Legislating Morality

[lawrocket 3]

There are frequent complaints about conservatives and bible thumpers creating laws that seek to impose their own viewpoints of morality on the People.

I find these to be legitimate complaints, with certain exceptions that are well established (like banning murder, etc.). It is anathema to a free society to pass anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults, banning hate speech, etc.

Now we've heard our own President state that national healthcare is a "moral" imperative. Yes. He has now come out with the "moral" angle.

Doesn't this sounds like bible-thimping? This is the Pat Robertson angle.

Mr. President, I respect your viewpoints. I respect Robertson's right to express his views. I choose to ignore Mr. Robertson. However, your imposition of morality will not be ignorable. I can choose not to give money to a televangelist.

Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

Imposition of morality by law. Yes, healthcare reform has itself taken on a feel of religious enlightenment. Or is it jihad?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,998]

>Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

You don't now. You are subsidizing soldiers, doctors in VA hospitals, doctors in your local hospital, highway workers, police officers and fire department personnel. Every time you drive to work, use your cellphone, fly in an airplane or go to park, you are using government services and forcing someone else to subsidize you. Others may demand that you offer them the same consideration that you demand of them.

[quade 4]

Quote

There are frequent complaints about conservatives and bible thumpDoesn't this sounds like bible-thimping? This is the Pat Robertson angle.

Only if you believe that "morality" only comes from religion.

I personally believe that's bullshit.

Religious morality (anti-gay for instance) is a sub-set of morality, not the other way round.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Mr. President, I respect your viewpoints. I respect Robertson's right to express his views. I choose to ignore Mr. Robertson. However, your imposition of morality will not be ignorable. I can choose not to give money to a televangelist.

Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

Quote

Yes!! Simply don't pay tax to the federal government and you won't be subsidizing this outrageous attempt to ensure that all people in the US have health care .

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[lawrocket 3]

So, from what source does your morality come if not from religion? It certainly seems quasi-religious. That is, "it is because it is."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

So, from what source does your morality come if not from religion? It certainly seems quasi-religious. That is, "it is because it is."

Religious morality is fear based; "god" told me not to do such and such or I'll burn in hell.

I would argue that morality is separate from religion because certain moral ideas are not based on any single religion but transcends them entirely. Pretty much every society around the world finds it immoral to just randomly murder people. If that's true (and clearly I believe it is), then it's actually not religious at all but instead something hard wired into our DNA. I think that makes pretty good sense since from a tribal survival stand point; if you went around just randomly killing members of your tribe there would immediately be issues with its survival.

Likewise, just about every religion finds a way to justify killing other people outside their own group. Again, I believe this to be tribal DNA based.

Much of the same can be said for incest, stealing, or any one of a number of other "moral" issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

With that in mind and upscaled to a national healthcare system, I can justify in my mind at least the use of the term "moral imperative" when it comes to talking about the sick and injured.

Yes, I do find it to be immoral to just let thousands upon thousands of people die every year simply because they couldn't afford healthcare.

If a person doesn't find it immoral, I think they need to question their entire line of thought.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

[replybecause certain moral ideas are not based on any single religion but transcends them entirely. Pretty much every society around the world finds it immoral to just randomly murder people. If that's true (and clearly I believe it is), then it's actually not religious at all but instead something hard wired into our DNA. I think that makes pretty good sense since from a tribal survival stand point; if you went around just randomly killing members of your tribe there would immediately be issues with its survival.

Likewise, just about every religion finds a way to justify killing other people outside their own group. Again, I believe this to be tribal DNA based.

Quote

Or it could be that we just have forgotten or been hoodwinked.
Could it be that we are gods having a human experience?
Blues, Cliff

2muchTruth

• Quote

[quade 4]

Quote

Could it be that we are gods having a human experience?

I can't really speak to hypotheticals and especially when there is no evidence to support them.

There is evidence to support morality that exists outside of religion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Could it be that we are gods having a human experience?

I can't really speak to hypotheticals and especially when there is no evidence to support them.

Quote

Can you experiment and see if the hypothesis is valid?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Religious morality is fear based; "god" told me not to do such and such or I'll burn in hell.

Judeo-Christian religious morality. There are countless other religions out there who view things differently.


[Reply] If that's true (and clearly I believe it is), then it's actually not religious at all but instead something hard wired into our DNA.

[billvon 2,998]

> If you don't find it immoral to take by force a person"s resources then I
> must questions your line of thought.

If you do not accept that you willingly consume resources that are taken from others by force, I have to question your understanding of the situation.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

There are frequent complaints about conservatives and bible thumpers creating laws that seek to impose their own viewpoints of morality on the People.

