What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[Austringer]

After all, not everyone is Catholic, and they deserve to follow their own religious ways.

Not everyone is secular, either, and whether or not anyone “deserves” to follow their own religious ways is debatable. For example, some satanists use animal and human sacrifices as part of their rituals. Do we not have a right, as a society, to say we won’t tolerate that? Muslims routinely mutilate the genitals of girls – is that OK with you? We either protect what we value as a Judeo-Christian society, or we lose it. We’ve already lost a lot of it. “Secular” is not a neutral position, it is, in practice, merely a method of dismantling traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Take for example the woman with the violently abusive husband who just up and left one day, or even the gay couple that abides by all laws, doesn’t adopt children, and doesn’t attempt to push their life on the religious.

Obviously exceptions occur in life, but it doesn’t warrant destroying the culture for those situations. In your first scenario, obviously existing laws have already been broken (assault and battery). Divorce is obviously a good choice. But when the culture, as a whole, adopts a casual attitude towards marriage and divorce (no-fault divorce) and marriages fail right and left as a result, the government steps in to pick up the pieces – with disastrous results.

As for your second scenario, are you serious? Do you really think that homosexuals would be content with that as a status-quo? Obviously not, as they’ve already rejected it in favor of same-sex marriage and gay adoption rights. And do you really think that that has no affect on the health of the family and of the culture?

The only truly free man is the holy man – freedom is not license. When freedom and license are confused, the government necessarily steps in and takes away real freedoms in an attempt to deal with the resulting social pathologies. Diseased individualism leads to collectivism.

 

[Lovesa]

Not everyone is secular, either, and whether or not anyone “deserves” to follow their own religious ways is debatable. For example, some satanists use animal and human sacrifices as part of their rituals. Do we not have a right, as a society, to say we won’t tolerate that? Muslims routinely mutilate the genitals of girls – is that OK with you? We either protect what we value as a Judeo-Christian society, or we lose it. We’ve already lost a lot of it. “Secular” is not a neutral position, it is, in practice, merely a method of dismantling traditional Judeo-Christian values.

Secularism, in practice, is often not neutral. However, it ought to be. As for the scenarios you mention, they infringe on people’s rights and are certainly bannable in the law.

Obviously exceptions occur in life, but it doesn’t warrant destroying the culture for those situations. In your first scenario, obviously existing laws have already been broken (assault and battery). Divorce is obviously a good choice. But when the culture, as a whole, adopts a casual attitude towards marriage and divorce (no-fault divorce) and marriages fail right and left as a result, the government steps in to pick up the pieces – with disastrous results.

As for your second scenario, are you serious? Do you really think that homosexuals would be content with that as a status-quo? Obviously not, as they’ve already rejected it in favor of same-sex marriage and gay adoption rights. And do you really think that that has no affect on the health of the family and of the culture?

The only truly free man is the holy man – freedom is not license. When freedom and license are confused, the government necessarily steps in and takes away real freedoms in an attempt to deal with the resulting social pathologies. Diseased individualism leads to collectivism.

Let’s not pigeonhole all gays and lesbians (who live as such; there are abstinent homosexuals in the church and not all gays and lesbians are interested in intercourse even if living “out”) into the same box and assume they all have the same goals. While there are many radicals out there, many just want to live their lives in peace without interference from the greater society. The idea that marriage and adoption rights must imply that everyone has to accept that is also troublesome, and certainly measures should be taken to prevent that. However, it is not fair to assume that it is impossible for gay or lesbian couples to leave the religious alone and free to believe what they will. There are several I am acquainted with who are outright disgusted with the activists.

 

[Austringer]

As for the scenarios you mention, they infringe on people’s rights and are certainly bannable in the law.

In the case of animal sacrifices, no human rights are being violated. And you have already expressed that people “deserve” to follow their own religious ways. Isn’t that a right, too? So why would you ban genital mutilation of girls? Who decides, and on what basis, what rights trump others?

See what happens when a society becomes secular? It can’t figure out its own hierarchy of values, and can’t say what is right or wrong with any certitude. It becomes arbitrary, and a government that acts arbitrarily is dangerous to freedom. (For just one example, the FDA raiding and prosecuting Amish farmers who sell raw milk to willing customers who want raw milk, while the same government subsidizes tobacco.)

Let’s not pigeonhole all gays and lesbians (who live as such; there are abstinent homosexuals in the church and not all gays and lesbians are interested in intercourse even if living “out”) into the same box and assume they all have the same goals.

I wasn’t pigeon-holing all gays. I’m addressing the gay agenda, which is pushing for same-sex marriage and adoption rights - and is succeeding, as our culture increasingly does not value marriage and family anymore. You are aware, are you not, that Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they would not place children with same-sex couples? Secularists don’t want to accomodate Judeo-Christian values, they want them destroyed.

Nor are you addressing my main point, which is that a diseased individualism leads to collectivism. The proof is out there for all to see.

 

[Lovesa]

In the case of animal sacrifices, no human rights are being violated. And you have already expressed that people “deserve” to follow their own religious ways. Isn’t that a right, too? So why would you ban genital mutilation of girls? Who decides, and on what basis, what rights trump others?

