Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Churches (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=633427)

  • Feb 12, 2012, 05:18 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

    Tom. I assume you are saying this because you think the constitution has some idealized meaning that can be accessed by 'right minded' people. Are you sure you are happy with that?

    I am also sure you are saying that in recent history SCOTUS judges have fallen well short of a 'true' understanding of the constitution. Isn't this political idealism at its worst?

    I am talking Alice in Wonderland while you are talking Plato's ,"The Republic". Not much of a choice is it?

    Tut
  • Feb 12, 2012, 06:57 AM
    tomder55
    I am not constructing Plato's Republic as all. Egalitarian utopias are the relm of the left . On this posting I have mentioned Margaret Sanger a couple times. I would say her eugenics is her prescription to the Plato dilemna of the intermingling of the classes .
    “All the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not”

    Quote:

    A modern-day Plato would have no need to countenance abortion or infanticide: vasectomy and the pill would ensure that there were no unwanted results of the guardians disporting themselves. Artificial insemination would enable the bureau of eugenics to select for desirable qualities of character and intellect without resort to deception.
    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/platsex.html


    In 'Republic', Plato is openly hostile to individualism, which he believes destructive of the collective good . The individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. (or as SCOTUS likes to argue often... "the compelling interest of the state ")The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective.
    To his credit ,Plato created Republic and then realized the society he envisioned was an unworkable utopian model.

    Keep going because there are indeed great minds that the philosophical foundation of theAmerican Republic was based on. But no, Plato's Republic wasn't one of them .But I will give you this... Obama envisions himself one of Plato's philosopher kings.
  • Feb 12, 2012, 11:33 AM
    talaniman
    I know you would love to think that Tom, but as you say reality trumps fantasy. While this started as an intrusion into religion having to pay for something against there principles, when the president said okay, insurance companies will pay for it. That should have been the end of it, right? Wrong! Now its an accounting trick. (Even though the oligarchy of the right loves accounting tricks), and it still being passed on to the church. But isn't that what the free market is all about? Don't they pass the cost of doing business onto the consumer, whatever it is?

    Well that's how the free market (insurance companies specifically) makes money. That's why they can throw a million people off the rolls, and charge whose left a higher premium.

    I thought the right wanted the private sector to call the shots? To set prices on the time honored profit directed business model?

    I guess free doesn't meet the bottom line at the right place, and your concept of free is limited by your very narrow perspective of ALL the people. No matter the socio-economic condition of the individual. I think that's the true measure of a healthy nation.

    But being a progressive independent (liberal), I can see why we have a great conflict of ideas. I just ain't going for that voluntary slave idea of stagnation, or regression, or the my way or the highway mentality.
  • Feb 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Others, which includes women. Why not also hand out clean burqas every morning after we shower or bathe?

    ... and define pregnancy as a preventable disease .Maybe we should prepare an immunization program.
  • Feb 12, 2012, 12:09 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Now its an accounting trick... and it still being passed on to the church.
    Correct.
    Quote:

    But isn't that what the free market is all about? Don't they pass the cost of doing business onto the consumer, whatever it is?
    As far as I can tell ,the free market can't compel anyone to buy their product. Evidently the government has assumed that power (unless the unconstitutionaal law is either overturned or repealed ).

    And to continue in the 'Through the Looking Glass' theme; you would have us believe that a government that mandates that citizens buy products they don't wish to buy, and to pay for services that violate their deeply held religious beliefs is not authoritarian... but institutions that oppose the mandates are?
  • Feb 12, 2012, 06:09 PM
    talaniman
    They have a voluntary immunization program already, the church and the righties have to get out of the way. They have been doing it for centuries, but modern science has made it safer.

    Quote:

    As far as I can tell ,the free market can't compel anyone to buy their product. Evidently the government has assumed that power (unless the unconstitutionaal law is either overturned or repealed ).
    The seat belt law is mandatory, so is car inssurance. Should we repeal those too? Why aren't they unconstitutional?

    Quote:

    And to continue in the 'Through the Looking Glass' theme; you would have us believe that a government that mandates that citizens buy products they don't wish to buy, and to pay for services that violate their deeply held religious beliefs is not authoritarian... but institutions that oppose the mandates are?
    OMG, the same way Muslims cannot practice their deeply held SHARIA LAW, because it violates OUR laws, Is the same way Catholics cannot violate the LAWS of the LAND! The same way polygamy is illegal, is the same way denying proper health insurance is illegal.