I find these to be legitimate complaints, with certain exceptions that are well established (like banning murder, etc.). It is anathema to a free society to pass anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults, banning hate speech, etc.

Now we've heard our own President state that national healthcare is a "moral" imperative. Yes. He has now come out with the "moral" angle.

Doesn't this sounds like bible-thimping? This is the Pat Robertson angle.

Mr. President, I respect your viewpoints. I respect Robertson's right to express his views. I choose to ignore Mr. Robertson. However, your imposition of morality will not be ignorable. I can choose not to give money to a televangelist.

Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

Imposition of morality by law. Yes, healthcare reform has itself taken on a feel of religious enlightenment. Or is it jihad?

I consider it socioipathy to think of a person in pain and just because his countries laws aren't such that allow that poor person basic medical care he/she has to ignore that pain and go on, even if that pain is an early sign of cancer that could be snubbed early. Now he/she has to wait until they are near death before they can seek attention and then they are doomed for financial ruin for the future. I think most of the world has adopted that concept, which is why they provide basics. Canada doesn't provide dental care, just basic medical, no cosmetics, etc.

So when you refer to morality, I think the health and well-being of your fellow countrymen and women doesn't enter a moral debate, were talking humanity here.

So because the pesident used the term, "morality" doesn't mean that is the end of it, I don't think selective deprivation of medical care is a moral issue, I think it's an issue of humanity.

Quote

I can choose not to give money to a televangelist.

But you cannot chose to allow them to be non-profit or not, so there is mutuality that defeats your point. Although other than an abstract, I can't see comparing the nation's health to a quack televangelist.

Quote

Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

No, just as you won't have the right to fund the 600B/yr military or the 200B/yr Iraq War. Nor do I have the power to dissalow the quack televangelists to operate under the guise of non-profit when many of those quacks earn >500K I'm sure.

Intelligently, we need to evolve away from this concept that you are paying for X. We were established under a dbt, 75M after he Rev War, have been in debt forever, Jacson almost got us out,

Quote

Imposition of morality by law. Yes, healthcare reform has itself taken on a feel of religious enlightenment. Or is it jihad?

And to defy a world standard is imposition of corporate capitalist greed by policy.

I think it's really awkward to act as if a person on the streets getting welfare somehow personally costs you a dime. Just as the 600B military or the 200B Iraq War isn't costing me a dime. This is debt that will never be paid back by anyone's proverbial grandkids. This McCainian generational robbery is a cliche, an old one at that. With that said, it needs to be controlled, just don't act as if there is even a remote connect between a 10-year, 1 trillion dollar healthcare reform and your taxes. Whether the HC Bill passes or fails, Obaam will raise taxes, probably even on top of the soon-expiring tax cuts. Not to be Biden, but 1 more time, TAXES ARE GOING TO INCREASE REGARDLESS OF THE HC BILL.

Do I have the choice as whether or not to subsidize the court system (assuming I live in your state), the very place you earn your living? Nothing will change whether you practice more law or quit altogether or I live in your state or not.

Remember: the gov collects whatever taxes they can and they spend whatever they want; other than bond measures there is no connect between taxes and spending, which is why our debt generally increases.

So you say there should be a connect. Well, maybe the president you hate so much, Clinton, as well as GHWB raised taxes and at least Clinton spent just above the rate of inflation, a start to gte things under control. It's obvious you dislike Clinton so much, yet his fiscal responsibility was more inline with yours as a transition at least, whereas Reagan and GWB, presidents you probably dislike less than CLinton opposed your fiscal responsibility, or at least the one you advertise.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

> If you don't find it immoral to take by force a person"s resources then I
> must questions your line of thought.

If you do not accept that you willingly consume resources that are taken from others by force, I have to question your understanding of the situation.

So, you find it to be moral, then, because if two wrongs don't make a right, try three. In fact, lawrocket may have benefited by playing by society's rules. Let's punish him.

I hear nothing from you that thinks it is wrong. Merely an excuse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,998]

>So, you find it to be moral, then, because if two wrongs don't make
>a right, try three.

Not at all.

> In fact, lawrocket may have benefited by playing by society's rules. Let's
>punish him.

Again, not at all. More like "Lawrocket benefits from the services provided by society, and has the freedom to protest that others should not enjoy them." An excellent argument that free speech is alive and well.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

> If you don't find it immoral to take by force a person"s resources then I
> must questions your line of thought.

If you do not accept that you willingly consume resources that are taken from others by force, I have to question your understanding of the situation.

So, you find it to be moral, then, because if two wrongs don't make a right, try three. In fact, lawrocket may have benefited by playing by society's rules. Let's punish him.

I hear nothing from you that thinks it is wrong. Merely an excuse.

And people who can't afford medical care are not playing by the rules?

