Secular folks should worry.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:46 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:32 am


No, God doesn’t.
I’d be interested in your fleshing this out.

Regards,
MG
Because, what we know of God’s principles comes from the writings of humans. And those writings do not depict a God of objective absolutes. The differences between the Good of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are a pretty good example. The murder of Laban, justified by utilitarianism is another.

Also, because general rules cannot dictate the results in all specific cases. But that’s a whole different discussion.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

MG > gOd Is An AbSoLuTiSt

Joseph Smith> Joseph Smith had a relationship with Fanny Alger a maid in the Smith household 2 years before sealing keys were restored.

Joseph Smith proposed to 16 year old Lucy Walker after sending her father on a mission and essentially adopting her and a few of her siblings as his children.

MG > bLaCk AnD wHiTe ThInKiNg

So, civil society includes marrying kids? Covering for Mormon rapists? Bitching about secular humanism? Referring to studies ref charitable giving you didn’t even read? Hiding tithing monies from the government and church members? Not answering repeated requests by board members for clarifications? Being presented with incontrovertible evidence your scriptures are fraudulently produced, but never adjusting your world view? Denying people their civil rights?

:roll:

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:43 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 12:50 am
I am moderately literate and fully understand the difference between "understand" and "accept." I don't expect you to accept the sole claim I have been arguing throughout this thread: your statements about what "secularists" believe and the existential threat you claim they pose is based on nothing other than personal bigotry.
My beef is more with secular humanists. Just for fun, who were/are some of the great leaders of large nations that were/are secular humanists?

Regards,
MG
I have no idea whether any self-identified “secular humanist” has been elected to any national office of significance. I don’t self-identify as a “secular humanist.”

ETA: Here’s a self-identified atheist who won a presidential election in Australia. https://www.faithandfreedom.com/could-a ... own-under/

And I should add several leaders of Israel, including the first President, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Golda Meir. Israel has been much more accepting of atheists than the US.

And still more: Alexis Tsipris of Greece, Francois Hollande of France, John Key of New Zealand,
Elio di Rupo.

As religious motivated bigotry against atheists has faded, atheists are getting elected to national office without destroying civil society. What MG 2.0 doesn't seem to get is that there is no necessary connection between belief in God and commitment to the values that sustain civil society. He simply asserts that religious belief is necessarily one of those values.

TL/DR Old person is afraid of change. Welcome to being an old person.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:50 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:44 am


I will because you are.

So “moral relativism” is your latest label for my ideology. So, how does that function as an ideology in the way that Mormonism functions for you or Communism functioned for Mao?

Real world example: Upon returning home from a shopping trip, I find an official looking bag full of money in one of my shopping bags. How did moral relativism function for me in deciding what I should do with it?

And if I am, what kind of ideologue would you feel comfortable with who would have some degree of influence/power over your life and freedoms that you now enjoy? Is there a certain political power/entity that is LEFT on the spectrum that WOULD concern you?

Do you consider Mitt Romney, for example, as an ideologue that you could comfortably live with as President? Or would it have to be a liberal/leftest of some stripe?

Do your nontheist views have any influence on your political leanings whatsoever?

Regards,
MG
You are saying my words as if they were yours. You may want to correct that.

Regards,
MG
Done. I hit the submit button as contrasted with the preview button. Part of my charm.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Is this civil society?

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... 41870.html
Gay MO Republican faces another censure vote from Jackson County GOP over marriage amendment



The planned censure, scheduled for Monday evening, targets state Rep. Chris Sander, a Lone Jack Republican. The resolution accuses Sander of deviating from the party’s platform for trying to recognize same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment.
How civil is that?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:54 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:32 pm
I didn't see you define "civil society".
I did. Go back and look. It may not be the definition that you would like, but it’s there.
I recall the post where you described it as being more or less anything that makes democracy work. I noted that was about as vague as a campaign slogan and asked for something more defined but got nothing back. So I take it from the above you are saying that's about all you can contribute to that. Noted.
How would you define civil society?
I described this for you earlier in this thread. I'll quote it for you:

Civil society, in concept, derives from the idea that individuals within political and economic systems form ties and shared community identities that, while not independent of them, are different from the political and economic systems of their culture and society.

What one means by "civil society" is sensitive to context. What one may describe as civil society varies by region, by which side of the urban/rural divide a community lies on, and by demographics. When I asked you to define it, it was in part to understand what you felt was being threatened that lies in this space interfacing with, but different from government and the economic system. Which, it should be noted, also have regional and local variation as well.

