Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The first area might be considered the moral natural or moral common law which includes such things as marriage etcetera. These "things" open to the moral free market of ideas have been defined by society as valuable while other things have been deemed of no value and or harmful. One can find no rational basis for many of these "things" -these declarations.... If comparing the free market of moral ideas with the economic free market we see many similarities with values being determined by participants, with both success and failure being determined by and within the free market (society). Looking for instance at the value of an SUV automobile or a fine piece of artwork or lets say an IPOD -where is the rational basis? Do you see where I am going here?
No. Neither do I understand your argument. The value of goods is decided in the market by what people are willing to pay. The basis for that value being rational being that consensus. That society values some institutions or character traits over others is yet another exercise in reaching a consensus, and therefore rational.
I am suggesting that the premise itself that all things require a rational basis is a flawed premise... This flawed premise in essence cedes authentic individual liberty to a higher authority. In the case of Libertarians it would seem they choose to sacrifice what they consider irrational social order for government imposed social order... e.g. they prefer a government controlled 'neutered' moral free market... This neutering premised in rational requirement flies in the face of what the Founders established by guaranteeing freedom of Religion for the very reason that the free market of ideas should be free... One could say that the requirement for no "religious test" is is being trampled by a government that imposes a 'rational' test that by default establishes a secular humanist state religion...
By that logic, you can also argue the guaranteeing the free exercise of religion is irrational because it guarantees a right to practice a religion that demands pursuit of the imposition of that religion on others and denial of right of others to practice any other religion. As far as a having a secular government amounting to an imposition of religion in and of itself, that runs into an explicit contradiction in terms that finds that anything not explicitly religous to be explicitly religious. I don't see any potential for having a rational discussion on those terms, or any particular point in having an irrational discussion.
The second area might be considered the unalienable/inalienable. Again, these have no rational basis... If one was sat down in front of a judge and had to argue that he is endowed with freedom form the Creator he could not prove it -he could only point to the Constitution... One might then say WELL does the Constitution grant this freedom -if so, then what if we revoke it? What it comes down to is principles and what they are premised upon. One could say that moral Conservatives have principles founded upon something that goes beyond and transcends that piece of paper that Libertarians defend while at the same time discounting that which premises it... This paradox seems odd to me and as well dangerous as repeatedly I have stated this equates to a political entity with moral relative principles that van be swayed in any direction like leaves blowing in the wind...
Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following premise:
When left to make their own decisions, the vast majority of people will make decisions that are in their own best interest, and will provide for their own well being, and that the best long term interests of the Republic are served by letting them do so whenever practical.
A quick response to this as I cruise by -will read the rest later...
What I was suggesting was not an imposition of a religion as that would entail a state religion. What I was getting at was that religion (any religion) is just as valid a premise for inclusion in public discourse as any rationally deduced 'fact'. Further that from the outset, to declare religiously premised ideas as irrelevant due to no rational basis goes against the whole concept of a free market of ideas that the founders deemed important and established with the freedom of religion guarantee... We saw an example of this "trampling" on the free market ideas recently in California with Proposition 8 being set aside based upon an irrational premise underlying it (religion)...
Consider what I am stating here. IF religion gets sent to the back of the bus then how far are we from having voters justify their votes in any election with some judge deciding whether or not the people are rational...
---I will get to the rest and continue later...
How much consideration would such arguments warrant from people who do not subscribe to the particular religion the argument is based in? Freedom of religion means that you should be free to disregard an argument that something should or should not be done based on whether or not it is consistent with someone else's relgious beiefs. You are under no particular civic duty to subscribe to or assume those beliefs. Rejecting a rational argument because you choose to be irrational seems a different matter.
There is no need to ponder "what if" scenarios. I have pointed to a specific example several times:
Proposition 8, where voters resoundingly voted against the leftist darling of "Homosexual Marriage" and we see a Judge declare the voters irrational because he feels that "Religious Belief" premised their votes.
I do not see Libertarians too concerned about this declaration of "irrational" -do you?
I know a judge ruled against the amendment, and I disagree with the assesment. I don't recall the judge saying it was "irrational", but I'm willing to look at whatever content you have from the decision that says it's irrational.
As far as specific applications, you said earlier
"What I was getting at was that religion (any religion) is just as valid a premise for inclusion in public discourse as any rationally deduced 'fact'."
From that premise, what's your take on the situation in Minnesota, where a judge ruled against an initiative to ban the courts from using Sharia law as a consideration in their decisions?
There were many FR topics at the time of the ruling -here is one:
Why the Prop 8 ruling scares religious conservatives
(RNS) When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8 on Wednesday (Aug. 4), he said voters’ motivation for outlawing gay marriage was clear.“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision.
“These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.”
Religion, in Walker’s reasoning, amounts to a “private moral view,” which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others.
While some legal scholars say Walker’s decision lands on firm legal ground—a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster—some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square.
“Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest,” R. Albert Mohler, president of a leading Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column.
As I mentioned before, this ruling seemed to go unnoticed by the Libertarians. I as well suggested that unalienable rights from our Creator could as well be deemed irrational using the same logic...
You defined "consensus" as one aspect of the definition of what is considered rational -I tend to agree although there could be exceptions e.g. that which violates the unalienable or natural law. Anyway, do you see what concerns those that believe religion is just as valid a reason for opinion or belief as any other and that the government deeming religious discourse irrelevant would set a dangerous precedent?
From that premise, what's your take on the situation in Minnesota, where a judge ruled against an initiative to ban the courts from using Sharia law as a consideration in their decisions?
My take is that the judge wishes the courts latitude to ignore precedent -the laws local or regional or national as written or commonly observed in the United States and instead wishes judges have wide latitude to pull from the air agreement with what the judges may want the laws to be... We see the potential for a consensus of one rogue judge using a religion to make law the judge wishes over that that the people observe or have written as a result of the free moral market of ideas...
I feel it would be quite okay IF the people through consensus and voting etcetera determine that an aspect of sharia law becomes a US law; however, a rogue judge imposing sharia law is not government by the people and the rule of law it is tyranny by the state...
Avoid Social Issues, GOP Urged (Homosexualists, Pro-Aborts Co-opt Tea Party Movement))
In my opinion underlying the sentiment premising the plea of "partial conservatism only please" that many if not all Libertarians ascribe to is plain and simple an effort to remove religious premised debate from public discourse. Who is afraid and why are they afraid? Who does not understand that religious belief a higher authority is the very foundation our Republic sits upon?
Libertarians if truly supporting freedom and the American way should be outraged at the idea advanced that suggests "religion" should just shut up and sit down at the back of the bus for the good of the Republic...
This is basically an exercise in casting personal opinion as constitutional principle. You can deem anything you want to be whatever you wish using that logic, because it's not logic, it's dogma. The judge can't even grasp the basic idea that this is not an issue the federal government was granted any authority over, which makes it an issue for the citizens of the state to decide.
You defined "consensus" as one aspect of the definition of what is considered rational -I tend to agree although there could be exceptions e.g. that which violates the unalienable or natural law. Anyway, do you see what concerns those that believe religion is just as valid a reason for opinion or belief as any other and that the government deeming religious discourse irrelevant would set a dangerous precedent?
I have concerns about any judge that sets himself up as the standard of rationality, against the consent of the governed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.