See what happens when a society becomes secular? It can’t figure out its own hierarchy of values, and can’t say what is right or wrong with any certitude. It becomes arbitrary, and a government that acts arbitrarily is dangerous to freedom. (For just one example, the FDA raiding and prosecuting Amish farmers who sell raw milk to willing customers who want raw milk, while the same government subsidizes tobacco.)

Animal rights are a sticky issue. I cannot argue against animal sacrifice except when it causes undue pain to the animal, as they are accorded some rights in our law.

As for genital mutilation, the girls involved are not old enough to understand and give due consent. Surely that much is clear. If, after 18, they want to mutilate their genitals and are doing it from free will, that is another issue.

I wasn’t pigeon-holing all gays.

It is important to note that, then.

I’m addressing the gay agenda, which is pushing for same-sex marriage and adoption rights - and is succeeding, as our culture increasingly does not value marriage and family anymore. You are aware, are you not, that Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they would not place children with same-sex couples? Secularists don’t want to accomodate Judeo-Christian values, they want them destroyed.

Nor are you addressing my main point, which is that a diseased individualism leads to collectivism. The proof is out there for all to see.

I am well aware of that fact. I have stated my disagreement with laws that force the religious to recognize or approve of same-sex marriage or adoption in word or action. This goes against the principles I am in favor of.

Secondly, I do not seem to address your main point because I do not accept it as a premise. You may see proof, but I do not, except in cases that violate our guaranteed rights. Personal freedom has also made great strides in good ways in the past few years. Women have greater (name removed by moderator)ut in the workplace; people are not as stigmatized for dressing outside of the gender norms, etc.

 

[Austringer]

As for genital mutilation, the girls involved are not old enough to understand and give due consent. Surely that much is clear.

No, it is not clear – what about the rights of Muslim parents to decide what they feel is best for their own girls? You would deny them their religious freedom and their parental rights? What is the basis for your deciding that consent trumps religious expression and parental rights? Where do you see that in the Constitution? Just wondering…

Animal rights are a sticky issue. I cannot argue against animal sacrifice except when it causes undue pain to the animal, as they are accorded some rights in our law.

And what is the basis of those rights in our law? Do you know what that is?

Secondly, I do not seem to address your main point because I do not accept it as a premise. You may see proof, but I do not, except in cases that violate our guaranteed rights.

Gee, then let me give you one obvious example: there used to be a great stigma attached to having a child out of wedlock. Now it’s just a “lifestyle choice”, and though it might suit the individual to not be stigmatized, the society pays the price for the very high number of fatherless children – fatherless children are far more likely to engage in criminal and self-destructive behaviors. More government intrusion…

Another biggie – abortion. A diseased individualism says that I can have sex whenever I feel like it, and I will simply murder, with the legal sanction of our society, the life of the logical and entirely predictable outcome of having sex – the baby.

You don’t see that as a problem? Do you think abortion is a good thing?

Women have greater (name removed by moderator)ut in the workplace; people are not as stigmatized for dressing outside of the gender norms, etc.

I’m personally rather in favor of stigmas, as they tend to protect society. And frankly I don’t much care for men dressing up as women, so that’s a stigma I’d just as soon keep. Gender norms in dressing may seem restrictive to you, but again they serve a societal purpose: they recognize that men and women are different.

 

[Lovesa]

No, it is not clear – what about the rights of Muslim parents to decide what they feel is best for their own girls? You would deny them their religious freedom and their parental rights? What is the basis for your deciding that consent trumps religious expression and parental rights? Where do you see that in the Constitution? Just wondering…

Genital mutilation changes the body in a way the child cannot consent to. It’s also the position of some parents that they have the right to beat their children, but we do not grant them that right. This is provided for in the law.

And what is the basis of those rights in our law? Do you know what that is?

It has only the basis of the laws enacted. However, if one considers the spirit of the constitution, it also offers no contradiction.

Gee, then let me give you one obvious example: there used to be a great stigma attached to having a child out of wedlock. Now it’s just a “lifestyle choice”, and though it might suit the individual to not be stigmatized, the society pays the price for the very high number of fatherless children – fatherless children are far more likely to engage in criminal and self-destructive behaviors. More government intrusion…

Is it so right that women who have children out of wedlock should be stigmatized? If done intentionally, there is often the intent to stay with the father and raise the child in a good way. If the father is out of the picture for some reason, these women need support and understanding, not the condemnation of society.

Another biggie – abortion. A diseased individualism says that I can have sex whenever I feel like it, and I will simply murder, with the legal sanction of our society, the life of the logical and entirely predictable outcome of having sex – the baby.

You don’t see that as a problem? Do you think abortion is a good thing?

Again, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Abortion interferes with the “life” part.

I’m personally rather in favor of stigmas, as they tend to protect society. And frankly I don’t much care for men dressing up as women, so that’s a stigma I’d just as soon keep. Gender norms in dressing may seem restrictive to you, but again they serve a societal purpose: they recognize that men and women are different.

“Men dressing up as women” is a rather extreme example, isn’t it? Sometimes the issue is as simple as women wearing trousers others find too boyish; sometimes it’s a man in a kilt. Gender norms in dressing seem restrictive to me because, while they may originally function to identify men and women as different, often that is not the purpose. A woman dressing in a more masculine way is not pretending she is no different than men–She is expressing her femininity in a way that suits her personally. She may also be less feminine than some other women, as women who wear dresses often are perhaps more feminine. There is variety even within gender, and people should not be condemned for expressing that, in my view.

 

[Austringer]

Genital mutilation changes the body in a way the child cannot consent to. It’s also the position of some parents that they have the right to beat their children, but we do not grant them that right. This is provided for in the law.

Let me make it clear – I am not advocating for allowing genital mutilation. But you seem to be missing a main point, which is that the law, in this country, is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs about human rights. That is why we would not permit genital mutilation, regardless of it being a Muslim tradition. Secularism would saw off the branch upon which our laws have a rational basis. What are you left with, then? You can’t provide an explanation for why we have laws against animal cruelty – that’s because it has a Judeo-Christian basis, not a secular basis (look up Aquinas on animal cruelty).

Is it so right that women who have children out of wedlock should be stigmatized? If done intentionally, there is often the intent to stay with the father and raise the child in a good way. If the father is out of the picture for some reason, these women need support and understanding, not the condemnation of society.

You said that you could not see how a diseased individualism leads to collectivism, and I gave you an example. In this case, the desires of individuals to not feel stigmatized leads to more of the activity – out-of-wedlock births. (Of course there are other factors, such as the loss of respect for virginity and the loss of the stigma attached to extra-marital sex.) Fatherless children, we know from countless statistics, are more inclined to engage in criminal and self-destructive behaviors. That leads to more government in our lives. It also is a huge factor in poverty, which also leads to more government. That was my argument – why don’t you address it, instead of getting side-tracked?

Again, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Abortion interferes with the “life” part.

The legal system doesn’t think it does. So the Constitution hasn’t been a reliable protection for 40 million aborted babies, has it? It appears to have serious limitations.

There is variety even within gender, and people should not be condemned for expressing that, in my view.

That’s not what I am referring to. You mentioned “gender norms”, and the variations you mention fall within those norms. Since you don’t like gender norms, it was reasonable for me to assume you disagreed that men and women should dress according to the norms for their gender – i.e., there should be no stigma or restriction on cross-dressing.

 

[Lovesa]

Let me make it clear – I am not advocating for allowing genital mutilation. But you seem to be missing a main point, which is that the law, in this country, is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs about human rights. That is why we would not permit genital mutilation, regardless of it being a Muslim tradition. Secularism would saw off the branch upon which our laws have a rational basis. What are you left with, then? You can’t provide an explanation for why we have laws against animal cruelty – that’s because it has a Judeo-Christian basis, not a secular basis (look up Aquinas on animal cruelty).

You said that you could not see how a diseased individualism leads to collectivism, and I gave you an example. In this case, the desires of individuals to not feel stigmatized leads to more of the activity – out-of-wedlock births. (Of course there are other factors, such as the loss of respect for virginity and the loss of the stigma attached to extra-marital sex.) Fatherless children, we know from countless statistics, are more inclined to engage in criminal and self-destructive behaviors. That leads to more government in our lives. It also is a huge factor in poverty, which also leads to more government. That was my argument – why don’t you address it, instead of getting side-tracked?

The legal system doesn’t think it does. So the Constitution hasn’t been a reliable protection for 40 million aborted babies, has it? It appears to have serious limitations.

That’s not what I am referring to. You mentioned “gender norms”, and the variations you mention fall within those norms. Since you don’t like gender norms, it was reasonable for me to assume you disagreed that men and women should dress according to the norms for their gender – i.e., there should be no stigma or restriction on cross-dressing.

I’m not so sure I’m totally against gender norms as much as I’m not fond of the idea that people should be stigmatized for the way they dress, however that is.

I’ve already stated that law does not need a religious foundation–here I’m not sure we’re going to agree.

As for the 40 million, the Constitution has not helped, no. Perhaps resources could be devoted to proving that the aborted babies are just that–babies?

As for “getting sidetracked”, I hardly think I am. I am concerned with the people the laws and stigmas you support harm. Few people intentionally have children they know will not have a father; stigmatizing single mothers does nothing to help anyone, except to make people feel guilty. In regards to these statistics about poverty and crime etc., I have yet to see these studies people continually talk about. While single motherhood is a drain on society, what are we to do about it? Ban it? This is not something one can ban.

However, considering that the basis of our understanding of law is different, I’m not sure there’s agreement to be found here. After all, I have yet to see that secularism (or “diseased individualism”, however one wishes to define that) invariably causes harmful social change. It’s bad that single mothers don’t have the stigma they used to? It’s bad that a man who, confident in his gender identity, likes to dress girly now and then? I’m afraid I disagree on both points, because, though there may be a negative impact on the children, these phenomena will always be with us.

To put it in brief: No. That is a good thing. Crime is not easy to determine, and, if anything, social movements should be turned to to encourage two-parent families, not legislation. Not all change must come from the government. After all, I vote my way, you vote yours. Democracy. (I’m aware the US is a republic. Just flows better that way.)

 

[Austringer]

I’m not so sure I’m totally against gender norms as much as I’m not fond of the idea that people should be stigmatized for the way they dress, however that is.

You brought up the subject of gender norms, so presumably it matters to you. It doesn’t to me, except to say that gender norms reflect a simple reality: men and women are different. A cross-dresser is telling me, by his or her actions, something about themselves. Based on that “something”, it is reasonable for me to act accordingly. As a Catholic, I am to treat all people with kindness, as Jesus resides in that person. However, I might not hire a man if he comes to a job interview wearing high heels and a feather boa. You can call it “stigmatizing” if you want, but I call it common sense.

I’ve already stated that law does not need a religious foundation–here I’m not sure we’re going to agree.

Sorry, I haven’t read all of the posts here, so I did not know that that was your position. In a sense you are correct: natural law is the foundation for our laws. However, aspects of that are ultimately religiously based: you mentioned the words from the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes “inalienable rights” that were “endowed” by our Creator. Take away the Creator, and you have no inalienable rights – you have rights that some people uphold, while others don’t. Basic human rights that do not come from a source other than man can be taken away by man just as easily – just declare that some people aren’t humans (like the Nazis did with Jews, like we do with the unborn).

As for “getting sidetracked”, I hardly think I am.

Yes, you are. You said you did not accept my premise (that a diseased individualism leads to collectivism) and so I gave you examples. You have not yet explained to me why, then, my premise is flawed, or why my examples do not support my premise. Instead you are going off on a tangent – because you “care”…aww, how sweet! But why don’t you address my premise?

Few people intentionally have children they know will not have a father; stigmatizing single mothers does nothing to help anyone, except to make people feel guilty.

Your assertions are simply not supported by statistics. My personal experience reflects the national statistics: I know several women who deliberately had children with no intention of being with the father, and who are on government assistance. No behavior both reflects and impacts the continued level of welfare dependency and government spending on the poor more than illegitimacy. Guilt can be a good thing – it is the sound of the conscience telling you “don’t do this” or “don’t do this again”.

In regards to these statistics about poverty and crime etc., I have yet to see these studies people continually talk about.

Then maybe you should look them up – they’re not hard to find. Let me give you some statistics:

• Fatherless children are 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders. At present, fatherless children comprise 85 percent of all children with behavioral disorders.
• Fatherless children are 32 times more likely to run away from home. Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children come from homes with no father present.
• Seventy-one percent of all highschool dropouts come from homes without dads.
• Fatherless children are five times more likely to commit suicide. Indeed, 63 percent of all youth suicides are from homes without a father.
• Children growing up in homes without a father are 20 times more likely to end up in prison than those from intact families.
• Children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children raised by their biological parents in intact marriages.
• Overall, approximately 80 percent of long-term child poverty in the United States occurs among children from broken or never-formed families.
  (Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov)

After all, I have yet to see that secularism (or “diseased individualism”, however one wishes to define that) invariably causes harmful social change.

First off, the two are not synonymous. Nor did I say “invariably” in regards to secularism. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, so you understand what I am saying?

It’s bad that single mothers don’t have the stigma they used to? It’s bad that a man who, confident in his gender identity, likes to dress girly now and then?

Do you honestly think that is the thrust, the point, of my argument? If so, we can’t really discuss anything, because you’re not able to comprehend my point, and I don’t know how to spell it out any clearer.

 

[Lovesa]

You brought up the subject of gender norms, so presumably it matters to you. It doesn’t to me, except to say that gender norms reflect a simple reality: men and women are different. A cross-dresser is telling me, by his or her actions, something about themselves. Based on that “something”, it is reasonable for me to act accordingly. As a Catholic, I am to treat all people with kindness, as Jesus resides in that person. However, I might not hire a man if he comes to a job interview wearing high heels and a feather boa. You can call it “stigmatizing” if you want, but I call it common sense.

…

First off, the two are not synonymous. Nor did I say “invariably” in regards to secularism. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, so you understand what I am saying?

Do you honestly think that is the thrust, the point, of my argument? If so, we can’t really discuss anything, because you’re not able to comprehend my point, and I don’t know how to spell it out any clearer.

**I think the point of your argument is that “a diseased individualism leads to collectivism”, and thus, harmful social change, as you pointed out with single mothers. ** You think that stigmas support norms that help society. Have I got this right?

However, I disagree with your premise, which is in bold. Having no father in a househole is bad for the kids–got it, I know. I have not denied this. However, what are we to do about it? Sure, I care. I don’t do it just to be sweet, and I don’t do it to deny facts. However, I think it is prudent to question stigmatizing people for things that are often beyond their control. As for women deliberately having children who will have no father, are they informed of the risks they are taking? Surely public education could be better served to preventing this than any kind of judgement from the community.

So, if we “cannot discuss anything” because I do not concede your point that “a diseased individualism leads to collectivism”, I’m afraid you’re right. However, it is not because I am “unable to comprehend” your point. Something makes society a little less stable, so measures must be taken to prevent that something. Agreed. However, what measures should be taken?

This is the source of my disagreement, and you seem unwilling to move beyond insisting that “a diseased individualism leads to collectivism”, which I have not conceded in all cases, based on my own belief that the individualism you name is not diseased, only misinformed. A mother who has no husband puts her children at risk, yes, OK. Do we have the right to deny her her children? How can we possibly stop her, except through laws or societal stigmas that show no compassion for her situation?

I’m not sure how this factors into my main premise, either. That is, that we should be careful when taking care of social problems. I don’t claim we shouldn’t take measures to deal with them, but we should be careful and not go too far.

After all, I have no real interest in the situation of single mothers except where I can be of assistance to them. I have no stake in it politically, and so my opinion on laws regarding them is moot. My point of view on stigmas is based on what I think best benefits the society. My point of view on gender norms is that people should dress as they please. Feel free not to hire the man in the feather boa; I will, because he doesn’t distress me. The only thing I really mean to assert in my discussion is that, unchecked, the eschewing of personal freedom for societal good can go too far. We should be careful and responsible voters and judge where it goes too far. That is all; single mothers are not the meat of my argument any more than they are of yours, and I do not mind if they are encouraged not to have fatherless children, so long as they are not condemned in an uncharitable way for doing so.

 

[Austringer]

I think the point of your argument is that “a diseased individualism leads to collectivism”, and thus, harmful social change, as you pointed out with single mothers.

That’s fairly correct – specifically, however, the “harmful social change” I meant was increased government intrusion into our lives, taking away our freedoms (as the government becomes the Nanny state, taking over the role of the father). I gave you more than just one example, by the way – casual attitudes towards marriage and divorce were also mentioned.

So – do you agree or disagree with that premise, and why? Give me examples that show my conclusions are in error.

You think that stigmas support norms that help society. Have I got this right?

They did in the past, which is why I mentioned them. They served as a sort of regulator of social behavior. They still exist, of course – there is a great stigma attached to smoking, for example. Stigmas are still with us, but they are simply attached to other activities.

However, I disagree with your premise, which is in bold.

But you need to provide some sort of support here for your disagreement. WHY do you disagree with my premise? WHY do my examples not support my premise?

However, what are we to do about it?

I haven’t addressed that at all. That might be the subject for a different thread.

However, it is not because I am “unable to comprehend” your point.

I am not sure that you do, because you seem to be fixed on tangents (are stigmas good, what do we do to solve problems, etc), and have not given reasons for why you think my premise is false.

This is the source of my disagreement, and you seem unwilling to move beyond insisting that “a diseased individualism leads to collectivism”, which I have not conceded in all cases, based on my own belief that the individualism you name is not diseased, only misinformed.

Explain, please. Specifically, what is the difference between a “diseased” individualism (my term) and one that is “misinformed”? Aren’t we talking about the same thing?

The only thing I really mean to assert in my discussion is that, unchecked, the eschewing of personal freedom for societal good can go too far.

Of course it can. Obviously – that tends to be the nature of any “unchecked” societal pressures. That is why the family is such an important check to such pressures (healthy families lead to healthy societies, which don’t need as much government intrusion).

 

[Lovesa]

That’s fairly correct – specifically, however, the “harmful social change” I meant was increased government intrusion into our lives, taking away our freedoms (as the government becomes the Nanny state, taking over the role of the father). I gave you more than just one example, by the way – casual attitudes towards marriage and divorce were also mentioned.

So – do you agree or disagree with that premise, and why? Give me examples that show my conclusions are in error.

OK, so you claim that “harmful social change” increases government intrusion in our lives. It does not follow that the social changes you mention are direct causes of this government intrusion. I have no support for excessive government intrusion, and it is not so much that women who get child support have the government as father. This conclusion is not indicated by the premise.

They did in the past, which is why I mentioned them. They served as a sort of regulator of social behavior. They still exist, of course – there is a great stigma attached to smoking, for example. Stigmas are still with us, but they are simply attached to other activities.

Agreed. However, stigmas are best reserved for things that actually harm society, not the way people dress.

But you need to provide some sort of support here for your disagreement. WHY do you disagree with my premise? WHY do my examples not support my premise?

Your examples do not support your premise because they rely on the idea that everything of dubious contribution to society needs to be banned or otherwise controlled. I disagree with your premise because stigmas and laws, in my view, are not a constructive way to deal with negative social change. There are better ways.

I haven’t addressed that at all. That might be the subject for a different thread.

Agreed; it is not for this thread. However, this is where my disagreement with your premise comes from. The point of this thread is contribution to politics, in which I find no room for talk of societal norms as needing to impact legislation.

I am not sure that you do, because you seem to be fixed on tangents (are stigmas good, what do we do to solve problems, etc), and have not given reasons for why you think my premise is false.

My so-called “tangents” are reasons your premise is false. Single mothers, people without respect for virginity, have rights. They have a right to raise their children without ridicule. I do not support government intervention in these things, unless the poverty line is at issue.

Explain, please. Specifically, what is the difference between a “diseased” individualism (my term) and one that is “misinformed”? Aren’t we talking about the same thing?

“Diseased” is something that would probably be known and noticed by the person holding it; someone may mean well but be misinformed. Disease is far harder to cure, and is also not a helpful term for people who hold these so-called “diseased” views.

We may be talking about very similar things, but I don’t think it’s the answer to sick the government on these people, the government being the focus of this thread.

Of course it can. Obviously – that tends to be the nature of any “unchecked” societal pressures. That is why the family is such an important check to such pressures (healthy families lead to healthy societies, which don’t need as much government intrusion).

I agree. We need healthy families. However, on a thread about the impact of faith on government/legal action and politics, is this really a political issue? What’s the point of arguing about families when one cannot legislate healthy families into existence? I fail to see how you’re relating to the topic at hand.

If you mean that “diseased individualism”, as you call it, should be checked by positive social change, agreed. However, people who hold the lifestyles you oppose do not deserve to be condemned by society; they need to be gently helped and persuaded by people who know better. That is not politics; that is just Christian charity. We can try, but that is the best we can do.

 

[Austringer]

OK, so you claim that “harmful social change” increases government intrusion in our lives. QUOTE]

Let me correct you: I said that a flawed individualism can lead to collectivism.

It does not follow that the social changes you mention are direct causes of this government intrusion./

Yes, it does follow. Did you not read the statistics from the US Census bureau that I provided you? It is incredible to me that you will deny such basic facts. So let me repeat them:

• Fatherless children are 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders. At present, fatherless children comprise 85 percent of all children with behavioral disorders.
• Fatherless children are 32 times more likely to run away from home. Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children come from homes with no father present.
• Seventy-one percent of all highschool dropouts come from homes without dads.
• Fatherless children are five times more likely to commit suicide. Indeed, 63 percent of all youth suicides are from homes without a father.
• Children growing up in homes without a father are 20 times more likely to end up in prison than those from intact families.
• Children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children raised by their biological parents in intact marriages.
• Overall, approximately 80 percent of long-term child poverty in the United States occurs among children from broken or never-formed families.

The family structure has been weakened by a flawed individualism that is conflict with the long-term committment to marriage that raising kids in a stable environment requires. Easy divorce (MY needs aren’t being met), the prevalence of extra-marital sex (when I want it, with no consideration for the consequences), and other manifestations of a flawed individualism have led to a rise in divorce, single-family households, and abortion. Just how you can deny this, or claim that this is not a problem, is beyond me.

Agreed. However, stigmas are best reserved for things that actually harm society, not the way people dress.

I don’t know why you’re so caught up in this subject. As I mentioned before, it’s not a big concern of mine. There are places and situations that call for appropriate dress, and that doesn’t seem to me like a big deal, but somehow this seems to bother you. I don’t know why. But if I accept your notion that “stigmas are best reserved for things that actually harm society”, then why do you think it’s a good thing that single parenthood, which has been shown to be harmful to society, not be stigmatized?

Your examples do not support your premise because they rely on the idea that everything of dubious contribution to society needs to be banned or otherwise controlled.

Not once did I suggest that “everything of dubious contribution to society needs to be banned or otherwise controlled”. That you think my examples “rely” on that is proof that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend what I am saying.

However, this is where my disagreement with your premise comes from.

It is unrelated to my premise. You don’t seem to understand that.

The point of this thread is contribution to politics, in which I find no room for talk of societal norms as needing to impact legislation.

If this particular thread does not address the particular concerns you have, why don’t you create a new thread with this as a specific topic? It seems ludicrous to complain that a thread doesn’t address what you want it to, when the subject line would indicate that its focus is elsewhere.

My so-called “tangents” are reasons your premise is false.

Explain your logic, please.

Single mothers, people without respect for virginity, have rights. They have a right to raise their children without ridicule.

No one here has suggested that they don’t. Why are you railing against a position that I never posited?

We may be talking about very similar things, but I don’t think it’s the answer to sick the government on these people, the government being the focus of this thread.

This is getting more and more ludicrous. I never thought that the answer was to “sick the government on these people” – I have no idea what you’re referring to. I don’t think you do either.

However, on a thread about the impact of faith on government/legal action and politics, is this really a political issue?

Did I ever say this was a political issue? More evidence that you do not understand the subject – perhaps the rules of logic and logical fallacies are unfamiliar to you?

Anyway, I can see that I’m not getting anywhere. I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Have a nice day…

 

[Lovesa]

Let me correct you: I said that a flawed individualism can lead to collectivism.

And I disagreed.

Yes, it does follow.
…
Just how you can deny this, or claim that this is not a problem, is beyond me.

When have I denied your facts? I haven’t. However, none of these statistics point to your so-called “increased government intrusion in our lives”. Perhaps there are a few more women on welfare, yes, but it is not forced on anyone.

I don’t know why you’re so caught up in this subject. As I mentioned before, it’s not a big concern of mine… not be stigmatized?

I assure you, I am not particularly concerned with that or with any of your mentioned stigmas. I merely am trying to cover all the bases in your discussion.

Not once did I suggest that “everything of dubious contribution to society needs to be banned or otherwise controlled”. That you think my examples “rely” on that is proof that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend what I am saying.

Again with insinuating I don’t understand? Honestly? You need to understand that this individualism you’re talking about is related to things that needn’t be fixed by legislation. This is not in any way related to this thread on secular laws. Laws. Not stigmas. Not right and wrong. Laws.

It is unrelated to my premise. You don’t seem to understand that.

Your arguments are unrelated to your premise? Refuting your arguments is unrelated to your premise? That is so logically flawed it’s painful. You premise assumes that individualism (vaguely defined enough) causes collectivism (also vaguely defined), a sentence shoved full of so much vagueness it cannot be properly defended. How is the destigmatization of single mothers an example of “collectivism”?

If this particular thread does not address the particular concerns you have, why don’t you create a new thread with this as a specific topic? It seems ludicrous to complain that a thread doesn’t address what you want it to, when the subject line would indicate that its focus is elsewhere.

Hold up; you’re the one arguing about right and wrong and failing to mention laws in any way. I have no interest in this thread beyond reading other people’s opinions and offering my own, which is “Feel free to let religion influence your vote, but be careful about it, because people who disagree with you have rights too.” Beyond this general opinion, I have no interest in discussing other matters. If they must be used as illustrations, I put up with it. That is all.

As for starting a new thread, I’m not complaining. I merely wonder why you persist in your non-law related arguments in a thread specifically about laws.

Explain your logic, please.

Single mothers are not a collective. Gay couples, abiding by the law, are not a collective. Where is this collectivism you claim must occur? Since you reject my arguments against the arguments you claim prove your premise, I must use your own word, which makes no sense in the context of your examples. As for single motherhood increasing government intrusion in our lives, this is hardly the case, and your statistics do nothing to prove otherwise. They merely point out life problems, not legislation pushed on the innocent.

No one here has suggested that they don’t. Why are you railing against a position that I never posited?

You’ll pardon me, but I’m hardly passionate enough to “rail” against anything. Everyone has a right to be treated with dignity. Stigmas and societal pressure go against that. In practice, your stigmas can become inhumane quickly. After all, Americans live in a country that used to put red As on adulteresses.

This is getting more and more ludicrous. I never thought that the answer was to “sick the government on these people” – I have no idea what you’re referring to. I don’t think you do either.

I am referring to the nature of this thread–laws. Legislation. Why on earth would you argue about something you don’t want the law to take care of on a thread about law? I’m simply assuming that you have not offtracked the thread with your argument, and that you have some kind of legal basis in mind. If not, I guess I’ll bid you adieu before this whole thing gets any more off-topic, because I am not in any way interested in discussing social action. That is entirely different from legislation, and not the issue at hand.

Did I ever say this was a political issue? More evidence that you do not understand the subject – perhaps the rules of logic and logical fallacies are unfamiliar to you?

I suggest you read the OP if you’ve forgotten this was a thread about politics.

Anyway, I can see that I’m not getting anywhere. I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Have a nice day…

I’m beginning to think you don’t understand what this thread is about. You may also note that, in a discussion, a person’s failure to forsake their position and agree with you after a few comments back and forth does not mean they are unable to understand you. It means they disagree. It means they do not believe your premise is valid, and condescension will get you nowhere.

Wishing you also a lovely day, and farewell. This thread does not need us taking it off-topic, as it must if we are to talk on your terms.

 

[jmcrae]

Overall you and I agree about the virtues of limited government: all I am saying is that if the government allows or promotes immorality, it will then set the stage for increased government intrusion, as the government then takes over the role the family used to, and tries to contain the resulting social pathologies. So, ironically enough, the pursuit of a skewed view of freedom (license)leads to the loss of real freedom.

That’s such a good point - notice how, prior to the legalization of easy divorce, kids could run and play outside pretty much from sun up to sun down - today, with easy divorce, children’s lives are dictated by the day care and school schedules - they have almost no freedom at all, simply to play.

Error has no rights.

Amen to that.

 

[Austringer]

That’s such a good point - notice how, prior to the legalization of easy divorce, kids could run and play outside pretty much from sun up to sun down - today, with easy divorce, children’s lives are dictated by the day care and school schedules - they have almost no freedom at all, simply to play.

Thanks – yes, there is quite a difference. When I was a kid growing up, I knew of NO ONE, in my class or in my neighborhood, whose parents were divorced.

Amen to that.

Thanks again – I’m afraid the girl I was debating with here was not able to see that.

 

[Austringer]

As for single motherhood increasing government intrusion in our lives, this is hardly the case, and your statistics do nothing to prove otherwise.

I’m guessing that you are quite young, and therefore do not pay much, if any, taxes. If you did, you would be far, far more aware of government spending on the problems resulting from broken families than you seem to be. And I provided stats stating the criminal behavior of fatherless children – do you not realize that it is the government who runs prisons, paid for by taxpayers?

I suggest you read the OP if you’ve forgotten this was a thread about politics.

You misunderstood what I was saying – I was rejecting the idea that the original post was about political solutions to the problem of fatherless homes. That is what I thought you were referring to – my apologies if I misread you.

You may also note that, in a discussion, a person’s failure to forsake their position and agree with you after a few comments back and forth does not mean they are unable to understand you. It means they disagree.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. But when you have not refuted any of my premises, or pointed out the flaws in my conclusions, and simply say “I disagree” without demonstrating the flaws in my reasoning, I am left to conclude that you either do not understand the position I am asserting, or you are unfamiliar with logical arguments and fallacies. This might be of help to you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

 

[Lovesa]

I’m guessing that you are quite young, and therefore do not pay much, if any, taxes. If you did, you would be far, far more aware of government spending on the problems resulting from broken families than you seem to be. And I provided stats stating the criminal behavior of fatherless children – do you not realize that it is the government who runs prisons, paid for by taxpayers?

I pay my fair share; I may not own a house yet, but I get paycheck deductions like anyone, etc. I get enough complaining about taxes from my parents as well, so I know how much taxes are affected by problems like this. I merely find the money spent worthwhile in comparison with the impact of not spending it.

You misunderstood what I was saying – I was rejecting the idea that the original post was about political solutions to the problem of fatherless homes. That is what I thought you were referring to – my apologies if I misread you.

I guess I misunderstood. Your statement about fatherless homes was in relation to proving your larger argument. Your larger argument was argued against through it, not just that particular point. In a thread about religious view impacting people trying to change or pass laws, I assumed we were talking about laws. Otherwise, we’re off topic and should cut it out.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. But when you have not refuted any of my premises, or pointed out the flaws in my conclusions, and simply say “I disagree” without demonstrating the flaws in my reasoning, I am left to conclude that you either do not understand the position I am asserting, or you are unfamiliar with logical arguments and fallacies. This might be of help to you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Pointing out that laws do nothing to stop the problems you point out refutes your points in the context of this thread. As for the “diseased individualism” you’re so fond of bringing up, individual rights do not have to spiral out of control. When one allows for individual rights in society, they do not invariably lead to things like you mention. Sure, single motherhood is less stigmatized, perhaps leading to more single motherhood. Sure, this negatively impacts society. However, increased taxing is not collectivism.
Note what collectivism is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
Paying some amount of taxes to provide for our less fortunate is not collectivism; it does not go far enough. As for the notion that the few examples you have given prove that “diseased individualism” leads to negative social change, granted, in certain situations. However, this is not always the case (as given in the manner of dress example), and it is not fair to generalize.

You might also check out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

At any rate, if you are not talking about laws we are heinously off topic. It is not fair to the thread to continue discussing things that are off topic. Thus, I see no point in discussing social change with you further, as I am not in the habit of derailing threads from their original intent. That is all; I cannot be more clear.

 

[Theophilus777]

The purpose of law is to preserve order and peace in a society. We have alot of history behind us and so we can see that when law is aligned with the will of God, there is order and peace. You can get into apologetics about why Christianity is superior but that’s a whole other can of worms. Law must be based on truth. What is true? Truth is revealed to us by God. Jesus said He *was *the truth.
There’s an awful lot to say about this. When secular law is NOT based upon God’s truth, society will soon be in danger of breaking down. We can already see this in U.S. society. Our country is considerably less peaceful, to say the least, then it has been for a very long time. That is because we operate more out of a relativistic notion of truth and truth is not relative. Truth is objective and we cannot arbitrarily choose to create our own personal and individual truths. The downfall of any democracy comes when in the interests of pleasure a people decide to live according to individual and thus contradictory interpretations of truth.
The point is that law must be based upon truth. The founding fathers all came from varying philosophical persuasion but the country was originally governed by principles which were much closer in alignment with Christianity than it is governed today, which explains alot of the chaos here.

Ultimately it’s a defense of the truth. There is such a thing as truth and it is objective, not subjective. If truth was subjective it could not logically be defended in a public setting.

 

[Austringer]

I merely find the money spent worthwhile in comparison with the impact of not spending it.

This illustrates the adage, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.” Yes, I’m sure you FEEL that the money spent is worthwhile, but can you demonstrate that with actual data? I provided you with data from the US Census Bureau to support my assertion; can you provide data to support your position?

In a thread about religious view impacting people trying to change or pass laws, I assumed we were talking about laws. Otherwise, we’re off topic and should cut it out.

My assertion was that a flawed individualism leads to increased government intrusion into our lives. That is certainly on-topic.

Pointing out that laws do nothing to stop the problems you point out refutes your points in the context of this thread.

You claim that, but do not offer anything to prove it. Since it has never been illegal to be a single parent, you have no data on which to base your assertion. Since I was not proposing that the law make single parenthood illegal, it is a moot point anyway. So you haven’t refuted anything.

As for the “diseased individualism” you’re so fond of bringing up, individual rights do not have to spiral out of control.

Did I ever suggest that individual rights necessarily spiral out-of-control? No, I did not – because I don’t believe that they necessarily do. So you are arguing against a position I never took.

When one allows for individual rights in society, they do not invariably lead to things like you mention.

Again, I never stated this, nor would I, as I don’t believe individual rights invariably lead to the things I mentioned.

This is getting very tiresome: this is not an adult discussion. I feel like I am discussing quantum physics with a first-grader.