Again, show me the connect between socialized meds and Lawrocket's tax bill. If you can then I can show you my tax bill and all the things the US spends on that I disagree with. This is a huge society of at least 300M people, expenditures are going to be everywhere and it's likely that most we will disagree with.

Taxes will increase regardless of this healthcare issue. The expiring tax cuts will expire and I wouldn't be surprised if additional taxes are added on the rich. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAXES AND OUTLAYS, other than the difference is what comprises the deficit/surplus. But healthcare reform can fail and your taxes can still increase, just as in the Clinton era; sound familiar? Quit playing the victim, if you became disabled these social svs you poo-poo would save your ass.

[livendive 8]

Quote

So, from what source does your morality come if not from religion? It certainly seems quasi-religious. That is, "it is because it is."

All morality derives from the same source and mostly serves self-interest and propogation of the species. However morality is shaped, enhanced, and distorted by a wide variety of cultural views, and most successfully by those with a religous slant, as they carry the biggest stick.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Will I have the choice of whether or not to subsidize others?

You don't now.

I am already a victim of injustice, so I should just shut up and bend over to take some more?

Great advice, Bill. You ought to consider a career teaching women's self defense courses.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I consider it socioipathy to think of a person in pain and just because his countries laws aren't such that allow that poor person basic medical care he/she has to ignore that pain and go on, even if that pain is an early sign of cancer that could be snubbed early.

I consider it sociopathy to use someone else's pain to advance your legislative agenda.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And people who can't afford medical care are not playing by the rules?

They are playing by the rules. But typically they have a faulty strategy.

[Reply]Again, show me the connect between socialized meds and Lawrocket's tax bill.

[rehmwa 2]

How did this thing digress so quickly to a discussion on morality? (I agree with Quade - morality can come from any personal source - just one tool of many used to train morality)

1 - normally, lefties argue against the concept of legislating morality - but they can't this time, so we digress quickly to the "morality is NOT a religious monopoly" argument - because Obama used the word to justify legislation, so the lefties cannot go down their normal arguments. Situational debating/ethics. expected here in SC.


anyway, I thought this was about Obama's hyposcrisy in trying to use tactics similar to religious institutions that the left normally decries - not just where morality comes


however, if one simply defines 'religion' as "blind faith without proof", then politics is full of 'religion' no matter which philosophies people follow

therefore, what the hell - let Obama use whatever technique he can to push the agenda - ditto for the opposition

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ion01 2]

This is also the excuse so many things that the government is involved in such as welfare (it is our moral duty to take care of the poor). Well, thats fine if you think its a moral "duty" but its not the governments duty. Morals are an individual choice. The reason things like murder and stealing are wrong is because you are directly effecting someone else and thier freedoms. Whether or not I give someone who doesn't work money or if someone wants to do something sick and twisted in thier bedroom thats not my problem or yours (its not effecting you in any way) and certainly not the governments as explained in the constitution. The moment someone infringes on your rights only then can the government step in. That is the only job of the government: to protect our freedoms. That even means the freedom to make stupid decisions.

[Ion01 2]

By the way: Most people would consider me to be a religious nut, however, this type of thing goes both ways. Hate speech is often used to silence the religious. In a free society we have the freedoms to think the other person is an idiot. I can beleive and say you are stupid for believing the psuedo science of evolution.....and you can say I am stupid for calling it pseudo science. But you and the government have no right to force everyone to learn about evolution.......in fact, no where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to educate our children or determine how and what our children should learn and, therefore, the federal government has no right to be involved in schools or place any legislation on school and our childrens education. Depending on the state constitution the state might but then I can always move to another state if I don't like thier laws on schools such as not allow me to send them to private school or choose what school I want them to got to.

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

Depending on the state constitution the state might but then I can always move to another state if I don't like thier laws on schools such as not allow me to send them to private school or choose what school I want them to got to.

Point taken that you think that state mandated standards in schooling are overrated

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,998]

>You ought to consider a career teaching women's self defense courses.

You used to be one of the more thoughtful posters here; it's disappointing to see you substituting the usual argumentative crap for discussion.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I consider it socioipathy to think of a person in pain and just because his countries laws aren't such that allow that poor person basic medical care he/she has to ignore that pain and go on, even if that pain is an early sign of cancer that could be snubbed early.

I consider it sociopathy to use someone else's pain to advance your legislative agenda.

What if it's my pain? I haven't seen a doctor in 9 years and I have a myriad of things that now hamper me for which I need medical attention. I'm not hanging poor people out by the collar and waving them around for a political slogan, this is about my life.

Also, what's the most sociopathic aspect is making basic medical needs a political decision. In civilized countries that's a moot point, here it's a business decision.