Is The Constitution Party Similar To The Taliban?

[WinePusher]

There is not one shred of evidence that the Constitution Party is equivalent to the Taliban. Where in their party platform would it be equivalent?

Calling the Constitution Party an American Taliban is obviously a hyperbole. However, there are aspects of the Constitution Party which are chillingly like the Taliban.

Is The Constitution Party Similar To The Taliban?

[otseng]

Not outlawing murder is clearly and observably detrimental to society. This is not a matter of personal opinion or morality, like McCulloch said, the law doesn't forbid murder because we feel it's wrong, it forbids it because a society could not function otherwise.

I would agree with you. But, there is even disagreement in what exactly is murder. For example, I believe that abortion is murder (and perhaps you would agree). But for some, they do not believe abortion is murder.

Laws will have some bit of personal standard of morality in them, because we are human and we are incapable of seeing things 100% objectively. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them as objective as possible.

How would one determine if something is objective as possible?

[otseng]

Certainly one has to think of the common good, and not just for the interests of a select few. But, do you agree though that one cannot separate law and morality?

Except for the broadest sweeping principles of fairness and justice, one must separate law and morality. Morality is subjective and difficult to nail down. Law must be objective and well defined.

Morality to me is differentiating between good and bad behavior. Since laws do this, morality cannot be separated from law.

Good government neither endorses nor prohibits religion. This is the brilliance of the now oft imitated experiment in secular government, in the American Republic.

I agree that the American government is secular in that it neither endorses nor prohibits any particular religion (more specifically any Christian group). But, it is not secular in that all references to anything of a religious nature is removed from government. And the founding fathers certainly had no intention of this. And actually, it was the opposite. There are many references to religion in the founding of the American federal and state governments and even some persist to this day.

[Lux]

I would agree with you. But, there is even disagreement in what exactly is murder. For example, I believe that abortion is murder (and perhaps you would agree). But for some, they do not believe abortion is murder.

You have a good point here. Abortion aside (I haven't quite made up my mind about it yet, I strongly oppose it morally, but I'm not really in favor of outlawing it... such a complicated issue...), I think that purposefully killing a human is wrong under any circumstances - including capital punishment. Many would disagree with me.

Now, what I propose is that we should at least make the effort to formulate laws on the basis of what would be, as far as we can tell, best for society.

How would one determine if something is objective as possible?

Let me rephrase. Just because we are not capable of being completely objective doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make our laws in keeping with what is objectively best for society, as opposed to what we would personally prefer.

In other words, yes, you are right, every law has a bit of personal standards of morality in it. However, this doesn't mean we should just shrug and say "Might as well make it totally subjective and based on a particular set of morals!". Just because we can't be 100% objective doesn't mean we should conform with being extremely subjective.

[McCulloch]

Morality to me is differentiating between good and bad behavior. Since laws do this, morality cannot be separated from law.

But laws do not differentiate between good and bad behavior. Laws differentiate between permitted and prohibited behaviors.

I agree that the American government is secular in that it neither endorses nor prohibits any particular religion (more specifically any Christian group).

The wording in the Constitution is not aimed at excluding just particular Christian groups from becoming established. It excludes the establishment of religion.

But, it is not secular in that all references to anything of a religious nature is removed from government. And the founding fathers certainly had no intention of this. And actually, it was the opposite. There are many references to religion in the founding of the American federal and state governments and even some persist to this day.

The founding fathers had no intention of ending slavery, yet there are provisions in the Bill of Rights which would on the surface apply to all men. The founding fathers had no intention of granting women votes (Abigail Adams notwithstanding) yet such a thing is a logical extension of the principles stated in the Constitution.

[otseng]

Now, what I propose is that we should at least make the effort to formulate laws on the basis of what would be, as far as we can tell, best for society.

I think everyone would agree with this in principle. But, people will disagree as to what is best for society.

How would one determine if something is objective as possible?

Let me rephrase. Just because we are not capable of being completely objective doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make our laws in keeping with what is objectively best for society, as opposed to what we would personally prefer.

In other words, yes, you are right, every law has a bit of personal standards of morality in it. However, this doesn't mean we should just shrug and say "Might as well make it totally subjective and based on a particular set of morals!". Just because we can't be 100% objective doesn't mean we should conform with being extremely subjective.

No, I don't think it should be either extreme. But, in order to try to achieve objectivity, one needs a criteria to determine if it objective. So, the question is by what basis can a law be decided that it is as objective as possible?

[Lux]

I think everyone would agree with this in principle. But, people will disagree as to what is best for society.

I think this might be in part because people tend to think that what they like best is the best option ipso facto. I'm willing to admit that my personal preferences are not always what is best for society. Likewise, I don't wish to oblige to the morality preferred by a group of people unless they can show that their ideas are in society's best interest and not just what they think is most in accordance to the Bible.

No, I don't think it should be either extreme. But, in order to try to achieve objectivity, one needs a criteria to determine if it objective. So, the question is by what basis can a law be decided that it is as objective as possible?

A difficult question, but I think a good start would be to make a conscious effort to separate what we prefer from what is better for our community. We should realize the two are not always the same.
For an obvious example: I strongly dislike abortion. That is by all means subjective, personal opinion based on morality. However, I'm not currently in favor of outlawing abortion (although I haven't completely discarded the option) because I don't think that mothers raising children they don't love/can't afford to provide for is in society's best interest. So, although we can't measure objectivity, I think we could start by acknowledging that what we fancy is not always what must happen.

Rather than saying that a law is or is not "as objective as possible" (which was poor wording on my part) we could look at the reasons provided for it. If it has debateable reasons, only then can we even think about arguing about it's value. If the reasons for it are such as "Bible said so", I think we can assume that it's objectivity level is dangerously low.

[otseng]

Morality to me is differentiating between good and bad behavior. Since laws do this, morality cannot be separated from law.

But laws do not differentiate between good and bad behavior. Laws differentiate between permitted and prohibited behaviors.

I think it does. It permits good behavior and prohibits bad bahavior.

I agree that the American government is secular in that it neither endorses nor prohibits any particular religion (more specifically any Christian group).

The wording in the Constitution is not aimed at excluding just particular Christian groups from becoming established. It excludes the establishment of religion.

However, at the state level, several states were pretty explicit that only Christians could hold office.

Constitution of Delaware - 1776:

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - 1776:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Constitution of North Carolina - 1776:

XXXII.(5) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Constitution of New Jersey - 1776:

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

[nygreenguy]

Not outlawing murder is clearly and observably detrimental to society. This is not a matter of personal opinion or morality, like McCulloch said, the law doesn't forbid murder because we feel it's wrong, it forbids it because a society could not function otherwise.

I would agree with you. But, there is even disagreement in what exactly is murder. For example, I believe that abortion is murder (and perhaps you would agree). But for some, they do not believe abortion is murder.

Laws will have some bit of personal standard of morality in them, because we are human and we are incapable of seeing things 100% objectively. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them as objective as possible.

How would one determine if something is objective as possible?

For the most part, much of this can be objectively determined by looking at when physical life doest start and we KNOW its not at conception.

[otseng]

Not outlawing murder is clearly and observably detrimental to society. This is not a matter of personal opinion or morality, like McCulloch said, the law doesn't forbid murder because we feel it's wrong, it forbids it because a society could not function otherwise.

I would agree with you. But, there is even disagreement in what exactly is murder. For example, I believe that abortion is murder (and perhaps you would agree). But for some, they do not believe abortion is murder.

For the most part, much of this can be objectively determined by looking at when physical life doest start and we KNOW its not at conception.

Let's avoid going down that long rabbit trail. I'm simply stating that there is disagreement on what exactly is murder. And I think all can agree on this.

[McCulloch]

The wording in the Constitution is not aimed at excluding just particular Christian groups from becoming established. It excludes the establishment of religion.

However, at the state level, several states were pretty explicit that only Christians could hold office.

Yes, the constitutions of several of the states in the 18th century were not as far along as their federal counterpart. This has been subsequently corrected.

[mrow]State [mcol]Quote from their 1776 constitution [row]Delaware[col]I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration. [row]Pennsylvania[col]I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. [row]North Carolina[col]That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. [row]New Jersey[col]That all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

One has to wonder why these were cited. Is it that the debater wishes to role back the progress of 234 years and correct the omission made by the framers of the federal Constitution? Are we arguing for the establishment of the Christian religions, just not any specific brand?