Civil society in the United States is a patchwork quilt.
Would that definition include respect and value of human life, including the unborn and undefenseless?
The expressions of civil society around the country (outside of government, derived from shared ties of community and identity) almost by definition include what respect for human life means and how one values it, but not the debate about abortion. That's a question of rights which lies squarely within the sphere of government. And that by necessity demands discussion of personhood or what traits and conditions are required for being identified as having personhood. Community identity and, by extension, civil societies around the country have varied ways of valuing individual personhood and that influences the abortion debate. But while that informs the debate, it is not the arena where abortion should be decided in a pluralistic society. And, to be clear, the US is a pluralistic society and always has been.
Would a civil society include the right to bear arms as described in the second amendment of the constitution? If not, why?
Again, this is squarely in the arena of government not civil society. Civil society absolutely influences gun culture by region that influences the debate, but the debate around the 2nd amendment isn't a debate about civil society. I grew up in semi-rural Utah. Boys getting their blue cards was a right of passage and it was very much a part of our community. We learned how to handle firearms from our dads, went out and learned how to behave while carrying them in groups through social interactions that reinforced a respect for firearms, their use, and their storage. My dad stopped going hunting because hunting culture in Utah changed and by the time I was old enough to go, he had stopped hunting big game out of concern too many people out hunting were no longer maintaining that same social contract he had been raised with and passed on to us. Was he right or wrong? I don't know. But I think of that when someone gets their government chocolate in the civil society peanut butter. As for the Second Amendment debate itself, I would invite you to spend more time in Spirit Paradise where we talk poltics. Here's a sample:

I don't think the question (about whether the Second Amendment is about collective or individual rights) is too off the wall given the issue of whether the amendment refers to collective rights or individual rights has been a central question surrounding it. But as Res says, Heller definitively established the modern interpretation of ownership being an individual right. That said, Scalia made it explicit that the right to bear arms was not unlimited, and that the government could rightly preclude private ownership of certain types of arms.

I think the historic answer is the amendment refers to a collective right extrapolated out from an individual right. When James Madison presented the amendments to the House with what became the Second Amendment actually legible in form, it read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Madison was seeking to keep faith with promises made during ratification to bring amendments to the Constitution forward demanded by Antifederalists. As a Federalist, his concern was that failure to do so could give leverage to Antifederalists in convening a second convention which could undo the Constitution and send the nation backwards yet again. One concern held by the States was that a strong Federal government could disband State militias. I think his wording shows thia concerned deserved being enumerated and protected. But also, it gets to his own views regarding rights. That being, enumerating them was not valuable, and potentially dangerous. Prior to being elected to the House, he had referred to enumerated rights in State constitutions as parchment barriers or paper barriers, easily bypassed by State governments when it had suited them. He feared that enumerating rights would lead to the belief that any right not explicitly enumerated was not, therefore a right. He inserted the Ninth Amendment precisely because he felt it needed enumerated that rights existed that weren't enumerated explicitly. And I think this is how the individual right to bear arms is treated in the original language - it is assumed so it need not be expanded upon. Rather the protection of State militias was built up upon those assumed individual rights.


The second amendment was explicitly included in the proposed amendments mainly sheparded by Madison between the House to the Senate because of concern by Antifederalists that a standing national army would be able to reign tyrannically over the states where it suffered the hatchet wording job it received. There's so much history in that discussion that is well above the pay grade of this thread. Long and short of it is how we apply it today shouldn't be based on original language nor even original intent. Neither exist anymore in a form that makes sense in the 21st century US. And frankly the regional expressions of civil society in regards to this are mutated by politics in a way that I don't think serves society well. Three nine year old kids were killed yesterday while in school and the debate immediately turns to avoiding politicizing it to enact gun control...that's insanity, in my opinion. Dealing with people killing people is exactly why we organize as human beings and have government, and thus why we have politics. If anything should be politicized in order to find solutions that prevent it going forward, its kids being killed. That's where I think civil society should interface with the sphere of government and confirm to government that something needs done to protect the value of human life.
Would it include the right to free speech at institutions of higher learning? If not, why
Again, chocolate and peanut butter may be two great tastes that taste great together, but they aren't the same thing. Rights sit squarely in the government sphere. How we treat people who have differing views from our own is influenced by the contours of societal values and identity. So I do think that there is overreaction among people who wish to see college authorities enforce individual perspectives rather than welcome debate. But I also think it works the same way when folks shut down or eliminate their exposure to alternative views, give license to their biases to reject evidence that calls their own beliefs into question, and effectively demands conformity. So.
I think definitions are going to vary on what a civil society entails.
Yep. By definition. What gets out of whack is when one makes religious views = civil society = government.
Last edited by honorentheos on Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by honorentheos »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:04 pm
malkie wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:19 pm
for what it's worth, it appears that Putin supports and is supported by the Russian Orthodox church - by most definitions a theistic organization.

as far as I know, most Ukrainians (or at least a plurality) are members of the Ukrainian Orthodox church - kissing cousins to those pouring out horrors upon their heads.
Is the Russian Orthodox Church corrupt? If so, does that matter?

Regards,
MG
Interestingly, the corruption has to do with how integrated it is with the Russian government and Russian identity. The Russian Orthodox church isn't being fined for deceptive investment practices while in our secular society here, the Mormon church was held accountable in no small part due to being kept separate from government. Food for thought.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Was and is this civil society?

Image

Just askin’ for a GenZ friend …

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

The Mormon church protected and covered up the sexual abuse and predatory behavior of former Bishop, Stake President, and Mission President Lowell Robison. Earl C. Tingey, John K. Carmack, Merrill J. Bateman were repeatedly made aware of Lowell Robison’s sexual abuse of those under his stewardship.

And they hid it.

Is this what civil society looks like, MG?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Res Ipsa »

Here’s some civil society: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... New Testament/673537/

Anti-vaxxers harass parent after death of his young son.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply