Child Abuse or Not?

[EasyEd]

thebin, I am a Catholic and believe that sex outside of marriage, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals, is immoral. You don't accept my faith so I respect your opinion and right to disagree. As a Catholic I believe that God, by virtue of the procreative power He gave to us, intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Because I consider the laws of God to be superior to the laws of man, I am not in favor of granting marriage or civil union rights to any other than heterosexual couples. Again, I respect your right to disagree with me.

Bando, I've already answered your question, you just don't like my answer. And, does it make you feel superior to call me old man?

[ExcitableBoy]

Ed, the mere fact that you are bringing these issues up as a notable change implies that you have some sort of issue with it. Generally people don't bring up issues such as this unless they are either pleased or displeased with the change. But regardless of why you decided to bring this up...

What so many of us seem to have a problem with, though, is that there is a giant retaining wall on the slippery slope you have created. Children simply cannot consent to sex with adults. Period. Broadening societal recognition of different ways adults can consent to have sex with one another is a different issue. A relevant slippery slope argument along those lines would be bestiality.

I’m not sure where in ANY of the recent “loosening” of moral standards there has been ANY movement towards changing a child’s right to consent. If your point was really to have a dialogue about a child’s ability to consent why not package it as such? We could talk about a child’s ability to sign a contract or enlist in the military, or even drinking/voting/driving age restrictions.

[TC]

Nov 22, 2011 13:34:50 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

And all it needs is one court decision to declare all of these unconstitutional.

Begging the question.

If any of these popular measures protecting children from molestors were declared unconstitutional it would not reflect a change in public sentiment towards these crimes. Your statement wasn't that it would become legal, it was that it would become "just another acceptable lifestyle".

And please, come down from Coy Hill if you're going to be starting threads. The idea that you are "equating nothing with anything" is ridiculous when you've already outlined you think this because society has taken scary steps to you like not requiring scarlet letters for unmarried people having sex, or letting gay people marry, or abortion becoming legal - so you think in 50 years the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

[bmartin]

Actually, traditionally patriarchal cultures are the ones that tolerate physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of women and children. As the US became less patriarchal the legal and moral protections for children increased.

[thebin]

Nov 23, 2011 13:34:46 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

thebin, I am a Catholic and believe that sex outside of marriage, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals, is immoral. You don't accept my faith so I respect your opinion and right to disagree. As a Catholic I believe that God, by virtue of the procreative power He gave to us, intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Because I consider the laws of God to be superior to the laws of man, I am not in favor of granting marriage or civil union rights to any other than heterosexual couples. Again, I respect your right to disagree with me.

Bando, I've already answered your question, you just don't like my answer. And, does it make you feel superior to call me old man?

I thank you for answering my question honestly.

I'm afraid there isn't much else kind I can say. I have a major problem with your opinion in so far as you claim your opinion should rule over mine even though I don't share its underlying assumptions or prejudices or constitutionality. In that way, although you make noises about doing so, I don't see how you are "respecting" our opinions to disagree with yours since you say your god's law (which I have to tell you I believe is obviously man-made and extraordinarily un-American) should govern our liberties over the only legitimate laws of this land which are absolutely secular. We don't on the other hand say that you should be compelled to take part in behavior you find immoral- only that you have no more right than we do to have your moral opinions (where no victim can be said to exist) enshrined in law.

What you really are doing as far as we are concerned is telling us the opinions of people such as yourself have been given cover as the opinions of a god of which no proof can be give. This conveniently gives you cover to impose them on those of us who do not believe your god exists as well as those who believe he does in some form but doesn't condemn homosexuals or unmarried adults of any sex (who he presumably created too) to lead miserable lives.

There is a very basic distinction between how your side and ours "respect" the right of the other. We don't think you should be pressured into doing anything you want to do or restricted from anything that doesn't harm others. You think we have a right to disagree with you as long as your opinion is shoved down our throats by law. Can you see how your belief in "god's law" is actually a violent affront to our freedom? And all the while while operating under ancient (and often immoral) guiding principles that have no legitimacy under our totally secular Constitution.

[EasyEd]

Nov 28, 2011 9:28:30 GMT -5 thebin said:

Nov 23, 2011 13:34:46 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

thebin, I am a Catholic and believe that sex outside of marriage, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals, is immoral. You don't accept my faith so I respect your opinion and right to disagree. As a Catholic I believe that God, by virtue of the procreative power He gave to us, intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Because I consider the laws of God to be superior to the laws of man, I am not in favor of granting marriage or civil union rights to any other than heterosexual couples. Again, I respect your right to disagree with me.

