collapse
2020 Donation Drive

It's time for our annual Server Donation Drive! We need to raise at least $710 to keep The Cauldron's server online for another year. Please help! Either hit that Paypal button to the right and make a one-time donation in any amount or set up a monthly Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor subscription. You can find more info in this message!

Donations as of 23 November 2020: $636 donated. Only $74 more needed! Thank you, donors!


Note: This total is updated manually, usually once a day


* Recent Posts

Re: World of Warcraft: Shadowlands expansion by Morag
[Today at 04:03:29 pm]


Re: Positive Generation by PerditaPickle
[Today at 01:57:30 pm]


Re: Positive Generation by Kylara
[Today at 01:04:45 pm]


Re: Hello everyone by Altair
[Today at 09:48:20 am]


Re: Grimoires To Die for! by PerditaPickle
[Yesterday at 07:48:10 pm]

Author Topic: Scalia Shuffles Off  (Read 9066 times)

SunflowerP

  • Host
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Calgary AB
  • Posts: 8868
  • Country: ca
  • Total likes: 372
  • Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs!
    • View Profile
    • If You Ain't Makin' Waves, You Ain't Kickin' Hard Enough
  • Religion: Eclectic religious Witchcraft
  • Preferred Pronouns: sie/hir/hirs/hirself
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2016, 12:55:35 am »
Quote from: Skyth;186849
The problem is that I was actually listing why the country was better off without him.  Attempting to troll someone only shows that you don't actually have a valid argument.

 
A Reminder:
Hi, Skyth,

Dismissing someone's arguments as invalid based on things that have nothing to do with the substance of those arguments is, while not an actual rules violation, not conductive to the robust discussion and debate that are the hallmarks of TC, and edges in the direction of personal attack.

You're not over the line (hence just a reminder), but you habitually snipe at others' arguments without engaging their substance, and seldom if ever post substantial arguments of your own. That being the case, someone who finds it necessary to try to bait you in order to get you to add substance to your posts is not behaving reprehensibly, nor does it say anything whatsoever about the substance of their own arguments - and implying that it does is in no way a substitute for substantial engagement on your part.

If you don't want to have your positions challenged, and if you don't want to have to support those positions with substantive arguments, not posting those positions would be a far more effective way to go about it than sniping at people when they do challenge you.

Sunflower
TC Forum Staff
I'm the AntiFa genderqueer commie eclectic wiccan Mod your alt-right bros warned you about.
I do so have a life; I just live part of it online!
“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” - Oscar Wilde
"Nobody's good at anything until they practice." - Brina (Yewberry)
My much-neglected blog "If You Ain't Makin' Waves, You Ain't Kickin' Hard Enough"

SunflowerP

  • Host
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: Calgary AB
  • Posts: 8868
  • Country: ca
  • Total likes: 372
  • Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs!
    • View Profile
    • If You Ain't Makin' Waves, You Ain't Kickin' Hard Enough
  • Religion: Eclectic religious Witchcraft
  • Preferred Pronouns: sie/hir/hirs/hirself
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2016, 01:19:19 am »
Quote from: Castus;186889
... is that the mitzvot are not obligatory, or even normative, but rather that one's observance or non-observance is governed by their own conscious. This rankles me. Although I have, with the creeping advent of liberalism into my personal philosophy, come to value the idea of one's conscious as having an important voice; I still much prefer the -- admittedly Catholic-influenced -- belief that doctrine/commandments ought to form one's conscious rather than the other way around.

 
From the context, I am pretty sure you mean 'conscience'.

