Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:I tend to concur with Justice Brandeis on this one:

Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928): wrote:

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect.

Equating my position with saying there is a right to "absolute privacy" is a straw man arguement.

So is equating mine with saying there is NO right to privacy. I was returning the favor.

And I disagree with Brandeis. I care more about my right to life than I do my right to privacy, and I'd wager it's the most fundamental right of all. When your right to be left alone interferes with MY right to life, which right should trump? That is the debate. One of them is sacrosanct in the Constitution. The other is inferred. Like I said, it's a moving target and a very hard challenge. That's nuance.

Mannahnin wrote:Affirmative action doesn't have to be about race, either, so claiming it's inherently racist is an untruth.

But in the United States it *IS* about race. Whether it HAS to be or not...it typically is, with a small amount for gender as well. So that too is a straw man. Choosing a candidate based on anything other than merit is the definition of bias. Affirmative action changes the flow, but the stream still moves, doesn't it.

Our country was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.

As for Reagan, here's a quick article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_13_121/ai_n6159258udea

Re: Affirmative Action, can you articulate the circumstances under which you support it? And why?

Mannahnin wrote:Our country was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.

I vehemently disagree.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Nice little quote...from the interior of my little Pocket Constitution. Judeo-Christian ethics are founded upon the notion of the golden rule, respecting one's self and one's neighbor, and committing no crimes against them. The Founding Fathers were wise to separate the Constitution from the religious dogma/rulers of the day. But to pretend they do not tread the same concepts

Mannahnin wrote:As for Reagan, here's a quick article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_13_121/ai_n6159258udea

Thanks for the easy win, Ragnar.

"This requested article does not exist."

Mannahnin wrote:Re: Affirmative Action, can you articulate the circumstances under which you support it? And why?

Because our politicians are too blind to the value of early education, and something is better than nothing to address the injustice. When my options are poorly managed AA and NOTHING, I have to take poorly managed AA, don't I?

Broken link = win? You must be desperate. Hrm. Try this one-
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14026_1.html

Disagree as much as you want about America. You're wrong. While many of the founders were Christians, the system of our government and our nation were deliberately crafted to be independent of religion. English Common Law was at least as much an influence as religion, especially as religion tended to support concepts like the Divine Right of Kings.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=resources&page=NewsArticle&id=9061&security=1441&news_iv_ctrl=2422

Treaty with Tripoli, approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 wrote:"[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…."

I said ETHICS, Ragnar. Not religion.

E-T-H-I-C-S

If we are going to retreat to the worn out tactic of responding to what we THINK (or wish) the other person said, or the strawman most easiest to denigrate, then what is the point?

If you can't take the friendly joke, then this is pointless. I know most liberals have no sense of humor, but that was obvious to even the most casual of observer.

Please to specify how you think "Judeo-Christian Ethics" are different from "Judeo-Christian Religion"?

Judaism and Christianity are religions. Their moral and ethical teachings are part and parcel of saidreligions.

More commandments (out of the famous ten) are focused on the primacy of a specific god than on universal ethical concepts like not murdering or stealing.

If the US is founded on a set of explicitly enumerated principles which are very carefully NOT linked to or dependent on any given religion, or set of religions, then on what basis can you make your claim?

"Easy win" is a joke. Certainly. Har har. So is "You must be desperate". It goes both ways, Chuck. I know most Conservatives are incapable of self-reflection or applying the standards they preach for others to themselves, but... Oh wait, two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, we had a HUGE thread on how an atheist could be moral. Religion is a matter of faith; ethics are a matter of behavior and choice. Those ethics form the basis of those religions as surely as they form part of the basis of our laws. Considering, as you clearly pointed out, that the majority of the Founders are Christian, where do you think that ethical foundation originated from? The FF had seen that foundation perverted by law, and so took steps to separate the ethical basis from the dogma.

So my claim is based on simple reasonable deduction. As you don't appear to differentiate between ethics and religion, then we'll have to disagree on that conclusion. Again, it is a matter of nuance.

As for that Reagan link...are you serious? I've heard Clinton reference the power of prayer, I've heard FDR reference the power of prayer. That proved he was a man of faith, not that he pushed the country that direction. At the top of page 3, he held his prayer to himself and did not extend it to the formal meeting, even when asked. Are you suggesting a man of faith could NOT be president? I'm not sure what conclusion I am supposed to draw from that article.

The same as from this one?

Fair enough on the joke. Maybe we both should have used smilies.

And I'm not a conservative. You are making an inference from our debates that is not correct.

dienekes96 wrote:Our entire country was founded on judeo-Christian ethics. To posit that Reagan's religiosity is any more impactful than another president's, I would need more than an unpublished conference paper. I would need to know what fundamental shifts occured in our laws with a specific religious basis. I am not trying to be pedantic, but what a president believes isn't terribly relevant to me. What a president DOES is.

To posit that Judeo-Christian ethics is some kind of umbrella term without an variance is simple self-delusion. In any case, it isn't a matter of what the President believes. It's a matter of how he makes people 'feel' he believes. Don't kid yourself, the way things are done is every bit as significant as how they are done. Reagan was famous for his ability to sell trickle-down economics to the everyman. Many people believe that he did it through sound argumentation. However, if that were true, the failure of supply-side economic during his Presidency should have sounded the death knell of that component of Republican ideology. Clearly it did no such thing. So what then are we left with as a motivational tool? Religion, and other major wedge issues. It wasn't Regan's ability to communicate the 'wondrous logical certitude' of supply-side to the populace that got him elected. No, it was his ability to co-opt the Democratic focus on social outliers into a message of identity with the traditional values of the middle class. Without support for Unions most rust-belt workers defaulted to other allegiances of ideology and elected the President who best fit their socio-religious identity. The fact that Rove realized this is what kept GWB in office for 8 years.

dienekes96 wrote:Well, we had a HUGE thread on how an atheist could be moral. Religion is a matter of faith; ethics are a matter of behavior and choice. Those ethics form the basis of those religions as surely as they form part of the basis of our laws. Considering, as you clearly pointed out, that the majority of the Founders are Christian, where do you think that ethical foundation originated from? The FF had seen that foundation perverted by law, and so took steps to separate the ethical basis from the dogma.

So my claim is based on simple reasonable deduction.

Of course this ignores the necessity of presenting oneself as a Christian in those days. Indeed, there is a great deal of argument about just how 'Christian' many of the founding fathers were; Jefferson and Franklin most especially. Moreover, there is a pronounced different between Reagan's invocation of Religion and any consideration of secularized ethics.

So we're now positing whether people were being honest with society and themselves 220 years ago? There might be a great deal of argument, but precious little evidence. It reminds me of the herculean effort to paint Lincoln as a homosexual. Whether he was or not is irrelevant, but I'd argue to the effort to state that he was in more in service of a social cause than the truth.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, we'll never know, so I'll take them at their word. They were apparently men of clear vision and purpose, certainly willing to risk death for their beliefs. So that they might be hiding their true feelings on another key issue certainly seems...very suspect. So I posit that argument as revisionist thinking...trying to fit our heroes into modern society comfortably. I absolutely acknowledge that religion in 1787 was a far different thing than it is now.

Of course there is variance in what it means. But it doesn't change my point. What was believed to be fundamental ethics in 1787 was based in the Christian faith, and it certainly informed the formation of the Constitution, as it was a central part of life.

So a politician got elected because people related to him and liked the way he communicated? And this is indicative of religion vastly impacting politics in 1980 and 1984 more than in previous times? And I acknowledge that how things are done is important...though not as important as them actually BEING done. And I fail to see the difference in what Reagan said and what any other president said about unpopular events, policies, or events.

dienekes96 wrote:So we're now positing whether people were being honest with society and themselves 220 years ago? There might be a great deal of argument, but precious little evidence. It reminds me of the herculean effort to paint Lincoln as a homosexual. Whether he was or not is irrelevant, but I'd argue to the effort to state that he was in more in service of a social cause than the truth.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, we'll never know, so I'll take them at their word. They were apparently men of clear vision and purpose, certainly willing to risk death for their beliefs. So that they might be hiding their true feelings on another key issue certainly seems...very suspect. So I posit that argument as revisionist thinking...trying to fit our heroes into modern society comfortably. I absolutely acknowledge that religion in 1787 was a far different thing than it is now.

Of course there is variance in what it means. But it doesn't change my point. What was believed to be fundamental ethics in 1787 was based in the Christian faith, and it certainly informed the formation of the Constitution, as it was a central part of life.

So a politician got elected because people related to him and liked the way he communicated? And this is indicative of religion vastly impacting politics in 1980 and 1984 more than in previous times? And I acknowledge that how things are done is important...though not as important as them actually BEING done. And I fail to see the difference in what Reagan said and what any other president said about unpopular events, policies, or events.

Why should we presume that the founding fathers were any more honest with the public than the current crop of politicians? In any case, it is well documented that Jefferson was extremely critical of religion in personal correspondence. The same for Franklin. Arguably two of the most influential founding fathers.

In any case, the way people relate to one another is inclusive of religion. As media has become more pervasive the ability to relate to the President has become more and more important. See the famously split result of the Kennedy-Nixon debate for evidence. This has only been exacerbated by ready access to both primary and secondary sources of information. Allowing for highly specific 'insight' into the character of one candidate or another (sic. Barack Obama is a Muslim!!!).

Honestly, it seems to me that your trying to leverage a complex issue of identity into a rather myopic idealization of issue-based electoral politics. Religion is not something you can simply pare off as a kind of 'constant'.

dogma wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:Well, we had a HUGE thread on how an atheist could be moral. Religion is a matter of faith; ethics are a matter of behavior and choice. Those ethics form the basis of those religions as surely as they form part of the basis of our laws. Considering, as you clearly pointed out, that the majority of the Founders are Christian, where do you think that ethical foundation originated from? The FF had seen that foundation perverted by law, and so took steps to separate the ethical basis from the dogma.

So my claim is based on simple reasonable deduction.

Of course this ignores the necessity of presenting oneself as a Christian in those days. Indeed, there is a great deal of argument about just how 'Christian' many of the founding fathers were; Jefferson and Franklin most especially. Moreover, there is a pronounced different between Reagan's invocation of Religion and any consideration of secularized ethics.

Absolutely. Jefferson actually edited/authored his own version of the Bible (aptly named 'Jefferson Bible'), where he snipped out the moral code of Jesus while removing all acts of the supernatural. Given his letters, his Bible publication and his numerous references to 'Natures God" I think it could be well argued he was a deist. Although they certainly attacked him for being an atheist...

malfred wrote:


Hehehe

Watch the first 10 seconds... then watch the last 10 seconds... these disagree with each other. Another misleading news broadcast from fox... they say they were split evenly in 2004... not in this election. then they all raise their hands to say they were for Palin... oooook sure 2004 and 2008 are the same thing obviously their dem/rep views then mattered... (wait... no they don't...)

the last 10 seconds they show only 4 people changed their minds... wait... they weren't split evenly as the broad cast suggests....

dogma wrote:Why should we presume that the founding fathers were any more honest with the public than the current crop of politicians? In any case, it is well documented that Jefferson was extremely critical of religion in personal correspondence. The same for Franklin. Arguably two of the most influential founding fathers.

Why should we not presume their honesty? These were men who risked their life for their political beliefs, so it follows they possess more integrity than modern politicians. This isn't Newt Gingrich and Harry Reid. As you pointed out, it was a very different time. You are ascribing the modern motivation of political dishonesty (which is shifting blame and attempted to get re-elected) in a structured media environment (as you point out below) with the time period of 1787 and men who were interest in something more than getting re-elected.

dogma wrote:In any case, the way people relate to one another is inclusive of religion. As media has become more pervasive the ability to relate to the President has become more and more important. See the famously split result of the Kennedy-Nixon debate for evidence. This has only been exacerbated by ready access to both primary and secondary sources of information. Allowing for highly specific 'insight' into the character of one candidate or another (sic. Barack Obama is a Muslim!!!).

I never said otherwise. Sure...and Reagan wasn't called the Great Communicator for nothing. It wasn't just what he was selling, but how he sold it. You've pointed that out, and I agree. I don't see that as being specifically religious.

dogma wrote:Honestly, it seems to me that your trying to leverage a complex issue of identity into a rather myopic idealization of issue-based electoral politics. Religion is not something you can simply pare off as a kind of 'constant'.

I'm not doing the former, and I'm certainly not arguing issue-based politics. I didn't understand your point about Reagan's presidency and religion, and I still don't. I've yet to see what separates Reagan from presidents before and after him.

My argument with Mannahnin is a completely separate issue. I'm not even particularly religious. I simply find the militant push back against it to be short-sighted and (again) revisionist. You might be mixing those two distinct discussions up, as I certainly am at this point.

I see the Athiest and Morality thread has arisen in a new form. This time it's power IS OVER 9000! Get an axe!

dienekes96 wrote:Why should we not presume their honesty? These were men who risked their life for their political beliefs, so it follows they possess more integrity than modern politicians. This isn't Newt Gingrich and Harry Reid. As you pointed out, it was a very different time. You are ascribing the modern motivation of political dishonesty (which is shifting blame and attempted to get re-elected) in a structured media environment (as you point out below) with the time period of 1787 and men who were interest in something more than getting re-elected.

They didn't risk their lives for political beliefs. They risked their lives for the opportunity to take a larger share of the economic pie they were otherwise forced to share with the English crown. It is a mistake to romanticize these men, as many are apt to do (Ron Paul). Either way, I'm not sure how you can posit that the limited power of media in the period of the founding fathers was anything but conducive to the use of political lies. Especially given that, as you say, the life of the liar was frequently on the line; something which would hold even in the event of espoused truth.

Anyway, my argument about Reagan essentially boils down to the idea that he was the first President elected on the back of wedge issues; albeit unintentionally. Something which the GOP would later exploit as a means of selling supply side economics without having to address their poor track record.

How do you define wedge issue, then? I disagree that he was the first president to be elected on the basis of "wedge" issues, considering there were 39 presidents before him, each elected for a tremendous variety of reasons specific to the time.

And I don't "romanticize" the Founding Fathers. I look at what they did, and why they did it. I do so clearly, and without any reductive or revisionist thinking.

Attempting to tie the origins of the US to Judeo-Christian anything is really dubious. The founding of the constitution was pretty explicitly based around the the Magna Carta, John Locke, and from the writings of the French revolutionaries, as well as some classical Greek stuff. Biblical teachings just don't come into it. How many of the ten commandments are actually illegal anyway? How does a capitalist country reconcile with 'though shalt not covet', for a start?

Trying to argue that it's about ethics doesn't really get you any further, because you don't found a country on ethics. Lots of countries around the world are nominally Christian and share the same ethics, but they haven't necessarily formed governments that are similar to the US. Check out the Democratic Republic of the Congo sometime, they're more Christian than the US has ever been.

dienekes96 wrote:How do you define wedge issue, then? I disagree that he was the first president to be elected on the basis of "wedge" issues, considering there were 39 presidents before him, each elected for a tremendous variety of reasons specific to the time.

Wedge issues are matters which are irrelevant to the well-being of the state which are used to conceal more pertinent matters. Rove, for example, was the master of the wedge issue.

dienekes96 wrote:And I don't "romanticize" the Founding Fathers. I look at what they did, and why they did it. I do so clearly, and without any reductive or revisionist thinking.

I fail to see the difference.

Again, what matters to the well-being of the state is a subjective issue.

Are you stating that the first 39 presidents were all elected on the basis of what was best for the nation? And Reagan was the first anomaly to that? I agree Rove was a master of what you define as a wedge issue.

Regarding the FF, I don't see how objectively looking at the intentions, the language, and the results are "romanticizing" in the least. I do not pretend the men were saints, because they weren't. There was clearly self-interest as a major component. What impresses is that went well beyond that, in effect, not just instituting change that benefitted themselves, but many not in their social strata.

seb, see my Alexander Hamilton quote from before. If you want to replace "Judeo-Christian ethics" with "philosophical constants", then by all means, do so. I'd argue they are sides of the same coin. And they absolutely founded the country on ethics. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Declaration of Independence wrote:When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The foundation of that document is the inherent unethical behavior of the existing government.

Bravo gentlemen. Excellent arguments for both sides. Again what amazes me most is just how polarized this country has finally become.

dienekes96 wrote:Again, what matters to the well-being of the state is a subjective issue.

Are you stating that the first 39 presidents were all elected on the basis of what was best for the nation? And Reagan was the first anomaly to that? I agree Rove was a master of what you define as a wedge issue.

It is subjective in a limited sense. The United States will continue to be the United States no matter how the 2nd amendment is interpreted. The same cannot be said of matters pertaining to economic and foreign policy.

That is essentially my argument about Reagan; though I would frame it as an turn towards ideological thinking over matters of applicable policy. For me he was the first President to really take advantage of the personification which true mass media allows.

dogma wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:How do you define wedge issue, then? I disagree that he was the first president to be elected on the basis of "wedge" issues, considering there were 39 presidents before him, each elected for a tremendous variety of reasons specific to the time.

Wedge issues are matters which are irrelevant to the well-being of the state which are used to conceal more pertinent matters. Rove, for example, was the master of the wedge issue.

I always thought the true genius (or disgust) of Rove politics was adding polarizing referendums during the election. IIRC, many states included the referendum on same sex marriage in the 04' election. I think it was very hard to get votes for Bush but very easy to get votes against gays/Kerry.

I'm tired of culture war politics.

http://www.thewambulance.com/images/wambulance_logo.jpg

Very insightful contribution there. Thanks very much for your carefully considered thoughts.

dienekes96 wrote:I would love something that forces the Republican Party to figure out what it is and what it should be. The Dems don't know either, but they've been more a collection of social interests for years, and they have figured out is that they are NOT conservatives. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Remember, the Dems aren't really winning (though I do think Obama is) - in 2006, they won both Houses by NOT being Republicans. That will only take them so far. Hopefully, Obama can help guide them further. Time will tell.

Something no one talks about much is that the Republicans are facing some very tough demographics in the years to come. The country is becoming more and more non-white. The GOP has thrown a lot of time and money at this problem, but they haven't made even a slight dent with African-Americans, and after making some headway with Hispanics, appear to be giving those gains back with their stance on immigration.

The GOP was expecting to give up a lot of seats in Congress in this election, but it's looking like it may be worse than expected. It probably hasn't helped that they've thrown most of the party's money at the Presidental race, and that incumbents can't get any help via photo-ops, etc. with the sitting President like they normally could with an even semi-popular executive.

We may be looking at an ascendent Democratic party set up for a long run like the Republicans had starting with Reagan's election. In the short-term, that'll probably cause Republicans to do a lot of finger-pointing internally. In the long run, it'll probably force the GOP to redefine itself.

And this is badly needed, because IMO the GOP has lost its way and needs to refocus on issues that'll resonate with independents and conservative Dems (i.e. stop worrying about what goes on in peoples' bedrooms and get back to focusing on balancing the budget, etc.).

gorgon, I agree with all of that. The GOP badly needs to refocus, understand what there core values should be (gay marriage??? NO ONE CARES), and orient themselves. That will be a while away.

I also agree they need to branch out from whitey. They are a natural fit with the Hispanic population (which both Bush and McCain know), but the immigration fiasco of 2007/2008 REALLY hurt them in that demographic. If they don't repair that, they'll be in for some lean years.

The bad news: the Dems aren't much better. They will largely succeed for a bit on NOT being neocons or Bush, but at some point, they'll screw the pooch. They are pretty dysfunctional as well. If (or when) they own all three branches, their descent into corruption and incompetence will be hastened. I think we need AT LEAST two competent parties. Even the minority party should have it's crap together to keep the majority party honest. The last time that happened was 1994-1995, I think. And it didn't last long :(

dienekes96 wrote:gorgon, I agree with all of that. The GOP badly needs to refocus, understand what there core values should be (gay marriage??? NO ONE CARES), and orient themselves. That will be a while away.

I disagree with this. A significant population of intolerant fundamentalist voters DO care. That population, with a large number of anti-gay marriage ads and ballot measures in play, were a significant component of Bush’s re-election in 2004. This group and its prejudices is being pandered to and cynically used for political purposes, and that's one of my biggest beefs with the GOP. It's one of the big manifestations of wedge politics right now.

Biden is one of the reasons Obama HAS to win. If the rumors prove true and Obama would be assassinated after being elected, Biden would take over. This is different because he would be able to run the country the same way Obama would. Did you see that debate between Biden and Palin? Apparently he tore her apart (not literally, that'd be one badass vice-prez).

Obama has chosen well.