    These are the constitutional principle that stop religions from putting there beliefs on others. That includes mine, yours, and theirs! If they cannot practice within the law, what's the point?

    That's why the present "accommodation" works well as is, and most practising catholics agree. And in practical terms its just as good as most states have, and better than some.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 04:03 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    The seat belt law is mandatory, so is car inssurance. Should we repeal those too? Why aren't they unconstitutional?

    I've addressed this many times before.

    1. auto insurance is a STATE and not a FEDERAL law .
    2. No one is forcing you to own a car . Obamacare forces us to purchase medical insurance just because we exist.
    3. The only part of auto insurance that is mandatory is the liability coverage for doing damage to other persons and /or their property . The comprehensive coverage is optional .

    4.It is not morally objectionable to religious institutions to have auto coverage like the mandate to provide/pay for "free" contraception.

    Hope that clears it up for you .
  • Feb 13, 2012, 04:56 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I am not constructing Plato's Republic as all. Egalitarian utopias are the relm of the left . On this posting I have mentioned Margaret Sanger a couple times. I would say her eugenics is her prescription to the Plato dilemna of the intermingling of the classes .
    “All the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not”


    Plato's Philosophy of Sex


    In 'Republic', Plato is openly hostile to individualism, which he believes destructive of the collective good . The individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. (or as SCOTUS likes to argue often ..."the compelling interest of the state ")The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective.
    To his credit ,Plato created Republic and then realized the society he envisioned was an unworkable utopian model.

    Keep going because there are indeed great minds that the philosophical foundation of theAmerican Republic was based on. But no, Plato's Republic wasn't one of them .But I will give you this .... Obama envisions himself one of Plato's philosopher kings.


    Hi Tom,

    A couple of points for clarification.

    Firstly, utopian theories exist both at the left and right of politics.

    Secondly, I didn't say you were constructing Plato's Republic.

    Thirdly, I didn't say the American Republic was based on it.

    You made this up.


    I am very familiar with the great minds the philosophical foundation of the American Republic was based on. I hold them in high esteem. My comments are not a criticism of these minds.

    In exactly the same way my comments are not related to eugenics; nor is there any suggestion you favoured Plato in terms of psychology and/or biology. In other words, I was not trying to answers Plato's question. "What makes a healthy society and a healthy individual?" You jumped to this conclusion.

    The comment was in relation to Plato's question, "Who should rule?" It would require going into detail here about 'original intent' but this would lead off topic.

    I hope this clears it up.

    Tut
  • Feb 13, 2012, 05:43 AM
    tomder55
    Who should rule ? Locke basically said that ,humans cannot exist without freedom from absolute and arbitrary power;and no one can give more power than he has himself, nor can he assume the same over another.

    This is in opposition to our philosopher king's benevolent Hobbesian vision.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 06:05 AM
    excon
    Hello again:

    I'm sorry. I'd LIKE to participate in this conversation, but it's beyond me.. I'm not a philosopher type.

    What I want to know, is this... E.J. Dionne, a lib, a Catholic, and AGAINST what the pres did, said that hospitals SHOULD be treated like church's because the good works they do are "inspired" by the church...

    Really?? Inspiration should be the standard for tax relief?? If my BUSINESS is "inspired" by my religion, can I call IT a church?? Why not?

    excon
  • Feb 13, 2012, 07:50 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    But yet they advocate birth control. Odd that.

    I already pointed out that info was from ADAM, which is provided by the government. I can guarantee that BSA does not do abortion.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 07:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Nobody changes the services you render to those that needs it, quite to the contrary, only the way you treat your EMPLOYEES!!! Nothing to do with patience or clients whatsoever.

    DUDE! You're the one that alleged the church had ulterior motives to provide charity, stop changing the subject.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 08:01 AM
    talaniman
    Just so you know, I always think the people on the ground, who do the actual work (workers), are the best folks in the world, bar none. Its mostly administrative executive types that are full of crap. That's just me.