Bando, I've already answered your question, you just don't like my answer. And, does it make you feel superior to call me old man?

I thank you for answering my question honestly.

I'm afraid there isn't much else kind I can say. I have a major problem with your opinion in so far as you claim your opinion should rule over mine even though I don't share its underlying assumptions or prejudices or constitutionality. In that way, although you make noises about doing so, I don't see how you are "respecting" our opinions to disagree with yours since you say your god's law (which I have to tell you I believe is obviously man-made and extraordinarily un-American) should govern our liberties over the only legitimate laws of this land which are absolutely secular. We don't on the other hand say that you should be compelled to take part in behavior you find immoral- only that you have no more right than we do to have your moral opinions (where no victim can be said to exist) enshrined in law.

What you really are doing as far as we are concerned is telling us the opinions of people such as yourself have been given cover as the opinions of a god of which no proof can be give. This conveniently gives you cover to impose them on those of us who do not believe your god exists as well as those who believe he does in some form but doesn't condemn homosexuals or unmarried adults of any sex (who he presumably created too) to lead miserable lives.

There is a very basic distinction between how your side and ours "respect" the right of the other. We don't think you should be pressured into doing anything you want to do or restricted from anything that doesn't harm others. You think we have a right to disagree with you as long as your opinion is shoved down our throats by law. Can you see how your belief in "god's law" is actually a violent affront to our freedom? And all the while while operating under ancient (and often immoral) guiding principles that have no legitimacy under our totally secular Constitution.

thebin, I repeat what I posted and I fail to see where I am shoving anything down your throat:
"thebin, I am a Catholic and believe that sex outside of marriage, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals, is immoral. You don't accept my faith so I respect your opinion and right to disagree. As a Catholic I believe that God, by virtue of the procreative power He gave to us, intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Because I consider the laws of God to be superior to the laws of man, I am not in favor of granting marriage or civil union rights to any other than heterosexual couples. Again, I respect your right to disagree with me."

[thebin]

So what you are saying is....a supernatural being (that you have no evidence of) has some thoughts on sex and marriage, you know his thoughts, and the law of the land in the United States should succumb to your understanding of these thoughts rather than the constitutionally mandated legislatures, courts and executive bodies that are currently the inferior "laws of man?"

It sounds like you really don't like this country very much because this is explicitly a nation of man's laws where there is no room whatsoever for imposition of "God's laws" on this explictly secular nation which would be on their face in violation of our Constitution and every Founding Father's basic understanding of liberty. I think you would like the governments of Saudi Arabia or Iran. I mean they might be focusing on your least favorite sequel among the trilogy of God's law books, but you share with their leaders a fundamental rejection of the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, and liberty.

I don't know how more flipping obvious this can be made to you Ed but you cannot blather on about "respecting" our difference of opinion on this matter when your opinion alone requires me and others like me being forced to live our lives under your rules. Your opinion is "shoved down our throats" because you explicitly say it applies to us even if we disagree with it because the man in the moon told you so. Conversely, our view on the matter compels you to act or not act NOT ONE IOTA differently than you would living under your mid-evil system. Yours is the opinion of a bully because it explicitly tells me to fall into line with your wishes or else. A bully that it is clear to all is living out the last few minutes of his reign over the rational. All I can say to that is "Thus always to tyrants."

[DFW HOYA]

Nov 28, 2011 14:48:05 GMT -5 thebin said:

It sounds like you really don't like this country very much because this is explicitly a nation of man's laws where there is no room whatsoever for imposition of "God's laws" on this explictly secular nation which would be on their face in violation of our Constitution and every Founding Father's basic understanding of liberty.

Methinks you doth protest too much, for even the hardened secularist must knowledge that while the USA is not a theocracy, it has always observed a foundation in faith, however you define it, from the first paragraph of Declaration of Independence to the present.

Howver much people may debate the First Amenement, The President is still sworn in with his hand on the Bible, Congress still opens its sessions with a prayer, the coins still say "In God We Trust", and concepts of religious freedom (both from and for) have been a hallmark of a nation with one of the highest percentages of religious belief, whatever that belief may be, in the Western World, where the 1.6% of the population that identifies as atheist (Pew Research, 2009) has just as many rights as the 98.4% that believe in something.

[AustinHoya03]

So let me get this straight: Ed is free to believe in a supernatural being, but that's it. That belief cannot be associated with a belief in certain principles, ethics, or morals. Once his belief becomes associated with such things he is invading secular humanist territory.

Why do there have to be "sides" in every thread on the B&G board?

[thebin]

You mention that our Founding Fathers were not explicitly atheist. No, of course they were not explicitly so. They were of course less removed by time from the Inquisition than we are from them before we judge them too harshly for it. But most of them made statements that were doubtful about god or even scornful enough about religion and Christianity in general that today none of them could get elected dog-catcher in any red state.

But without getting into the window dressing like putting your hand on a bible (or koran) if you prefer, the 1950's Cold War phrase "In God we Trust", or a single mention not of Jesus or God but the more poetic "Creator" .....That isn't really the important stuff, is it DFW? Surely it is infinitely more important to see what they explicitly built as our government and see the historically stunning dearth of a national church or a single mention of Christianity contained their-in. Isn't that really the meat and the potatoes DFW? The important parts are the actual governing principles in the Constitution which mention a deity not once and only mention religion to explicitly ban its inclusion in governing manners. That's first-rate evidence against which you present pretty meek anecdotal window dressing that speaks to Western heritage rather than anything approaching the radical/crazy idea even in 1776 Philadelphia of "the superiority of God's law over the laws of men."

Appendix:

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. (Treaties are the supreme law of the land)


Jefferson:
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." -- Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - "Notes on Virginia"

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814


Madison:
"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555


Franklin:
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -in Poor Richard's Almanac

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)


Adams:
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
Letter to Thomas Jefferson


Lincoln:
"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

[thebin]

Nov 28, 2011 16:17:37 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

So let me get this straight: Ed is free to believe in a supernatural being, but that's it. That belief cannot be associated with a belief in certain principles, ethics, or morals. Once his belief becomes associated with such things he is invading secular humanist territory.

Why do there have to be "sides" in every thread on the B&G board?

He is free to live his life and celebrate any principles he wishes up until the point where he compels (or supports the state to compel) the rest of us how to live our lives in ways that do not affect him at all. That really can't be difficult to grasp. Telling you that you can't have sex with your girlfriend LEGALLY because it is god's law is sorta violating your liberty Austin...wouldn't ya say?

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 28, 2011 16:32:51 GMT -5 thebin said:

He is free to live his life and celebrate any principles he wishes up until the point where he tells me how to live mine in accordance with his principles. That really can't be difficult to grasp. I don't wish to tell him which principles he should live by. He has absolutely said that the state should enforce his certain principles on all of us.

But all "the state" does is enforce principles. For example, when the state creates laws that prevent the sexual assault of children, then uses such laws to convict and imprison child molesters, the state is enforcing principles, as well as restricting liberty.

Your position seems to be that if/when the state enforces Ed's principles, this restricts your liberty because those principles have a basis in religious thought, whereas the enforcement of your principles does not impact Ed because they are based on "reason."

I tend to agree with you much more than I agree with Ed, but you have once again ignored the fact that the American political system allows the Eds of the world to elect politicians who enact laws that restrict your liberty in favor of discussing the founding principles of the nation and how things should and must be according to the libertarian point of view.

[EasyEd]

thebin, where did I say I would compel you or anyone else to do anything? On the contrary, I said these are my views and I respect your right to have alternate views.

[thebin]

Ed, if you had your way, would you not choose to make pre-marital sex illegal? You said exactly that when you said God's law was superior to man's law and you believed only married couples could have sex under God's law. The take away can be no other than your wish to compel (or have the state compel, there is no difference) adults not to have sex unless they are married.

[thebin]

Nov 28, 2011 16:56:26 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Nov 28, 2011 16:32:51 GMT -5 thebin said:

He is free to live his life and celebrate any principles he wishes up until the point where he tells me how to live mine in accordance with his principles. That really can't be difficult to grasp. I don't wish to tell him which principles he should live by. He has absolutely said that the state should enforce his certain principles on all of us.

But all "the state" does is enforce principles. For example, when the state creates laws that prevent the sexual assault of children, then uses such laws to convict and imprison child molesters, the state is enforcing principles, as well as restricting liberty.

Your position seems to be that if/when the state enforces Ed's principles, this restricts your liberty because those principles have a basis in religious thought, whereas the enforcement of your principles does not impact Ed because they are based on "reason."

I tend to agree with you much more than I agree with Ed, but you have once again ignored the fact that the American political system allows the Eds of the world to elect politicians who enact laws that restrict your liberty in favor of discussing the founding principles of the nation and how things should and must be according to the libertarian point of view.

Principles of morality must be enforced by the government IN SO FAR as they protect people from the unwanted actions of others. I don't believe there is such a thing as a victim-less crime in a free country. If there is no victim, there can be no crime. "Offending" someone through actions which do not impact them is not a crime. Being offended doesn't make one a victim. This is the John Stuart Mill idea of liberty. The state only has a right to compel people to live under principles where there is a victim. I reject the enforcement of any "principle" that can be violated by two or 15 consenting adults. I think that is a staggeringly obvious line of demarcation in a country that likes to call itself the freest and best in the world.