Sunflower
I'm the AntiFa genderqueer commie eclectic wiccan Mod your alt-right bros warned you about.
I do so have a life; I just live part of it online!
“Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.” - Oscar Wilde
"Nobody's good at anything until they practice." - Brina (Yewberry)
My much-neglected blog "If You Ain't Makin' Waves, You Ain't Kickin' Hard Enough"

Jack

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Cascadia
  • Posts: 3181
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 98
    • View Profile
    • Dwarvenpunk
  • Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2016, 01:56:23 am »
Quote from: Castus;186889
...which (a. explicitly affirm a theistic notion of God, (b. explicitly affirm an objective source of authoritative truth, and (c. admit that changes in religious law may sometimes be necessary but should be made sparingly and carefully. All of these things are very important to me. I am gravely concerned by the rise of atheism and the challenging of classical notions of God in Judaism -- as is prevalent in Reform Judaism -- so I find the United Synagogue's theistic defense reassuring. As someone who, here and elsewhere, has defined conservatism's raison d'etre as the belief in an objective divine Truth, I could not be more in agreement with their statement concerning objective truth and relativism. As well, my increasing recognition that change is sometimes necessary but should be evenly tempered appreciates the nuanced position on Jewish law. Of course, there are other reasons why I prefer the Conservative tradition to the Reform movement, but I hope that I've given you a decent explanation.


That does make a great deal of sense, thank you for explaining it. In reading your post I was a bit surprised by your willingness to make decisions that you seem sure would be at odds with the opinion of the CJLS without at least seeking an opinion, though! Obviously your health is a high priority and I certainly don't think you should sacrifice it lightly, but given your dedication to Truth and your relative newness to the faith I would expect at least seeking council and seeing what answers you're presented with from your local Rabbi.

Quote
As it so happens I feel that the majority decisions of the Committee, which have since allowed for SSM within Conservative Judaism, reflect a capitulation to contemporary norms rather than fidelity to Torah as "the uncovering of an external source of truth emanating from God." That having been said, if I recall correctly we do still counsel celibacy for homosexual couples, so that's nice.


I did a bit of reading while considering your blog posts; according to Wikipedia, anyway, CJLS has said anything short of anal sex is okay, as well as the approval of same sex marriages in at least some form.

How would you respond to the challenge that, in choosing which Rabbinical interpretation you agree is the most Truthful even if it's a minority opinion, you're still basically picking and choosing?

Quote
so it's entirely possible that after further research I will have to admit you heathenish goyim the right to sodomise and fornicate to your heart's content ;P Until that time, however, I will remain opposed.


Ironically, I participate in neither sodomy nor fornication. ;D I'm far too boringly married to fornicate.

I mean, I'm very glad you're not advocating for, say, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists or whatever other rules you're ignoring. I've read about Jews who specifically employ a Gentile to handle things they're not able to, like signing ownership of a grocery store over Passover so the store doesn't have to be ritually prepared - not sure if that's limited to, say, Reform Jews?

But my experience of Jews has generally been the opposite of having religion thrust upon me that I get from so many Christian denominations, so I always assumed that it was a thing kept within the faith community rather than advocating that laws should be enacted to force all to adhere to the Truth.

Quote
It's expected at some point in a convert's journey that they will begin incorporating some kosher practices into their lives prior to the actual conversion. Personally, my set "K-Day" for going kosher is March 28th, a full year to the day after I left the Church. I'll be keeping kosher to fairly stringent Conservative standards; no bacon, no eating meat and dairy together, quitting smoking my beloved cigarettes, keeping the Sabbath insofar as work allows, etc etc. That isn't quite as conservative as Orthodox standards, which is what you describe with the two of everything, no mixed fibers, etc. but is still above Reform standards and probably above what many Conservative Jews do as well. But we'll see how it goes...

 
Are you cutting down on smoking now? I imagine going cold turkey will be tough! Good luck with it, I hope it works out for you.
Hail Mara, Lady of Good Things!
"The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly." -Madeleine L'Engle

RandallS

  • Site Admin
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: NE Ohio
  • Posts: 10263
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 276
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Hellenic Pagan
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2016, 07:57:18 am »
Quote from: Skyth;186849
The problem is that I was actually listing why the country was better off without him.  Attempting to troll someone only shows that you don't actually have a valid argument.

A Reminder:
"Trolling" is a specific offense under our rules and if you want to accuse someone of rules violations, that's what the "Report to Moderator" button is for. For the record, however, Cautus was not trolling. He always takes conservative positions and tries to support and defend them -- while I doubt he changes any minds, he generally presents his position well. The mere fact that conservatives are a minority on this forum does not mean that presenting a conservative position is "trolling". This is especially true in the political discussion board. If you do not wish to see conservative opinions, TC's political boards are probably not the place to hang out.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 07:58:08 am by RandallS »
Randall
RetroRoleplaying [Blog]: Microlite74/75/78/81, BX Advanced, and Other Old School Tabletop RPGs
Microlite20: Lots of Rules Lite Tabletop RPGs -- Many Free

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 899
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2016, 11:23:35 am »
Quote from: Castus;186889
My perception here remains coloured by a traditionally Roman Catholic view of the obligations of the State towards it's citizenry, up to and including opposing moral evils for the good of the commonweal. Which, admittedly, raises a host of ethical problems (e.g. why is homosexuality considered a sin to be prohibited to the general populace and not, say, mixing meat and dairy?) that I am not fully qualified to answer; so it's entirely possible that after further research I will have to admit you heathenish goyim the right to sodomise and fornicate to your heart's content ;P Until that time, however, I will remain opposed.

 
As a point of possible interest to you, I consider this position to be a horrible dereliction of civic responsibility, and civic responsibility is an important part of my moral system.  It is a fundamental shirking of duty to the commonweal.

You and I live in a nation that is explicitly not founded on religious mores.  Even aside from the First Amendment, there is the Treaty of Tripoli (keep in mind that treaties are as binding as the Constitution), which says in Article 11, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  Law of the land since 1797.

This conveys onto those who wish to contribute to the legal structure of the nation the responsibility to formulate their arguments in a manner that does not depend upon compliance with a particular theology.  In short, if I believe that something is a moral ill which should be stopped on the basis of my religious beliefs, it is my responsibility to support that with an argument that does not depend on agreement with those beliefs; if I cannot do so, I cannot justify asserting that it ought to be the law of the land.  It's lazy thinking, on the one hand, a total cop-out on actually presenting an argument that carries legitimacy outside a theocracy, and it is actively opposed to the fundamental principles of the nation and thus smacks of insurgency and anti-Americanism.

As moral failings go, in a politician I am far more concerned with a religious agenda - any religion, including the vast unlikelihood of my own - than I am about their affairs, their bathroom liaisons, and their sexual escapades.  That stuff is not in fundamental opposition to the fundamental principles of the nation; enforcing a specific religious morality is.

That so-called "conservatives" are sufficiently radical as to discard the founding national principles in order to attempt to remake my country to their perverse preferences would amuse me in the manner of one who eats popcorn at noisy hypocrites if their ability to perpetrate their behaviour were more hypothetical.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Altair

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: New York, New York
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3068
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 440
  • Fly high and make the world follow
    • View Profile
    • Songs of the Metamythos
  • Religion: tree-hugging pagan
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2016, 12:32:34 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186919
As a point of possible interest to you, I consider this position to be a horrible dereliction of civic responsibility, and civic responsibility is an important part of my moral system.  It is a fundamental shirking of duty to the commonweal.

You and I live in a nation that is explicitly not founded on religious mores.  Even aside from the First Amendment, there is the Treaty of Tripoli (keep in mind that treaties are as binding as the Constitution), which says in Article 11, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  Law of the land since 1797.

This conveys onto those who wish to contribute to the legal structure of the nation the responsibility to formulate their arguments in a manner that does not depend upon compliance with a particular theology.  In short, if I believe that something is a moral ill which should be stopped on the basis of my religious beliefs, it is my responsibility to support that with an argument that does not depend on agreement with those beliefs; if I cannot do so, I cannot justify asserting that it ought to be the law of the land.  It's lazy thinking, on the one hand, a total cop-out on actually presenting an argument that carries legitimacy outside a theocracy, and it is actively opposed to the fundamental principles of the nation and thus smacks of insurgency and anti-Americanism.

As moral failings go, in a politician I am far more concerned with a religious agenda - any religion, including the vast unlikelihood of my own - than I am about their affairs, their bathroom liaisons, and their sexual escapades.  That stuff is not in fundamental opposition to the fundamental principles of the nation; enforcing a specific religious morality is.

That so-called "conservatives" are sufficiently radical as to discard the founding national principles in order to attempt to remake my country to their perverse preferences would amuse me in the manner of one who eats popcorn at noisy hypocrites if their ability to perpetrate their behaviour were more hypothetical.

 
This.
The first song sets the wheel in motion / The second is a song of love / The third song tells of Her devotion / The fourth cries joy from the sky above
The fifth song binds our fate to silence / and bids us live each moment well / The sixth unleashes rage and violence / The seventh song has truth to tell
The last song echoes through the ages / to ask its question all night long / And close the circle on these pages / These, the metamythos songs

RandallS

  • Site Admin
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Location: NE Ohio
  • Posts: 10263
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 276
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Hellenic Pagan
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2016, 02:37:51 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186919
As a point of possible interest to you, I consider this position to be a horrible dereliction of civic responsibility, and civic responsibility is an important part of my moral system.  It is a fundamental shirking of duty to the commonweal.

You and I live in a nation that is explicitly not founded on religious mores.  Even aside from the First Amendment, there is the Treaty of Tripoli (keep in mind that treaties are as binding as the Constitution), which says in Article 11, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  Law of the land since 1797.

This conveys onto those who wish to contribute to the legal structure of the nation the responsibility to formulate their arguments in a manner that does not depend upon compliance with a particular theology.  In short, if I believe that something is a moral ill which should be stopped on the basis of my religious beliefs, it is my responsibility to support that with an argument that does not depend on agreement with those beliefs; if I cannot do so, I cannot justify asserting that it ought to be the law of the land.  It's lazy thinking, on the one hand, a total cop-out on actually presenting an argument that carries legitimacy outside a theocracy, and it is actively opposed to the fundamental principles of the nation and thus smacks of insurgency and anti-Americanism.

As moral failings go, in a politician I am far more concerned with a religious agenda - any religion, including the vast unlikelihood of my own - than I am about their affairs, their bathroom liaisons, and their sexual escapades.  That stuff is not in fundamental opposition to the fundamental principles of the nation; enforcing a specific religious morality is.

That so-called "conservatives" are sufficiently radical as to discard the founding national principles in order to attempt to remake my country to their perverse preferences would amuse me in the manner of one who eats popcorn at noisy hypocrites if their ability to perpetrate their behaviour were more hypothetical.

Quoted for truth. I have no interest in any politician imposing their religion's morality on the country -- even if it were my own religion's morality. Where morality is concerned, the law of the land should limit itself to morality that just about everyone of any religion or no religion agrees with. If the primary reason for the rule is something like "my God says so" or "my Goddess hates this" then it really does not need to be the law of the land.
Randall
RetroRoleplaying [Blog]: Microlite74/75/78/81, BX Advanced, and Other Old School Tabletop RPGs
Microlite20: Lots of Rules Lite Tabletop RPGs -- Many Free

Aster Breo

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 2912
  • Country: 00
  • Total likes: 97
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2016, 09:55:17 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186919
As a point of possible interest to you, I consider this position to be a horrible dereliction of civic responsibility, and civic responsibility is an important part of my moral system.  It is a fundamental shirking of duty to the commonweal.

 
This whole post is a thing of beauty.  Thank you.
"The status is not quo."  ~ Dr. Horrible

Castus

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Virginia
  • Posts: 824
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 77
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Catechumen of an Anglo-Catholic mood, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2016, 10:36:32 pm »
Quote from: SunflowerP;186896
From the context, I am pretty sure you mean 'conscience'.

Sunflower


Oh dear, yes, thank you for pointing that out. Roughly 1/3rd of that post was written after midnight, and I wasn't quite operating at full capacity.
 
Quote from: Jack;186899
That does make a great deal of sense, thank you for explaining it. In reading your post I was a bit surprised by your willingness to make decisions that you seem sure would be at odds with the opinion of the CJLS without at least seeking an opinion, though! Obviously your health is a high priority and I certainly don't think you should sacrifice it lightly, but given your dedication to Truth and your relative newness to the faith I would expect at least seeking council and seeing what answers you're presented with from your local Rabbi.