    And no way do I have faith in those who hide and protect pedophiles. NO WAY!!

    Have I made myself clear?

    No doubt in my mind at all that the catholic leadership has a motive or else why wouldn't they be up in arms in 34 states that have laws (more states are doing it too!), that do exactly what the Prez has done??
  • Feb 13, 2012, 08:03 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    She most certainly is not!!!
    Geez, if you need to make stuff up like this it means you have nothing left to argue.

    Whatever.

    Quote:

    Long after her death, Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women's rights. Sanger's story has been the subject of several biographies, including an award-winning biography published in 1970 by David Kennedy, and is also the subject of several films, including Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story.[59] Sanger's writings are curated by two universities: New York University's history department maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers Project,[60] and Smith College's Sophia Smith Collection maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers collection.[61]

    Sanger has been recognized with many important honors. In 1957, the American Humanist Association named her Humanist of the Year. Government authorities and other institutions have memorialized Sanger by dedicating several landmarks in her name, including a residential building on the Stony Brook University campus, a room in Wellesley College's library,[62] and Margaret Sanger Square in New York City's Greenwich Village.[63] In 1993, the Margaret Sanger Clinic — where she provided birth control services in New York in the mid twentieth century — was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service.[64] In 1966, Planned Parenthood began issuing its Margaret Sanger Awards annually to honor "individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights."[65]

    Many who are opposed to the legalization of abortion frequently condemn Sanger by questioning her fitness as a mother and criticizing her views on race, abortion, and eugenics.[66][67][note 8] In spite of such attacks, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman's rights movement.
    Sounds like she's a hero to the women's rights crowd to me.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 08:19 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Whatever.



    Sounds like she's a hero to the women's rights crowd to me.

    All you have to do is read Sec State Clintoon's address when she accepted the Margarent Sanger award from Planned Parenthood to see the veneration.
    Remarks at Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala
  • Feb 13, 2012, 08:47 AM
    NeedKarma
    Planned Parenthood ≠ women's rights movement
  • Feb 13, 2012, 09:11 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    All you have to do is read Sec State Clintoon's address when she accepted the Margarent Sanger award from Planned Parenthood to see the veneration.
    Remarks at Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala

    High praise for the women's rights icon indeed.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 09:48 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I already pointed out that info was from ADAM, which is provided by the government. I can guarantee that BSA does not do abortion.

    I'll call your BS on this. I run a larger website than the BSA one and I know every page on that site, nothing goes on that isn't approved. BSA hosts the info on their website because they condone it or else it wouldn't be there.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 09:50 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    High praise for the women's rights icon indeed.

    Hehe, sniffing tom's butt again so you guys can prop each other's posts? I guess you need to do that for each other since you're the only ones of the same opinion.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:06 AM
    speechlesstx
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I'll call your BS on this. I run a larger website than the BSA one and I know every page on that site, nothing goes on that isn't approved. BSA hosts the info on their website because they condone it or else it wouldn't be there.

    Do you know how to look at the right side of anything, including your own link? Look to the right and you'll see the "ADAM Navigator". You ought to know better by now than to challenge my facts.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Hehe, sniffing tom's butt again so you guys can prop each other's posts? I guess you need to do that for each other since you're the only ones of the same opinion.

    Can you be any more juvenile?
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:15 AM
    NeedKarma
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Do you know how to look at the right side of anything, ....

    Wow. I like how you cropped out any reference to the fact that it's on the BSA website:

    Attachment 39101
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:19 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Can you be any more juvenile?

    I was using a dog analogy since you are both dog people and are prone to using analogies. I guess that fell flat.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:21 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Wow. I like how you cropped out any reference to the fact that it's on the BSA website:

    Attachment 39101

    And that changes the fact that I was right how? It doesn't, so give it up.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:22 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I was using a dog analogy since you are both dog people and are prone to using analogies. I guess that fell flat.

    Not playing your stupid games any more, NK.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:23 AM
    NeedKarma
    So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
    This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:38 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
    This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?

    I've contacted their administration, I can't wait to here their response. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that I was right. That content is provided by ADAM which is provided by the NIH. You know as well as I do that no one takes responsibility for outside content.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:54 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    You know as well as I do that no one takes responsibility for outside content.

    Nah, you don't anything about delivering web content, that's my biz. That page only gets on there if someone adds it. Let us know the response you get from the admin; who did you contact?
  • Feb 13, 2012, 10:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Nah, you don't anything about delivering web content, that's my biz. That page only gets on there if someone adds it. Let us know the response you get from the admin; who did you contact?

    Dude, don't tell me what I know.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 11:40 AM
    tomder55
    Ex I saw EJ on 'Meet the Press'. He was right in his opposition of the original requirement ;and is now wrong in that he is satisfied with the sleigh of hand compromise.

    Where he thinks the works are "inspired " by the Church ;in fact ,the ministries are a part of the church. That at least is the Church position;a position I agree with . (and I might add that the President doesn't mind quoting the gospel when it suits his agenda) .

    That of course will be the contention that needs to be resolved regarding the 1st amendment issues..

    Eventually the idea that the national government can compel anyone to purchase a product or service under the commerce clause ;or the phony compelling state's interest justification;just because they exist ,will be heard in court too.. I cannot predict the outcome of either case.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
    talaniman
    I doubt it gets to the courts, at least a higher on as I doubt the catholics will carry it that far. I men most of the catholics are in opposition to the bishops on this matter, and since they aren't obeying them now, what makes you think they will later? So despite opinions, doctrines, and dogma, from the bishops won't the results be the same? Contraception under the law for females.

    What, will they sue the states too?? Come on the right wing wants to repeal Obama care, got that! But the Bishops want Obama care, with there own right to decide who gets what because I haven't seen ONE bishop blast any catholic institution, or even stop the practice of providing contraceptives at any of its charities, hospitals, or ministries. Have YOU??

    If it was as big a deal as they said, wouldn't they at least police there own? Or practice what they preach at least? Then they would be credible.

    I think you guys just like to holler BOOGEY MAN!!
  • Feb 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
    speechlesstx
    What, you want the Catholic church to be a democracy? Why should the church bow to the whims of its members? Catholic doctrine is not up for a vote.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 02:05 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    So showing the content on their website makes you think that they don't condone it? Interesting world of denial. :D
    This is YOUR church offering birth control advice for women, even without Obama the dictator telling them to do it (that page was last update 2 years ago). Weird eh?

    I received my reply, names are omitted for privacy reasons but feel free to contact them yourself if you don't believe me.

    Quote:

    Mr. S****,

    We do not provide the morning after pill and we do not perform abortions at BSA. There are cases where, if a mothers' life is in imminent danger through the birthing process, a decision may need to be made by the family and physician but these instances are extremely rare and unique. The ADAM site is a general comprehensive database library that we source through our web developer and gives information on numerous topics of which BSA does not make any claims as to representing our views and practices. That being said, in the "Terms of Use" for the ADAM health library we are going to insert stronger language regarding the fact that content on the site does not in any way represent the views/opinions of BSA.

    Appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
    Told you so.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 03:12 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    I doubt it gets to the courts, at least a higher on as I doubt the catholics will carry it that far.
    It will be heard as far as the Court of Appeals. Challenges by Catholic charities against state mandates did not make it to SCOTUS ;but we are in new territory here with a national mandate.

    Quote:

    I men most of the catholics are in opposition to the bishops on this matter, and since they aren't obeying them now, what makes you think they will later?So despite opinions, doctrines, and dogma, from the bishops won't the results be the same?
    As Steve said, the laity does not make the rules. If Catholics are violating it then they are exercising their free will outside of the teachings of Catholic doctrine .
    Further it is the Catholic church that will pay for this ""free " contraception (directly or indirectly... haven't heard yet how the Obots are going to handle the self insured religious institutions... Won't they be paying directly ? )
  • Feb 13, 2012, 05:17 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    QUOTE by tomder55;
    It will be heard as far as the Court of Appeals. Challenges by Catholic charities against state mandates did not make it to SCOTUS ;but we are in new territory here with a national mandate.
    We have to wait and see how this new territory is approached. But lets remember that the catholic church was pushing for Obama Care in the first place, and still do.

    Quote:

    As Steve said, the laity does not make the rules. If Catholics are violating it then they are exercising their free will outside of the teachings of Catholic doctrine .
    That's a good point to consider. So the ministries outside the ruling body of the catholic church can, and do offer the full range of woman's health needs, including contraceptions, AND abortions, voluntarily. Interesting that catholics allow this for themselves, and protest others for doing it. Like in Kansas. I wonder why they protest Planned Parenthood, and NOT the catholic hospitals that DO perform termination, and sterilization?

    Quote:

    Further it is the Catholic church that will pay for this ""free " contraception (directly or indirectly... haven't heard yet how the Obots are going to handle the self insured religious institutions... Won't they be paying directly ? )
    They will pay the premiums for the insurance, as ALL employers are required to do. As ALL religions are required to do by law. Now how that effects self insuring institutions is something I am still researching but it seems that although it's a money saver, it also assumes the risk of paying for contingencies outside what the policy itself calls for.

    How to Cut Insurance Costs by Self-Insuring

    Right now, I can only compare it to supplemental insurance that many employers, and private citizens use to close coverage gaps but as I say, not sure how that works for a church providing its own policies.

    Self-funded health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    LOL, I can see the consternation of the church, I really can, many of us are very confused dealing with our own insurance companies. Most health care providers have a qualified staff that knows how to not just deal with the insurance companies, but the patients too.

    I have to apologize for using the word free though, my bad, its called no out of pocket expenses.
  • Feb 13, 2012, 07:01 PM
    tomder55
    I've pretty much said everything I can on this issue . We'll have to see how it plays out now.

    I'll leave with the words of what most here consider one of the premiere defenders of the US Constitution in the US Congress . I'll post his whole observation without edit .

    Quote:

    Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.

    Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

    Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

    In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

    So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

    But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

    Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

    The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.
    Rep Ron Paul
    The Latest Obamacare Overreach
  • Feb 13, 2012, 11:03 PM
    paraclete
    I can see nothing else for it religious organisations must employ only those people who adhere to their principles and practices
  • Feb 13, 2012, 11:03 PM
    talaniman
    This is the guy who also said anyone without health insurance he would let die. And its DR. Ron Paul.
  • Feb 14, 2012, 03:16 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Who should rule ? Locke basically said that ,humans cannot exist without freedom from absolute and arbitrary power;and no one can give more power than he has himself, nor can he assume the same over another.

    This is in opposition to our philosopher king's benevolent Hobbesian vision.


    Hi Tom,

    No, this is not Lock's answer to who should rule. If you read the rest of Lock's Second Treatise you will realize that Lock is not only advocating negative liberty. In modern terms he is balancing out negative liberty with positive liberty ( although he doesn't actually use the terms positive and negative).

    Sure negative liberty, is all about the individual agent agents right to act in a certain way. However this is contrasted to the right of the individual to form a collective. He then goes on to argue for a judiciary which will administer the law. An executive who can enforce the law and lastly a legislature.

    The opposition to Hobbes is an opposition based on what Locke believed to be Hobbes' misunderstanding of what it means to be in 'a state of nature'

    Tut
  • Feb 14, 2012, 04:13 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    Hi Tom,

    No, this is not Lock's answer to who should rule. If you read the rest of Lock's Second Treatise you will realize that Lock is not only advocating negative liberty. In modern terms he is balancing out negative liberty with positive liberty ( although he doesn't actually use the terms positive and negative).

    Sure negative liberty, is all about the individual agent agents right to act in a certain way. However this is contrasted to the right of the individual to form a collective. He then goes on to argue for a judiciary which will administer the law. An executive who can enforce the law and lastly a legislature.

    The opposition to Hobbes is an opposition based on what Locke believed to be Hobbes' misunderstanding of what it means to be in 'a state of nature'

    Tut

    Right... but our founders gave more power to the legislative branch (all you need to do is compare the length of the articles of the constitution dealing with the branches .Article One is clearly the longest. )

    And my argument is not based on Locke alone. In fact ;part of the reason I'm not sure SCOTUS will overturn the mandate provisions based on the 1st Amendment religious clauses is that Locke was one who gave an argument that EX has been making... that there is a divide between the church's role and the state's in the temporal world that favors the state .

    But I doubt that Locke would agree that the state has so much power as to madate actions by the church that violates their core beliefs.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 PM.