You mention that Americans like Ed are free to vote in people to enact laws that have a religious under-pinning. True. We also have courts charged with interpreting a very unambiguous Constitution against such laws. It is one of the features that makes a good argument that this is the greatest country in the world. We don't have a simple democracy with a tyranny of the majority, we have a federal republic with a very sturdy sense of laws, not people. And the laws are subject to review that they do not violate the principles of the Constitution- which so clearly defines history's first and still most glorious example of the separation of church and state.

[Bando]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? Ed stated that because of us young folk, child rape would be legalized. I'm still waiting for Ed to defend that statement or even provide a plausible mechanism for it occurring.

Otherwise, I think I'm pretty justified in thinking that Ed decided to wantonly smear the younger members of the board as sympathetic to kiddie rape. I believe such libel is cause enough to ban him from this board absent an immediate apology.

[EasyEd]

You win, thebin, I'm going to take up arms and force you to attend Mass every day, march in an anti-gay marriage parade, forcibly take contraceptives off the drug store shelves, read a chapter of the Bible every day, vote for Michelle Bachmann, listen to Glenn Beck, and -- you get the message. And you better do all these things or the secret police will get you.

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 28, 2011 17:15:30 GMT -5 thebin said:

You mention that Americans like Ed are free to vote in people to enact laws that have a religious under-pinning. True. We also have courts charged with interpreting a very unambiguous Constitution against such laws.

This is simply incorrect. You may be surprised to learn that laws prohibiting homicide predate John Stuart Mill, and in fact have religious underpinnings. You believe they are unconstitutional?

Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinions striking down legislation based on religious taboos (abortion, sodomy) rely on the right to privacy, a right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. If homosexual marriage laws are similarly struck down, it will not be because of the existence of the separation clause of the First Amendment. You are vastly expanding its scope to fit your argument.

As for what governments can or cannot do, you and I have previously discussed the broad general police power granted to states and local governments under our Constitutional system. This power still has only a tenuous connection to On Liberty/libertarianism/JSM, if it has any at all. But by all means, keep quoting the Scriptures.

[TBird41]

Nov 28, 2011 17:26:32 GMT -5 Bando said:

Let's get back on topic, shall we? Ed stated that because of us young folk, child rape would be legalized. I'm still waiting for Ed to defend that statement or even provide a plausible mechanism for it occurring.

Otherwise, I think I'm pretty justified in thinking that Ed decided to wantonly smear the younger members of the board as sympathetic to kiddie rape. I believe such libel is cause enough to ban him from this board absent an immediate apology.

EasyEd > Stevie Johnson

[thebin]

Nov 28, 2011 18:13:42 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Nov 28, 2011 17:15:30 GMT -5 thebin said:

You mention that Americans like Ed are free to vote in people to enact laws that have a religious under-pinning. True. We also have courts charged with interpreting a very unambiguous Constitution against such laws.

This is simply incorrect. You may be surprised to learn that laws prohibiting homicide predate John Stuart Mill, and in fact have religious underpinnings. You believe they are unconstitutional?

Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinions striking down legislation based on religious taboos (abortion, sodomy) rely on the right to privacy, a right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. If homosexual marriage laws are similarly struck down, it will not be because of the existence of the separation clause of the First Amendment. You are vastly expanding its scope to fit your argument.

As for what governments can or cannot do, you and I have previously discussed the broad general police power granted to states and local governments under our Constitutional system. This power still has only a tenuous connection to On Liberty/libertarianism/JSM, if it has any at all. But by all means, keep quoting the Scriptures.

You are going to have to do better than that austin. Most sensible violent crimes have been considered such going back to an age where there was nothing but religious authority. Does that mean all crimes anyone thought of in the pre-secular age would be perfectly legal in a secular world where there was no flock of child-raping priests to tell them murder was bad? Does that mean religion gets to claim all of the no-brainer low hanging fruit? Because they had a monopoly on laws for the first 4 or 5 thousand years of written history before secularism was allowed to peak its head out without being chopped off by the religious powers that be?

Do you honestly think i implied that all laws with any religious background could not ipso facto also be considered to be crimes in a secular society? Were not talking about crimes like rape and murder or charging interest for that matter....were talking about laws that dont involve actual victims and where the religious underpinnings form the entire rationale for the entire basis for there presence in a secular republic that has no use for them. But by all means, keep fighting the bigot's argument if you like....