I admit, I had to read this several times over before I realised which post you were referring to. Obviously as the CJLS has not given a responsa on the issue of marijuana, there is no definitive movement-wide standard; but as the CJLS' website itself notes:

Each rabbi is the mara d'atra, or local religious decisor, of a particular community. While the teshuvot on this website provide an invaluable source of learning, they are not meant to, nor can they, substitute for the opinions of a local rabbi.

So even in the absence of a responsa from the Committee the opinion of my rabbi would substitute. As luck would have it I am extremely fond of my rabbi, who is a good woman and someone who tends to put the Conservative in Conservative Judaism, but I don't feel quite comfortable enough to bring the issue up with her yet; although I should probably do so in the future. Of course there is also the issue that if I were to ask Rabbi for a ruling on marijuana and she prohibited it... I would have to follow her ruling. And until I decide how -- or even if -- I would be able to handle giving it up, I'm not going to open that door. Of course I am personally convinced that Jewish legal and ethical principles speak to the permissibility of marijuana in both medical and recreational contexts -- indeed, if I didn't, I could not in good conscience continue to smoke -- but I freely admit that I am at best operating in a gray area; and that my conscience doesn't supersede an education legal opinion given by a competent rabbinical authority.

It's not ideal, and it's certainly not what more conservative iterations of myself would tolerate, but it is what it is right now. Can I countenance the possibility that weed is treif? I have no idea, it's something I openly struggle with; and I do not see a resolution in the immediate future. This is... not a situation I'm used to. I'm used to following all the rules and having all the answers, so this is a little awkward. But c'est la vie.

Quote
I did a bit of reading while considering your blog posts; according to Wikipedia, anyway, CJLS has said anything short of anal sex is okay, as well as the approval of same sex marriages in at least some form.

How would you respond to the challenge that, in choosing which Rabbinical interpretation you agree is the most Truthful even if it's a minority opinion, you're still basically picking and choosing?

I would point out that both papers outlining the conservative position which I support (Joel Roth's Homosexuality Revisited and Leonard Levy's Same-Sex Attraction and Halakhah) have both been officially approved by the CJLS, and therefore "represent official halakhic positions of the Conservative movement." While both were adopted by far thinner margins than those which were relative pro-LGBT they do represent valid halakhic viewpoints. The fact that such diametrically opposite conditions can both be represented is a hallmark of Conservative Judaism's approach to the law, a position similar to Anglicanism's via media. I am indeed picking and choosing, which is exactly what I (and individual rabbis and congregations) are expected to do =P

Quote
Ironically, I participate in neither sodomy nor fornication. ;D I'm far too boringly married to fornicate.

I mean, I'm very glad you're not advocating for, say, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists or whatever other rules you're ignoring. I've read about Jews who specifically employ a Gentile to handle things they're not able to, like signing ownership of a grocery store over Passover so the store doesn't have to be ritually prepared - not sure if that's limited to, say, Reform Jews?

I should point out that forcing rape victims to marry their rapists (Mitzvah #132 by Chabad's count) comes with the rabbinical stipulation that this is only if the raped woman wishes to marry him. Within Judaism, the plan sense of the Torah's commandments is not universally adhered to; and generally comes with Talmudic commentary, restrictions, etc. so that many of the more... primitive... mitzvot are rarely what they appear to be at first blush; even within Haredi (hyper-observant) religious communities.

The custom you're referring to there is one employed mainly by Orthodox Jews, sometimes Conservative Jews, and almost never Jews of more liberal movements (Reconstructionist, Reform, etc) and the gentile is colloquially referred to as a Shabbos goy -- Sabbath gentile. Convert candidates often serve as Shabbos goyim, especially in Orthodox communities. There have been a few notable Shabbos goyim in contemporary history, as a completely irrelevant side-point. Elvis and Colin Powell stand among them.

Quote
But my experience of Jews has generally been the opposite of having religion thrust upon me that I get from so many Christian denominations, so I always assumed that it was a thing kept within the faith community rather than advocating that laws should be enacted to force all to adhere to the Truth.

It is, generally speaking. I would never advocate that the vast majority of the Mitzvot be imposed upon the general populace. However it is my belief that the prohibition of homosexuality isn't similar to, say, trying to push through legislation which would ban non-kosher restaurants. It is instead a key component of a shared, Judaeo-Christian sense of morality. I don't want to impose Jewish morals, but rather believe that it is beneficial to the nation and to right governance that such a shared Judaeo-Christian morality be maintained for the ethical good of the nation. A more conservative, broad-tent morality, if you will

Now, this is coupled with a lot of other things. I view the liberal, progressive political current of which gay rights has proved a cornerstone to be a Very Bad Thing. I think that gay marriage has cemented a general decline of morality and American public life; and has signaled the triumph of relativism in the culture wars. I'm concerned about the future prospects of American conservatism. I'm concerned about the effects which an overwhelmingly liberal culture might have on religious communities; which IMO has already been amply demonstrated in American Judaism and American Christianity. Simply put, I support social conservatism because without it I don't see much of a future for people, like me, who believe in "the uncovering of an external source of truth emanating from God." I ardently believe in the slippery slope and am ever-more convinced that we're hurtling down it. All of these concerns, not just what the Torah says, has to do with my opposition to SSM. SSM is merely one part, albeit an important part, of a wider cultural view which I vehemently fear and oppose.

Quote
Are you cutting down on smoking now? I imagine going cold turkey will be tough! Good luck with it, I hope it works out for you.

As it so happens, I live in a house where smoking cigarettes is verboten; so in an indulgence to my teenage radicalism I only smoke when out with friends. I could probably quit today and not suffer harsh effects from it. However, smoking cigarettes is an activity which I highly enjoy so I will be sad to see it go.

ETA: Darkhawk, I see your post. It's a very good one and will require a thoughtful response. I assure you one will be forthcoming, but not this evening.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 10:40:31 pm by Castus »
“Castus, meanwhile, goes straight for the bad theology like one of those creepy fish that swims up streams of pee.” — Darkhawk

Allaya

  • Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Location: Out of My Mind
  • Posts: 914
  • Country: no
  • Total likes: 59
    • View Profile
  • Religion: It's Complicated
  • Preferred Pronouns: she/her/hers
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2016, 10:48:35 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186919
As a point of possible interest to you, I consider this position to be a horrible dereliction of civic responsibility, and civic responsibility is an important part of my moral system.  It is a fundamental shirking of duty to the commonweal.

You and I live in a nation that is explicitly not founded on religious mores.  Even aside from the First Amendment, there is the Treaty of Tripoli (keep in mind that treaties are as binding as the Constitution), which says in Article 11, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  Law of the land since 1797.

This conveys onto those who wish to contribute to the legal structure of the nation the responsibility to formulate their arguments in a manner that does not depend upon compliance with a particular theology.  In short, if I believe that something is a moral ill which should be stopped on the basis of my religious beliefs, it is my responsibility to support that with an argument that does not depend on agreement with those beliefs; if I cannot do so, I cannot justify asserting that it ought to be the law of the land.  It's lazy thinking, on the one hand, a total cop-out on actually presenting an argument that carries legitimacy outside a theocracy, and it is actively opposed to the fundamental principles of the nation and thus smacks of insurgency and anti-Americanism.

As moral failings go, in a politician I am far more concerned with a religious agenda - any religion, including the vast unlikelihood of my own - than I am about their affairs, their bathroom liaisons, and their sexual escapades.  That stuff is not in fundamental opposition to the fundamental principles of the nation; enforcing a specific religious morality is.

That so-called "conservatives" are sufficiently radical as to discard the founding national principles in order to attempt to remake my country to their perverse preferences would amuse me in the manner of one who eats popcorn at noisy hypocrites if their ability to perpetrate their behaviour were more hypothetical.

 
^^ Gold-fucking-plated THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!! ^^

Damnation, why am I always out of Rep? I'd give it by the shovelful if I could.
Service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth.  — Shirley Chisholm
No doubt the truth can be unpleasant, but I am not sure that unpleasantness is the same as the truth.  — Roger Ebert
It is difficult to get a person to understand something when their livelihood depends upon them not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair (adapted)
People cannot be reasoned out of an opinion that they have not reasoned themselves into. — Fisher Ames (adapted)

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 899
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2016, 11:28:45 pm »
Quote from: Castus;186967
It is instead a key component of a shared, Judaeo-Christian sense of morality. I don't want to impose Jewish morals, but rather believe that it is beneficial to the nation and to right governance that such a shared Judaeo-Christian morality be maintained for the ethical good of the nation.


For your possible information, all of my Jewish friends and acquaintances who have commented on "Judaeo-Christian" as a concept have translated it as meaning, more or less in their experiences, "We mean Christian, we're not Nazis, and actual Jewish perspectives can fuck right off."

The status of Judaism as a long-standing argument with and about G-d does not play nice with the sort of Christian command morality that most people who claim "Judeo-Christian values" are attempting to claim.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Castus

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Virginia
  • Posts: 824
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 77
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Catechumen of an Anglo-Catholic mood, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2016, 11:43:07 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186973
For your possible information, all of my Jewish friends and acquaintances who have commented on "Judaeo-Christian" as a concept have translated it as meaning, more or less in their experiences, "We mean Christian, we're not Nazis, and actual Jewish perspectives can fuck right off."

The status of Judaism as a long-standing argument with and about G-d does not play nice with the sort of Christian command morality that most people who claim "Judeo-Christian values" are attempting to claim.


Eh... while they're welcome to their opinions, I feel that that may be a shortsighted if understandable perspective. While there is a real need to guard against supercessionist Christian narratives I think that there is a lot of ground for solid interfaith cooperation; recognising a shared heritage and, yes, a shared sense of morality. A particular reflection of this, I think, is the religious journal First Things; which in addition to mainly being a voice for Christian conservatism does have regular Jewish contributors and if memory serves me correctly a rabbi or two on their board of directors. Fruitful co-operation on cultural issues has frequently been the result.
 
Even if "Judaeo-Christian" does frequently serve as simply "Christian" in a practical sense, the Jewish and Christian viewpoints are not frequently dissimilar. The methods by which those viewpoints are reached are different...

You know what? You're right. Nevermind.
“Castus, meanwhile, goes straight for the bad theology like one of those creepy fish that swims up streams of pee.” — Darkhawk

Jack

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Cascadia
  • Posts: 3181
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 98
    • View Profile
    • Dwarvenpunk
  • Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2016, 12:38:01 am »
First off I want you to know that I'm not replying to most of your post because it explains your position fairly straightforwardly. I'm picking out the bits I have questions about, but I hope I don't come across as not having read and appreciated the longer bits in between my questions.

Quote from: Castus;186967
As luck would have it I am extremely fond of my rabbi, who is a good woman and someone who tends to put the Conservative in Conservative Judaism


I think it's interesting that your rabbi is a woman! I think I read that admitting woman for rabbinical training is a fairly recent change for Conservatives as well, though not as recent as SSM obviously is. I'm guessing that's an area of change you're comfortable with. XD I didn't realize it was so widespread, so that's neat to know.

Quote
The fact that such diametrically opposite conditions can both be represented is a hallmark of Conservative Judaism's approach to the law, a position similar to Anglicanism's via media. I am indeed picking and choosing, which is exactly what I (and individual rabbis and congregations) are expected to do =P


I am glad your search for Truth allows for a variety of choices to be acceptable, though I find it interesting that you embrace that choice in some areas but still feel one version of Truth should be enshrined in the law of the land even if it is not in the law of your religion. How do you reconcile arguing for laws that would essentially be in opposition to the majority opinion of a body like the CJLS?

Quote
Simply put, I support social conservatism because without it I don't see much of a future for people, like me, who believe in "the uncovering of an external source of truth emanating from God." I ardently believe in the slippery slope and am ever-more convinced that we're hurtling down it. All of these concerns, not just what the Torah says, has to do with my opposition to SSM. SSM is merely one part, albeit an important part, of a wider cultural view which I vehemently fear and oppose.


And I support social liberalism because without it I don't see much of a future for people, like me, who tend to get murdered by people who are very committed to their truth emanating from God, so perhaps you see why I am unnerved by those who argue that Christian morality is the standard laws should adhere to. I personally believe in a country that was founded on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" even if it has not been super good at putting that into practice for all citizens.

Honestly, social conservatives ought to be thrilled SSM passed; an unfortunate number of liberals seem to think that means the culture wars are over, and an uncomfortable number of my fellow queers seem to think the option to marry means everyone needs to settle down and stop being Loud and Weird now. The timing is ripe for any republicans who want to reclaim the party from the Tea Party to welcome Middle Class White Cis Gay Men And Lesbians into the fold against "those weirdoes," as Sam the Eagle would say. I suspect an alarming number of queers would happily join you in stopping up the slippery slope with the right rebranding.
Hail Mara, Lady of Good Things!
"The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly." -Madeleine L'Engle

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 899
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2016, 01:17:31 pm »
Quote from: MadZealot;186585
Well, that's interesting.

 
Also interesting is the Slacktivist commentary, which shows some of the nuances of the man in an interesting way.  Even if I found many of Scalia's positions personally reprehensible, there is something to be said for him being able to laugh at sharp jokes aimed in his direction, and that particular trait is one sorely lacking in modern USonian politics in an entirely nonpartisian fashion.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Juniperberry

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1891
  • Total likes: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia Shuffles Off
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2016, 03:05:50 pm »
Quote from: Darkhawk;186995
Also interesting is the Slacktivist commentary, which shows some of the nuances of the man in an interesting way.  Even if I found many of Scalia's positions personally reprehensible, there is something to be said for him being able to laugh at sharp jokes aimed in his direction, and that particular trait is one sorely lacking in modern USonian politics in an entirely nonpartisian fashion.

 
He also made sure he always had a liberal on his staff so that he wouldn't be listening to an echo chamber.

I agree with his dissent on same-sex marriage only in the sense that marriage itself, a very personal and human thing, should have remained a State matter that was always open and fluid to the vote of the people and not out of our hands within federal legislature.
The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. [...] The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most.--Elon Musk

I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence," [Bill] Gates wrote. "First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don\'t understand why some people are not concerned."

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
1476 Views
Last post October 10, 2011, 05:05:53 pm
by victoreia
5 Replies
1021 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 10:40:12 pm
by Faeblvr
6 Replies
705 Views
Last post March 19, 2012, 07:01:30 pm
by earth_dragon
1 Replies
969 Views
Last post October 04, 2014, 08:56:02 am
by RandallS
26 Replies
5030 Views
Last post January 05, 2016, 11:11:49 am
by Castus

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 43
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 2
  • Dot Users Online:

* Please Donate!

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

* Shop & Support TC

The links below are affiliate links. When you click on one of these links you will go to the listed shopping site with The Cauldron's affiliate code. Any purchases you make during your visit will earn TC a tiny percentage of your purchase price at no extra cost to you.

* In Memoriam

Chavi (2006)
Elspeth (2010)
Marilyn (2013)

* Cauldron Staff

Host:
Sunflower

Message Board Staff
Board Coordinator:
Darkhawk

Assistant Board Coordinator:
Aster Breo

Senior Staff:
Aisling, Jenett, Sefiru

Staff:
Allaya, Chatelaine, EclecticWheel, HarpingHawke, Kylara, PerditaPickle, rocquelaire

Discord Chat Staff
Chat Coordinator:
Morag

Cauldron Council:
Bob, Catja, Emma-Eldritch, Fausta, Jubes, Kelly, LyricFox, Phouka, Sperran, Star, Steve, Tana

Site Administrator:
Randall

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal