to incarcerate these people. Where is the problem here?


Rian, the problem is that your comments have been contradictory. Saying you believe people should do what they believe is the "right" thing and implying this means even if it is against the law is confusing if you then say you would support incarcerating them for criminal behavior. I think maybe you need to explain yourself a bit better on this if you really want others to understand where you are coming from. Please don't resort to the "you're reading something I didn't say..." response because all we can do is read what you did say and draw conclusions from that. And from what you've said, it appears to me that you would support someone doing all sorts of evil things as long as they believe it's the "right thing to do". Is this just because you think people should not "follow the crowd" and should think for themselves? To me the issue is more nuanced than that. Thinking for one self is certainly a virtue but there's a point where I can't continue to applaud that, say when people decide to "think for themselves" and do something that hurts other people.

I think this problem stems from your perceived belief that there is some sort of hypocrisy going on here. When I say that I fully support the civil rights movement, which involved acts of civil disobedience, but I completely and totally condemn people like Kim Davis for her behavior, that is not a hypocrisy and I've taken the time to explain why. You have not commented on that explanation, nor tried to break it down and show demonstrate where I am wrong. I am asserting that there is a big difference between the two acts and I'm also asserting that when people break the law or perform civil disobedience, there are cases where this is appropriate and cases where it isn't. I reject the notion that you have to just accept them all or reject them all. And I've explained that my basis for this is usually the Constitution and our civil rights. I'm not just picking sides here either. If unconstitutional laws were passed that limited the rights of people to worship in the way the choose, I would support those people if they were disobedient and did it anyway. There's actually a case in point here. Religious practices involving poisonous snakes were banned in most states in the middle of the last century because these types of churches were very popular in the Southeastern states and many people were getting injured and dying because of it. I believe only one state now allows this practice. But if a church in Alabama, where it's illegal, were to resume this practice, I would support them on it for the same reason I supported the civil rights movements and the gay couples who Kim Davis has wronged. If you take the time to analyze my reasoning, I believe you will see that it is consistent and reasonable.

Perhaps where we differ is this: both you and I would fight to stop/incarcerate someone that wanted to blow up a school; both you and I would do everything we could to convince them otherwise if we had the chance, but at the end of the conversation, I really believe I would say "I really think you are wrong, and will cause countless damage and pain and death, and I will do everything I can to stop you, but when it comes down to it, you need to do what YOU think is right - not what others are telling you to do - and YOU are responsible for your decision." Perhaps that's where the difference is - you wouldn't say that? I guess I just have a very high regard for personal responsibility.


I just don't understand your viewpoint. It really makes no sense to me at all. And that says nothing about my regard for personal responsibility. I expect people, particularly adults, to have learned how to behave in a civil society and obey the law and respect others. It's not like they don't know how to behave. If they can't do that, then I'm happy to blow them away and I do NOT believe that people should do what they think is "right" if that means harming others. They should know better. There are many occasions where people are mentally ill and believe all sorts of dangerous things are "right", like drowning their children in the bathtub to keep Satan from getting them. Does that count to your way of thinking? Do you really believe they should do what they believe is "right" even in cases like that? Sorry, don't get it, and this has nothing to do with groupthink either.

And again - I would do everything I could to convince them to NOT do it, and to physically stop them and throw them in jail.


I'm sorry, but your position on this makes no sense to me and sounds more contradictory than anything else I've heard. If you really believe people should do what they think is "right", then why would you expect them to change their mind if you tried to convince them otherwise?

Now, on top of all this, let me make this perfectly clear. I am NOT saying that I believe that everyone should agree with me regarding what is "right". I don't expect Kim Davis to agree with me regarding same sex marriage. That's her right as a citizen of this country and she is free to give speeches that condemn the practice of same sex marriage until she dies an old woman, and of course I'm free to call her an intolerant bigot until I die an old man. That is the only way to square what you are suggesting with living in a civil, democratic society. We can disagree on issues and take legal, appropriate steps to change them, but we cannot and should not attempt to rob people of their civil rights.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Previous

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron