By The Right Scoop


Santorum says the 10th amendment doesn’t give states the right to do anything they want because he says this country is based on moral law:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    You’re not running for president of the Bible. You’re running for the president of the United States.

    As president, your bible is the Constitution. That is the document you go by when making your decisions.

    Period.

    • Caleb Steele

      I didn’t hear the Bible mentioned…did you?

      • Anonymous

        Not in that particular exchange, but if you know anything about Santorum, you know that religion comes first, country comes second. His moral authority is the Bible.

        If that’s how you feel in your private life, that’s fine. But I’m not interested in someone who thinks their own sense of morality can trump the Constitution.

        We have enough liberals who think their own sense of morality is insulted by the Constitution. It’s wrong no matter what side does it.

        • Caleb Steele

          ok…but you’re making a moral claim now, right? Is your claim about Santorum’s grounding of morality – that it is wrong – itself justified by the constitution? If not, then it seems you (and “The Ancient”) believe that “as a matter of law, something else supersedes the constitution”…right?

          • orthodoxyordeath

            They believe in cultural libertarianism, the Ron Paul-esque idea which is basically this: According to them (to paraphrase Jonah Goldberg) whatever ideology, religion, cult, belief, creed, fad, hobby, or personal fantasy you harbor is acceptable as long as you don’t impose it on anybody else, especially with the government. You want to be a Klingon? Great! Attend the Church of Satan? Hey man, whatever floats your boat! You want to be a “Buddhist for Jesus”? Sure, mix and match, man; we don’t care. Hell, you can even be an observant Jew, a devout Catholic or a faithful Baptist, or a lifelong heroin addict — *they’re all the same*, in the eyes of a cultural libertarian. Just remember: Keep it to yourself if you can…the flip side of this is that cultural libertarianism is essentially a form of arrogant nihilism. There are no universal truths or even group truths (i.e., the authority of tradition, patriotism, etc.) — only personal ones…We can pick from across the vast menu of human diversity — from all religions and cultures, real and imagined — until we find one that fits our own personal preferences

            • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

              We are endowed by our Created with Certain Inalienable Rights, Among those are Life Liberty AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

              Of it My Personal Happiness means I am a Klingon, or a Buddhist for Jesus what right do you have to tell me I cant be?

              • orthodoxyordeath

                That all is fine. Your individual choices that have no affect on me, I don’t care about. If a couple wants to have homosexual relations, that’s their right, but they shouldn’t impose their ideas on the rest of society. Being a Klingon or Buddhist for Jesus is benign. Being a heroin-addict, a pimp for a set of prostitutes, etc, is not right.

                Furthermore, under libertarian ideas, we can also legalize abortion. That’s a no-no.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  I am assuming you mean “gay marriage” would be “imposing” on society. This is a FALSE pemise that Statist Conservatives love.

                  The LAW should be non-secular as such marriage is a legal contract/partnership between consenting adults, if your RELIGION wants to define it has only between a man and a women, and if your RELIGION only wants to recognize those marriages then you are free to do so, but to codify your RELIGION in to law means that it is YOU that is IMPOSING your ideas on the rest of society, not the other way around.

                  As to abortion, that is a Hot Topic in the Libertarian Community, and is one of the few topics that have split the community. I mainly come down to a position that as soon as the “fetus” has a central nervous system then it is a live person and should be protected, although that position has changed somewhat over the years. But there are many many ProLife Libertarians

                  As a side note many conservatives say that even using a condom or birth control is abortion and should be banned. If your one of those then I would strongly disagree with you on that position.

                • Anonymous

                  “marriage is a legal contract/partnership between consenting adults”

                  No it’s not just that! Marriage has always been about family, children in particular. It’s the natural law institution whereby children are nurtured and cared for which makes for stable societies. Rome was a perfect example where children were devalued as well as the institution of marriage and collapse was inevitable. Easy divorce and remarriage was the vehicle for the collapse… the necessary component having negative impact on Children. When the children are damaged, a healthy marital legacy will absolutely not follow. This is what makes children the collateral damage and destroys the society. Sweden is a perfect example in the Western World where social breakdown and collapse are happening exponentially because traditional marriages have been demonized and become socially unacceptable because of the far left ethic being imposed and practiced.

                  All societies have same sex marriage, religious or non-religious… so your statement on imposing religious morals is flatly wrong.

                  P.S. To be clear… the gay marriage push came from the radical feminist/lesbianist agenda. As with the gay agenda, it is usually the lesbians who push the hardest and gay men were dragged kicking and screaming into the gay mariage camp. So an extreme lesbianist agenda is what has forced the codification of gay marriage across the Western World. Morality is never neutral. So who’s the moral army now?

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  No your blurring Religious and Moral ideologies with the rule of law.

                  under the basis of LAW marriage is a contract/partnership, only slightly more complex then a business partnership, and that is how it SHOULD BE under LAW.

                  Now if your church or religion says that is can be only a man and women, and must be for life or you can have a “Catholic” marriage I have no problems with that.

                  There is and should be what is permissible by the government and what is permissible by the free association of individuals,

                • Anonymous

                  You fail to comprehend my friend. Marriage and natural law which supports it is independent of religion. You are hung up on the religious aspect which was not in my comments. Go back and read it. I sincerely hope you can understand that marriage has validity totally outside your obviously tendentious libertarian view that it is simply a contract between customers.

                  I’ll repeat it again for you. Marriage is about children and the family, their health, development and well being, and ultimately about stability of the society. It is only from a utilitarian (and in your case libertarian) view about contract. Contract is the least of what marriage is about.

                  And P.S. In case you may have missed it… the present day gay marriage pushers have made gay marriage a moral crusade. Hence my comment, “Who’s the Moral Army now?”

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  My only concern it how government and law impede upon liberty, you have a personal belief that marriage is for the “family” and that a “family” must be a Mother, a Father and Children. For the most part I agree with that definition, HOWEVER I do not believe the government or law should force either of our beliefs on to anyone else, if another group of people want to define family as 2 men living together it is not my place to tell them otherwise since it does not directly harm me or my property

                • Anonymous

                  Don’t be fooled… marriage is not about personal belief. It’s about established and tested values and norms… not beliefs. And family most certainly is about a mother and father. Only a mother and father can reproduce a family. There is no other structure… and no politically correct fantasy dwellers can change that fact.

                  Again it is not about beliefs, unless you accept empirical evidence and incorporate that as a “belief” structure. It is in the interest for the society, hence the government, to protect and nurture marriage within the sole confines of man/woman/family definition. A gay relationship does not a marriage make. Call it something else, legalize it in some registered form, but don’t cheapen and make irrelevant authentic marriage when gay relationship do not fit the criteria.

                  I am not be against registered gay relationships. I am, however against registered straight relationship when kids are involved… in Canada we call them common-law… I’m not sure what they call them in the US. I will go so far as to say the recognition of common law relationships have done more detriment to the estate of marriage than gay marriages have. But gay relationships registered in some form would reflect a reality already existing.

                  But gay relationships by their very nature do not advance family in any way whatsoever and equating them to real marriage is definitely something we should not aspire to. Real marriage is the key to society’s longevity and continue viability, with male and female modelling toward the children. Marriage has always been about children, not the co-habitating adults.When marriage is assailed and families broken up, society descends. The proof is the last fifty years of family breakdown. I don’t have to enumerate the consequences, unless one is absolutely unwilling to recognize the damage.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  Now your into collectivism, where the good of the community is more important than the good of the individual. In your vision that means a Man/Woman family, what if the good of the community means no fat people, do you force everyone to diet? What if the “society” says that meat is bad, do you force vegetarianism on everyone?

                  This is where conservative fail the test as protectors of liberty. The good of the community or society NEVER under any circumstance should outweigh the rights of the individual. period.

                • Anonymous

                  Sorry my friend… the libertarian ideology has eclipsed your sense of reason. I’m talking family and children (yes in that dreaded thing called society) and you are talking “the collective”. Any structure in society is called by you extremists a “collective”. A family… a collective! … then you leap from that position to now we are some sort of fascists forcing vegetarianism. Your sense of proportion and balance is definitely out of whack. That thinking is the polar opposite of the extreme left.

                  This extremist libertarian ideology has been elevated to a religion. I said previously …extreme libertarians are moral crusaders, soldiers in the army of libertarian righteousness safeguarding liberty all the while condemning everyone else not holding to libertarian ideology. Whether it’s abortion, or legalization of drugs.. it’s all just a matter of “contract” with you people. Everything an extremist anarcho-libertarian says and thinks is shoved through the meat grinder of of the narrow paradigm of individual contracts.

                  I make important and observable statements about marriage and children and you are talking collective. Good grief… hopeless… utterly.

                • Anonymous

                  You fail to comprehend my friend. Marriage and natural law which supports it is independent of religion. You are hung up on the religious aspect which was not in my comments. Go back and read it. I sincerely hope you can understand that marriage has validity totally outside your obviously tendentious libertarian view that it is simply a contract between customers.

                  I’ll repeat it again for you. Marriage is about children and the family, their health, development and well being, and ultimately about stability of the society. It is only from a utilitarian (and in your case libertarian) view about contract. Contract is the least of what marriage is about.

                  And P.S. In case you may have missed it… the present day gay marriage pushers have made gay marriage a moral crusade. Hence my comment, “Who’s the Moral Army now?”

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  The other argument, one that I support as well, is to do away with the legal institution of marriage. No Tax Breaks for Married People, Insurance companies choose how they define “family” coverage, not applying to the government for permission to take a vow to another person. Marriage would then be between you, your god, your church (if you have one), and your partner.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Then we put people further at the whims of insurance companies. Moronic.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  How very statist of you

                  Let me guess you support ObamaCare because the Insurance companies are evil and must be controlled

                  In a capitalist society I freely associate with a company based on their price, service and value they provide me, not because some government tells me to

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  You’re officially an idiot. I don’t support ObamaCare so GTFO.

                  The point is if you do away with the complete legal institution of marriage, as you said, the companies get to decide what they can do. Therefore, you’ll end up with probably all but a very slim few companies no longer giving married families the benefits they can use. That’s just one more step down the Liberal road to destroying the family.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  That is the statist view, that with out government intervention the “evil companies” will destory everything we believe in.

                  The fact is the companies will reflect what their CUSTOMERS demand, if that demand is less cost no family coverage then that will be what they offer, if their customers DEMAND family coverage then that is what they will offer.

                  Let the MARKET not government choose what products are sold

                • Anonymous

                  Actually Ortho, I agree with Ancient, only in a very tangential way, that government should get the heck out of marriage issues. But this could only work in another age, another worldview, another more simpler time where society held to pretty much common values. Sadly, that is no longer true. The breakdown is nearing completion, and the libertarian view, thrown in with the cultural marxism of left-wing ideology is adding to the breakdown.

                  But extreme libertarians have made it an article of their faith that all issues, whether moral, or amoral, (gay marriage or drug pushing) fall into the common libertarian bin of mutual contracts. And they can be very very vicious in defending their views to the exclusion of all dissenting views.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  I agree with him even, if we talk in the sense you mention. But we don’t, and we must do everything we can to preserve traditional marriages and families.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  I agree with him even, if we talk in the sense you mention. But we don’t, and we must do everything we can to preserve traditional marriages and families.

                • Anonymous

                  Does doing away with tax breaks contradict your view that tax is just legalized theft by the government. If you believe that taxes are legalized theft, then you are advocating for a tax penalty against families based on some prejudicial animus toward marriage. Is that not true? I am sure if you think through some of your ideas more carefully, you may see some inconsistencies.

                • Anonymous

                  Does doing away with tax breaks contradict your view that tax is just legalized theft by the government. If you believe that taxes are legalized theft, then you are advocating for a tax penalty against families based on some prejudicial animus toward marriage. Is that not true? I am sure if you think through some of your ideas more carefully, you may see some inconsistencies.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  First off even if I had a dream goal of no taxation, which will never happen, it would not be a contradiction to end the tax break a married couple gets over a single person, Income is income and the rate by which you are taxed should not have any relation to your relationship status.

                  I also advocate for the Flat and/or Fair tax, that does not mean I think Taxation is not theft it merely means that I understand that it is impossible to get rid of federal taxation thus I am pushing for the most libertarian form of taxation that I can get.

                • Anonymous

                  I can agree with you on the flat/fair tax position. It mirrors my position. There used to be a marriage penalty till Bush began to even things out a bit. Obviously a one income married couple has two mouths to feed, as well as kids, than a single earner. Singles can have kids too, of course, but this whole issues reflects perhaps the carziness of tax law.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  1 Income married couples should not get a tax advantage over 1 income unmarried couples or single people that have the same number of dependents to take care of or that dont. If you choose to have a child dont ask me to pay for it, personally I disagree with EIC, Head of Household, and other deductions and credits for people that have children, why should someone who choose not the have children be penalized for it??

                  There was never really a Tax Penalty either, Couple could select to File Jointly, under the higher income tax brackets, or separately under the single filers tax brackets, depending on much the couple combined made that year, Giving the married couple an extreme tax advantage esp in 1 ot 1.5 income households over unmarried couples or single people

                • Anonymous

                  You are arguing from a wrong view point, if you are a libertarian as you claim. Instead of declaring married couples are stealing from you (you being forced to subsidize them), you should be arguing that the married couples should not be paying higher taxes… and ditto that for the singles. Playing field leveled… but you are like the leftist which says tax cuts are expenditures.

                  Let me educate you. A tax cut is not a subsidy, nor an expenditure, but people having a right to their own money, and being allowed to keep it. With that principle firmly established you move on to claim the same for singles. Problem solved.

                • Anonymous

                  You are arguing from a wrong view point, if you are a libertarian as you claim. Instead of declaring married couples are stealing from you (you being forced to subsidize them), you should be arguing that the married couples should not be paying higher taxes… and ditto that for the singles. Playing field leveled… but you are like the leftist which says tax cuts are expenditures.

                  Let me educate you. A tax cut is not a subsidy, nor an expenditure, but people having a right to their own money, and being allowed to keep it. With that principle firmly established you move on to claim the same for singles. Problem solved.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  No let me educate you, Child Tax CREDITS are a subsidy, and are in fact a direct transfer.

                  Tax cuts are not, unless you cut one segment of the population only to increase the tax burden on another, eke progressive taxation then it can be a form of wealth redistribution which is a defacto subsidy.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  No let me educate you, Child Tax CREDITS are a subsidy, and are in fact a direct transfer.

                  Tax cuts are not, unless you cut one segment of the population only to increase the tax burden on another, eke progressive taxation then it can be a form of wealth redistribution which is a defacto subsidy.

                • Anonymous

                  Reread what I said. We’re both agreed “you should be arguing that the married couples should not be paying higher taxes… and ditto that for the singles. Playing field leveled”. And indeed you did. That’s the libertarian stance. So my friend I do have a grasp of what a subsidy is, but to be true to a libertarian, and I may add a conservative view would reject calling it a subsidy. We’re agreed on this. And we’re agreed that the tax code has people jumping hoops.

                  But this tax benefit thing is not the problem.. your problem is “the family”. That’s why I say the extremist libertarian rejection of the “family” as a collective construct is the polar opposite of the left’s rejection of the “family” and its subservience to the dictates of the state in communism. Enlighten me if I have it wrong. You also talk the extremist language of the libertarian… like this, “If you choose to have a child dont ask me to pay for it.” This kind of verbiage is what makes the libertarian so gawd awful. It’s even worse than the public scold leftist reading everyone a lesson on global warming.

                  Even in an anarcho-libertarian set up, the family would still be the basic building block of such an utopian construct. To even argue about this is crazy, but your animus to the family and marriage is evident. It’s this kind of thing which lends libertarians to being extremist… or correct me if I am wrong.

                • Anonymous

                  Well, you are wrong, especially on the point about abortion. Several states have already declared, long before Roe v. Wade, that abortion was legal in their state. If Roe v Wade were overturned today, which I think it should be, it would result in going back to the status quo that existed before Roe v. Wade. And, before someone misconstrues my meaning about overturning Roe V. Wade, let me make it clear: If you overturn Roe v. Wade right now – what would these idiot politicians have to talk about at campaign time? Oh yeah – lets see – lets discuss REAL ISSUES!

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  I’m saying hypothetically should we overturn it and give the rights back to the states, we could have states legalizing it again. I’d rather overturn Roe vs. Wade and then completely ban it.

                • http://twitter.com/validatedself Jordan Morris

                  Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a Constitutionalist Republican whose political philosophy is influenced by libertarian thought. Paul believes it is appropriate for the federal government to protect individual liberty and that’s it. That includes, in his opinion, the obligation to protect the life of the unborn, but not to force your neighbor to believe what you believe and behave how you behave.

                  Additionally, you are mistaken about the implications of libertarian political philosophy. There may be a segment of the ideological movement that subscribes to a form of cultural relativism but not that segment which is growing substantially in size and political influence and of which Ron Paul is a figurehead. The position that the federal government does not have authority to shape the society’s values and behaviors via the force of law does not imply that all values and behaviors are equally valid or beneficial to society as a whole. It simply means that legislation and enforcement are not the appropriate methods for shaping these aspects of society. Rather, the superiority of truth that is visible as it is played out in the free exchange of ideas and practiced moral values and cultural behaviors is by itself the most proper and effective force for propagating values and virtue.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  The life of the unborn is not a negotiable thing. There are no state or individual rights to abortion.
                  The government should also by the same token, not allow immorality and harmful actions.

              • Anonymous

                Shoudn’t that be ‘unalienable’ rather than ‘inalienable?

            • Anonymous

              I don’t really disagree with your statement. It was kind of lame for you to speak it to someone else though as if I wasn’t going to read it. I’m right here. I don’t have cooties.

              • orthodoxyordeath

                I’m saying the ideas of libertarianism are a political ideology that basically says it’s alright to not have a moral compass.

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t see it as a political ideology. I mean, I know you’re not asking me specifically what MY ideas are, because you’re more interested in lumping me in with a group.

                  But, if one WERE to ask me what my unique, individual, independent thoughts on this was, I would say my moral compass works just fine. It comes down to, I don’t mess with you, and in return, I expect that you won’t mess with me. Some people call that the golden rule. It really doesn’t need to be elaborated on, it’s pretty simple, and I bet throughout history most sane, rational people have probably lived by that creed.

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t see it as a political ideology. I mean, I know you’re not asking me specifically what MY ideas are, because you’re more interested in lumping me in with a group.

                  But, if one WERE to ask me what my unique, individual, independent thoughts on this was, I would say my moral compass works just fine. It comes down to, I don’t mess with you, and in return, I expect that you won’t mess with me. Some people call that the golden rule. It really doesn’t need to be elaborated on, it’s pretty simple, and I bet throughout history most sane, rational people have probably lived by that creed.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  People have differing moral compasses..

                  Some people it is immoral to eat dairy with meat, some people it is immoral to work on sunday, some people it is immoral to XXXX activity.

                  You should not impose your morality on me.

                • Caleb Steele

                  “You should not impose your morality on me”

                  Why not? Do you think it’s immoral? If so, then why are you imposing your morality on others?

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Thomas Jefferson

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-Washington/1236618744 Andre Washington

                  It is really this simple, if your actions are not actions that have any actual negative effect/harming someone or harming yourself you have the right to do it.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Abortion, prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality therefore should be outlawed. No matter what.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  The government is not there to protect me from myself, If your actions are not theft or fraud, meaning they have no direct harm to someone else’s life, liberty or property, then you should be free to do it. Including Self Destructive Behavior.

            • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

              “arrogant nihilism”?

              Silly. You’re confusing “arrogance” for “tolerance”, and “nihilism” for “individualism”. There are most certainly universal truths and group truths. But in that system, it is immoral to forcefully impose them on people who do not want them.

              In this light, the username, “orthodoxy or death”, is… well, I suppose that’s irony.

              • orthodoxyordeath

                Wrong, under the system of cultural libertarianism, there are no moral values, just the concept that anything you do is fine, as long as you keep it to yourself. Tolerance is an intolerant thing. Demanding that I accept as equal to the truth that which is clearly in error is not tolerant.

                The name refers to my religion which has been oppressed by Muslims for 1400 years.

          • Anonymous

            I think the only point I’ve made, and the only point I am attempting to make, is that as President, your guiding force is the Constitution. Your job is to enforce it, uphold it, protect it, etc. That IS the job. Not to suggest scenarios where maybe it doesn’t live up to your arbitrary and personal sense of moral authority.

            • koolazzice

              And that guiding force of the constitution WAS God. Ta DA! (a lightbulb moment for you)

            • Anonymous

              amen – and that oath extends to every member of congress, the supreme court, and most public servants at the state and local levels….

        • orthodoxyordeath

          His points are all right. If you allow states complete free-reign, you end up with gay marriage, polygamy, bestiality, NAMBLA, prostitution, drugs etc.

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            And show me in the Constitution where it gives the Federal Government the power to regulate any of those things you have listed.

            If CA wants to have Gay Marriage or Polygamy or Prostitution, then you are free to move to a state that does not if you do not like it, Just like if ohh Utah choose to Bann everything under the sun that is “immoral” according to Conservatives then I will be free to move to a state the respects personal freedom and liberty.

            • orthodoxyordeath

              Let the Founders speak for their own document:

              “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”~John Adams

              “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” ~Benjamin Rush

              “For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.” ~Gouverneur Morris

              “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”~Ben Franklin

              For you idiots claiming the Bible doesn’t have a place, take a lesson:

              “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”~John Jay

              And lastly, the Great Man himself:

              ” Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” ~George Washington

              • KenInMontana

                Which Bible though?

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  At the very least they meant the Bible in general, from a Deist perspective. At the least that is.

                • KenInMontana

                  Ever looked at the “Jefferson Bible”? My point is this who would you trust more, your state/local government (your neighbors) or the federal (completely out of touch with the people)? I trust my neighbors the added bonus is that they are right here,within reach and it is here where they live.

                • Anonymous

                  Kudos for mentioning the Jefferson Bible. I’d take Jefferson over Santorum any day.

                • Anonymous

                  Are you really that simple? Or are you just playing a game?

                • KenInMontana

                  “Which Bible” may be simple but it’s a valid question as each version contains different language that can be interpreted differently by individuals, which is why we have differing dogmas within Christianity itself. As we are all aware these differences have often led to very violent disagreements all through our history. Ortho is an Orthodox (I’m sure you know this) I am a Catholic, while our faiths are in many ways very similar there are stark differences in them as well, however our faiths use different versions of the Bible just as the Protestant faiths use yet another. I am aware of what Jefferson was struggling with and exactly what he was doing with his Bible, I’ve struggled with many of those same issues, they call them “Mysteries” in the Catholic church and they are mysteries because no one can satisfactorily answer them. But that’s a big reason they call it faith is it not? As to playing at being “contrary”, well that’s because I have a contrary mind that questions things all the time and I find it quite useful for learning, whether it’s drawing out someone to get a better idea of their position as well as finding out just how entrenched or committed they are about it in a debate or discussion. It served me well while I was in school by challenging my teachers to step up and make a convincing case for what they were proposing as “fact”. It also serves well to rattle trolls too.

                • Anonymous

                  Ken… this is not a put down, but I assumed you knew more about the Bible than you evidently do… that’s why I called you contrary. Don’t confuse contrary with commitment to an inquiring mind.

                  You have a limited understanding of what constitutes different Bibles and different versions. There are good translations and bad translations, there are direct equivalence translations and dynamic equivalence translations. These are NOT variations in the sense in which you seem to think it is. And virtually all denominations have the exact Bibles, differing in no significant way, but they don’t all believe in the same way. The difference is not the version, but the confession.

                  Practicing Catholics use many various translations which may or may not include the Apocrypha, but Catholic dogma does not depend on the Apocrypha or even scripture for that matter, it depends upon first and foremost tradition of the Church and only secondarily upon Scripture. The differences between Catholic and Protestant confessions hang not upon different “versions” of the Bible, but upon the place that scripture holds in their respective confessions.

                  Just an aside, since you brought it up. Faith is definitely NOT about mystery. Faith is about believing what God says about something. It’s not about the ethereal or the unexplained. It’s about commitment to believing who God says he is and acting upon it. Abraham was the first example of this (faith leading to God’s grace) and a foreshadowing of how faith was the necessary element in New Testament salvation as opposed to Mosaic Law.

                  Struggling with the “mysteries” is an honest phenomenon… but faith is something altogether different as defined in various places and taken as a whole throughout the New Testament. Do people come to this understanding easily? No! But to explain why would take a whole other discussion.

                • KenInMontana

                  If you mean to assume that I know less about the Bible than you thought I did, then you should say that instead of using the word “contrary” to describe someone, which by definition has nothing to do with someone’s knowledge but describes an opposing view, position or approach to doing something differing from the “norm”. Can I quote chapter and verse off the top of my head from anywhere in any version of the Bible,no, and I don’t know anyone that can do that although I know a few that are fairly conversant in their chosen version. But I am pretty familiar with comparative theology, and in how the different versions of the text affect the dogmas and or tenets of a given faith. My point was that the “different versions” of the Bible through the differences in translation, language (wording) used lead to differing, sometimes wildly differing, interpretations and there by producing friction between the various Sects of Christianity. My understanding of the Bible may differ from yours (it obviously does) but I think you misunderstood the point I was driving at by using the “Mysteries” as an example, I understand that “Faith” as a whole is much broader than just accepting that what are deemed “Mysteries” or the unexplainable as just how things are or that it is all a part of God’s grand plan. My peculiar circumstance in regards to where I stand by the Doctrines or Dogma of my Catholic faith places me (or my soul if you prefer) in a rather “unique” (the only word that comes to mind at the moment) if not precarious position. You see I was raised in the “Roman” or “Latin” tradition of Catholicism and because of certain actions on my part, I am “stained” so to speak. I am in sort of a “living purgatory” or “outside of God’s grace”, I cannot receive the Sacraments of Confession or Communion,nor am I permitted to attend High Mass, although I am permitted Last Rites when that time comes. It does give one a sense of what the members of the Militant Orders had to deal with and that sense of “kinship” does provide some solace. Which brings me back to how I look at the versions of the Bible through a somewhat different lens and understanding than you do, you see my interest is to find the oldest and there by purest form of the scriptures, those without the editing of those who had personal and less than honorable intentions to promote their interpretation as the definitive form of God’s message. I do subscribe to the view that man is flawed and therefore anything he touches or creates is so as well, and by that line of thought the versions/variations of the scriptures are likewise flawed, exponentially by the number of times it has been rewritten. Hope that clears it up somewhat.

                • Anonymous

                  Your Quote: “But I am pretty familiar with comparative theology, and in how the different versions of the text affect the dogmas and or tenets of a given faith.”
                  —-Ken, it’s not different versions affecting the dogmas… it’s different interpretations that affect the dogmas. And the slight differences in extant manuscripts, of which there are about 25,000, have never altered the theology… only interpretation has altered the theology. The text has not altered theology, there are no alternate versions.

                  Your Quote:”My point was that the “different versions” of the Bible through the differences in translation, language (wording) used lead to differing, sometimes wildly differing, interpretations and there by producing friction between the various Sects of Christianity.”
                  —-Ken… no… this is not true. A Catholic using a New American Standard version can still find no difference from say The Geneva Bible, or the New Jerusalem Bible. In fact Catholics are recommended to use NIV, Revised Standard, even the Good News Bible. Surprise! Protestants use them as well.

                  To repeat… it is not Bible Versions producing differences in sects… it’s the long held beliefs and interpretations causing the conflicts. Jehovah Witnesses are the only ones I know who have deliberately altered text, yet even they can find Christ in the parts they omitted to change in their version.

                  Yes… it is true that some translations using interpolations and dynamic equivalence can alter the meaning vastly… no argument from me there… but these are popular usages often for devotional purposes, not scholarly. And while scholarly disagreements disagree on the meanings and interpretations, they DO NOT disagree in the very words of the extant texts themselves, and where differences occur in manuscripts, these in no way affect theology. I can list some, but they would not bolster a charge that theology is altered.

                  Anyway Ken, we are not too far away from each other, but the long and short is that Bible versions as you have understood it do not favour your argument.

                  P.S. Thanks for responding… you certainly have your work cut out for you doing this.

              • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                Good dodge. But the Founders are dead. And their scattered quotations are not part of the Constitution.

                The question remains, where is the federal government’s authority to impose a general “moral law” upon the states?

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OTOG6HDNNP52UGECCNJXRRBA74 Elric

                  Interesting that you say that, since the entire concept of “Separation of Church and State” come from their scattered writings, and not the Constitution.

                • Anonymous

                  They have none – period. The powers of the federal govt. are specifically laid out in the Constitution, and those not specifically allowed, revert back to the states. End of story.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jordan-Chambers/1271467862 Jordan Chambers

                  I think William Blackstone would be a good person to read up on here…. If you have government with out morals, You end up like SACKED ROME. If you have morals without Government, you end up like CONQUERED JAPAN. However, you put together a mixture of a government with a moral basis, one that plays off of ethics, one that only does what is right, (thus Blackstone’s book comes in handy) you have the America that SUCCESSFULLY BROKE FROM ENGLAND, and established freedom! Lets do that.. I like Bachman, she seems very capable.

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jordan-Chambers/1271467862 Jordan Chambers

                  I think William Blackstone would be a good person to read up on here…. If you have government with out morals, You end up like SACKED ROME. If you have morals without Government, you end up like CONQUERED JAPAN. However, you put together a mixture of a government with a moral basis, one that plays off of ethics, one that only does what is right, (thus Blackstone’s book comes in handy) you have the America that SUCCESSFULLY BROKE FROM ENGLAND, and established freedom! Lets do that.. I like Bachman, she seems very capable.

                • Anonymous

                  It is this whining from individuals that are completely over whelming. This country was FOUNDED by CHRISTIANS to LIVE as CHRISTIANS. The CONSTITUTION was WRITTEN by CHRISTIANS. The constitution was written to help keep this a successful country. Since the whining has started in this country and everyone started saying “stop pushing your ideas on me, i want things this way, I want things that way…..” REALLY! It sounds like my kids in the back seat ” HE’S TOUCHING ME… SHE BREATHING ON ME…”
                  KNOCK it the hell off! This is why the constitution was written EXACTLY WHY! to save us from our own ignorance. If you don’t want to live by the what this country was founded on and intended to be ran by, then please go to a country where you can have all your swinging swaying thoughts, wants, and whining and leave the rest of us to our own country and beliefs that we still believe.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Their quotations give you an idea for the morality they expected from the population and the Christianity or at least Deism with which they wrote our Founding Documents.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Their quotations give you an idea for the morality they expected from the population and the Christianity or at least Deism with which they wrote our Founding Documents.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Their quotations give you an idea for the morality they expected from the population and the Christianity or at least Deism with which they wrote our Founding Documents.

              • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities — Thomas Jefferson

                The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Thomas Jefferson

                Should I go on looking up quotes as well???

          • KenInMontana

            I trust my state government far more than I trust the Feds, that said I will not be governed by another faith’s interpretation of morality, any more than I would seek to impose my own faith’s interpretation on anyone else. I think you’re stretching it a bit there ortho, I cannot imagine the citizens or the states allowing the lion’s share of what you listed.

            • orthodoxyordeath

              The Founders never would have thought this country would be willing to accept homosexuality. It’s all a slow, creeping process.

              • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                Same progressive talking point, only they apply it to the rest of the world.

                The Founders never could have imagined the internet, so therefore we must tax the hell out of the internet. It’s a weak argument.

                The rules they put down were rules that would apply throughout all of history. And they also put a system forth that if, in fact, the day arose where society needed to fundamentally change the contract, they could. We can ammend the constitution to deal with marriage, drugs, or whatever else.

              • KenInMontana

                I understand what you are saying but by the same token Santorum would put us on the slippery slope to a theocracy. His grasp of the Constitution is what truly frightens me about him.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Agreed, agreed. There’s a fine balance between going towards immorality and a theocracy. The problem is that when we allow immoral things to spread, we further risk the nuclear family, which is under attack.

                • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                  I agree with this, but there is a way to go about this within the confines of the constitution. YOu ammend it. You don’t proclaim moral law and just usurp the power unconstitutionally.

                • Anonymous

                  Ortho… don’t fall so fast for the fatuous claim by libertarians and the left about falling into theocracy. The founders were a moral people… America in it’s inception was a moral nation. Our forebears were fifty times more “religious” than we are now, yet they didn’t institute a theocracy. (Read Barbara Tuchman’s social history “Bible and Sword: Endland and Palestine”.

                  Don’t fall for this dumb idea of “theocracy”, this empty platitudinous notion as if it has some validity. Those who hate Christianity always blow this smoke when they prefer to expunge any vestige of Christianity from the public square. Christianity is the weakest it ever has been in America and yet to hear these folks you would think it was never so powerful a great evil.

                  I’ll quote the Bible here: “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 7:16)

                  “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34)

                  I’ll say further… that I truly understand when a non-Christian guides and governs his life by his own morality and ideas of right and wrong. But he fails to see that he is living in a post-Christian Western world governed relativism of a post-modern world view, much of which is influenced by the Christian values he so readily eschews. He can’t even see, and certainly won’t admit to, the fact that the little values he holds now have already been shaped and molded by Christian heritage in the culture. And thank God for that… for some of the very values he so fiercely holds to be true have been Christ breathed.

              • Anonymous

                You don’t think any of the founders were gay?

                I have no evidence to say they were, but if you look at basic percentages, someone involved with the founding of this country was gay. Common sense would tell you that.

                And speaking of common sense, the author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, was a deist, and had big problems with Christianity. And wasn’t afraid to say it, in a culture and era where saying so was more of a burden than it is today.

                And yet, we wouldn’t have this country without him.

                • Anonymous

                  Oh dear, you probably learned math in public school. Statistics are descriptions of an actual population, they are subject to STRICT boundary conditions and are entirely dependent on ergodic assumptions. They do not represent causality. You probably think there’s life on other planets because of the same ‘percentages’. You could just as well argue that there were cell phone users among the founding fathers because of the ‘percentages’.

                  Thomas Paine was a revolutionary agitator (who could write very persuasively) He was in the American Colonies for 1 YEAR…..1 YEAR….1 YEAR before he wrote ‘common sense’ and other materials that led fools to the most rash actions of the American Revolution. Then he sailed for France, where he wrote just as impassioned arguments for ‘patriotism’ among the French revolutionaries. He abandoned all attachment to any god while there, and wrote “Age of Reason”, attacking Christianity.

                  After the French nearly executed him, he came crawling back to the US and was abhorred for his writings, his involvement with the Jacobins, and died a lonely man.

                  He crafted his words well to fit the furor of the American revolutionary struggle, but he was not an American. His soaring rhetoric of the nobility of patriotism was based on the sum total of 1 YEAR in residence in the colonies.

                  You do yourself no favors glorifying Thomas Paine.

                  There has been one constant (ergodic phenomenon) among men since the first man rebelled in the Garden: Depravity. Had you made your argument for ‘gays’ being among the founders on this basis, you might have a leg to stand on. There certainly were other documented forms of fornication among the founders.

                • Anonymous

                  Is there a point to your windbag diatribe other than you don’t like what I said?

                • Anonymous

                  Yes, don’t use statistics in support of an argument that extends beyond the limits set by the rules of statistics (in this case temporal boundaries).

                  I did not argue that sexual deviance did not exist during the American founding period.

                  You made a statistical claim about the historical localized prevalence of homosexuality. Produce one documented case among the 200+ founders in the American colonies during that time period to justify the valid application of your statistical inference.

                  Sodomy as a documented human behavior is at least as old as the city of its namesake. The very context of its documentation indicates the temporal fluctuation in its observed prevalence. In case you need a reminder: The book of Genesis records an event where a heterosexual human named Abraham is visited by three men. Abraham identifies these men as angels (corporeal projections of a representative from outside his material world). One of the three representatives, identified as the Angel of the Lord, informs Abraham of two things:

                  1-God will validate His recognition of Abraham’s marriage to Sarah as legally binding by granting him a male son in 1 years’ time. The son previously born to Abraham by the woman Hagar, outside the recognized marriage, would not legally inherit the promise made by God (namely the Land of Promise, i.e. Israel).

                  2-Because the outcry of victims was great against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the sins they were accused of were so great, God was sending the two men (tracer particles) to document the behavior prior to executing judgment.

                  The two men went to Sodom and the ALL the men of the city came after them at night to have sex with them.

                  This, my friend, is the record of a statistically valid sampling of a localized population at a known temporal point (1 year prior to the birth of Isaac). The sampling size was 100% of the male population (all the men of the city).

                  Now I’m sure you’re not arguing that all of the founders practiced Sodomy, nor would you suggest that all Americans today practice Sodomy. Therefore, if you recognize the validity of Lot’s testimony regarding the events of the destruction of Sodom as recorded by Moses in the book of Genesis, then you must concede that the prevalence of homosexual behavior fluctuates both in time and between populations.

                • Anonymous

                  Didn’t read it.

                • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…

                  Was homosexuality publicly reviled? Definitely. Were there homosexuals (or those who had engaged in sodomy) among the founding fathers? It’s possible. The mocking images of aristocratic South Carolinians as “dandies” and “boy lovers” didn’t come from nowhere mind you. And the Old Testament laws against sodomy probably didn’t spring up because no one in the past was gay ever; but sometime–thousands of years in the future–some people would be openly.

                  Regardless, personal choices of the founding fathers have little bearing on current discussion of what a person has the RIGHT to do. In the colonial period, it was general law throughout American that what happened in private circumstances was not subject to the public law.

          • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

            You do? Show me a state that allows polygamy? Show me the state that has legalized hard-core drugs? Those things are state issues currently, yet we haven’t ended up with them.

            And when people want things regulated by the federal government, they never think of how it can go the other direction. What if the Feds did regulate marriage..and then decided to legalize gay marriage. Where would you turn? YOu couldn’t switch states because you’ve taken the power form the States. No one ever thinks of it like that, but it’s the way everyone should think of it.

            • orthodoxyordeath

              Legalize one form of immorality, and the rest are soon to follow.

              • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                Really? How long has prostitution been legal in Nevada? Has it spread? No.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Strip clubs are a form of prostitution, those are legalized. Escort agencies are also a form of prostitution.

                • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                  Hey, look, you want to go on a crusade to outlaw all of the immoral things in this world, go ahead. But do it legally. Don’t just make up the rules as you go and act like the constitution somehow allows for it.

                  And, again, those things aren’t legalized everywhere. Many towns won’t allow strip clubs to be built. But, again, when the federal government takes control, they can outlaw all of them, but at the same time they can legalize all of them.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  If you ask a libertarian or Ron Paul, he’ll tell you that we don’t have a right to control those things in people’s lives.

                • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                  But I’m not asking a libertarian. I’m just going by the constitution. And based on that document states can control those areas of your lives if they so wish.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  This just proves you are a conservative statist that loves big government

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  Ah yes. Me not liking prostitution equates to statism. Lay off the Ron Paul “special brownies” friend.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  That combines with your other positions on government imposition on liberty make you a statist.

                  Why should you tell 2 consenting adults what they can or cant do, Do you want to bann all premarital sex or just sex in exchange for money?

                  Here is a little secret for you. Prostitution is the oldest profession, and you will never stop it, ever. It is better to have a safe slightly regulated market (testing for STD’s) then to have a unregulated underground market that ruins countless lives all because you feel the need to impose your “moral superiority” upon society.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  That combines with your other positions on government imposition on liberty make you a statist.

                  Why should you tell 2 consenting adults what they can or cant do, Do you want to bann all premarital sex or just sex in exchange for money?

                  Here is a little secret for you. Prostitution is the oldest profession, and you will never stop it, ever. It is better to have a safe slightly regulated market (testing for STD’s) then to have a unregulated underground market that ruins countless lives all because you feel the need to impose your “moral superiority” upon society.

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t think the question is if you like prostitution or not. I think the question is if you want the government to make the choice you made, for me. There’s plenty of things in the world I don’t like and that offend me but I would offend myself if I thought they should be illegal just because I don’t like them.

                  And I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I am a Palin supporter.

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W3TFRIYNG6EYLWUJIPXX3MH2ZM simply one voice

                  Nevada is a bad example because it has a double edged sword. While prostitution has not spread much outside of Nevada, gambling has, while most would say that this is harmless, there are others that would say that this leads to further anarchy. Some would even argue that gambling was the gate way from which prostitution was allowed to be legal in the first place. Now with gambling more widespread, how long before prostitution is legalized as well?

                • KenInMontana

                  Prostitution in Nevada is handled on a county by county basis, it happens to be illegal in Clark county (Las Vegas) as the State government exercised uncommon wisdom in this decision to let it be dealt with locally be those it affects directly. Gambling pays for infrastructure, schools, and public services across the entire state as Nevada has no State Income Tax, and only a modest Sales Tax.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  You are partly correct, the counties can choose to make it illegal, but only counties with a population under 400,000 can make it legal, or Clark County is barred by the state of Nevada from making prostitution legal.

                • Anonymous

                  Be aware – in Clark County (Las Vegas), it is also illegal to gamble. The exceptions are the casinos who are licensed, and heavily regulated, by the state commissions….If you leave the casino floor, and go to your hotel room and hold a money-based poker game – you are breaking the law in Clark County.

                • KenInMontana

                  I lived and worked in Las Vegas as a personal security contractor,yes I am aware of the limits of what is permitted under law, you have to be because VIPs and celebrities often forget that laws apply to them. We were required at the time to take what amounted to a 100 hour crash course in relevant state and local laws as part of our certification (along with evasive driving, firearms etc). There was more than one time we had to preempt a VIP’s poor exercise of discretion.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  Why should gambling or prostitution be illegal. For what basis do you have to take away my right to do something I enjoy if that does not directly harm you?

                  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Thomas Jefferson

                • Anonymous

                  The law discussed here is local law -not federal law. Power enumerated to the states, and the people in that state decide what they want. As much as I agree with most of what you have said in this thread Ancient, here you are wrong. If that is what the people want – then so be it. And if they don’t want it any more, then they can change the law in their state/community.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  No, that is what you are discussing, I am discussing the proper role of government.

                  Now if you want to talk about the constitutionality of it, then you are correct there is nothing unconstitutional about a state/local government banning gambling or prostitution, but that still does not change the fact that it is not the proper role of government to do so.

                  However I will also add that many many many state constitutions have STRONGER protections for personal liberty than the federal constitution, many people overlook and ignore the state constitutions, for good reason since most of the state courts and certainly the federal courts ignore them, I bet ALOT of people do not even realize their individual state has its own governing constitution.

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W3TFRIYNG6EYLWUJIPXX3MH2ZM simply one voice

                  Nevada is a bad example because it has a double edged sword. While prostitution has not spread much outside of Nevada, gambling has, while most would say that this is harmless, there are others that would say that this leads to further anarchy. Some would even argue that gambling was the gate way from which prostitution was allowed to be legal in the first place. Now with gambling more widespread, how long before prostitution is legalized as well?

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W3TFRIYNG6EYLWUJIPXX3MH2ZM simply one voice

                  Nevada is a bad example because it has a double edged sword. While prostitution has not spread much outside of Nevada, gambling has, while most would say that this is harmless, there are others that would say that this leads to further anarchy. Some would even argue that gambling was the gate way from which prostitution was allowed to be legal in the first place. Now with gambling more widespread, how long before prostitution is legalized as well?

              • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

                And have you seen some of the polls on gay marriage? Put that in the hands of the feds, and fairly soon you’ll have a majority of people who support gay marriage. Then, all states will be forced to perform the ceremonies. Then what? Again, you have no where to turn to. No where to go.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-Washington/1236618744 Andre Washington

              The government only seeks to protect and serve, not severely cut someones ambitions or dreams. The 14th amendment was made to extend freedoms to the states and keep states from abusing their powers, again the checks and balance has been made, our power over the government is our representatives form the states, but we do not want them to to have total dominance so our constitution balances that issue. everything is even and correct we must use it as it was meant to be used and that is for true liberty and peace, not forced religious agendas. or are the republican party all of a sudden the “illuminati”.

        • koolazzice

          Morality is not in opposition with the Constitution whatsoever. Nor is the justice system. In fact, morality can be found throughout the Constitution and the justice system. Would it be your wish then that anyone running for President has no religious background whatsoever? Would you rather have a leader whom is maybe an atheist? Russia had one of those(as an example). It didnt turn out so well. We ALL have a world view and are driven by it knowingly or unknowingly..but its there. A person can love God, country and family..and they can co-exist quite well. Back in the days..and not so long ago, “God, country and family” was a common term used and valued by many Americans including some Presidents..and America was in a much better place then. And you didnt exactly say it perfectly..His moral authority is the God of the Bible(though i get your point). And tell me..what is wrong with that? Many of those that were involved in the writing of the Constitution felt the same way. My point? The Constitution is heavily influenced by the Moral authority of God of the Bible. And thats a good thing! Most people believe that Abe Lincoln was the greatest if not one of the greatest Presidents ever in our history. He openly spoke of his believe in God, the Bible, and let it be known frankly. Its his belief in God that caused him to abolish slavery. He knew it was the correct thing to do. What a terrible thing in your view..for Old Abe to make a decision based on a morale God of the Bible, right? WRONG! Even an atheist..when they do good moral things..they are just borrowing from God..it did not ‘evolve’. The Constitution allows freedom of religion..and that includes the President of the USA. America is known as a Christian country..that is our heritage..like it or not. Deal with it. It’s here to stay.

        • Anonymous

          We had enough of someone who thought their own sense of morality trumped the constitution in George W. Bush – who said that the constitution was nothing more than “a g-damn piece of paper” So – any of these morally superior, yet hypocritical Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, can go straight to……

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WOY5DTX2BTIWL7JHC24NOQDDZM Jatrix

          @rjcylon – People like you just like to hide in the weeds and throw stones. Run for office yourself, see if you can hook up with acorn like Obama and get in.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WOY5DTX2BTIWL7JHC24NOQDDZM Jatrix

          @rjcylon – People like you just like to hide in the weeds and throw stones. Run for office yourself, see if you can hook up with acorn like Obama and get in.

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        Did not have to, the mere fact that he thinks that, as a matter of law, something else super-cedes the constitution, tells you all you need to know about him.

        • Anonymous

          Precisely.

        • Anonymous

          Lincoln went beyond thinking about this issue, he actually laid down plans to make it happen, and tried to negotiate with black leaders of the day to persuade them to leave the country….

    • http://twitter.com/BrendanJamesMcD Brendan McDonnell

      Our forefathers basically implemented their religious beliefs into the Constitution. If there were no right or wrong then there would be no need for a government to uphold the laws of the land. Get owned sir.

      • Anonymous

        “Get owned sir”.

        Are you f’ing kidding me? Is this a junior high debate club? Are you over the age of 21?

        Do you really want to get into a back and forth of what the founder’s religious beliefs were with me?

        Think carefully about how you answer that. “Sir.”

      • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

        There’s nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there’s more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn’t be intertwined… Try reading the Constitution before telling people what’s in it.

        • Anonymous

          Agreed – two areas that come to mind: Freedom of religion, which obviously a good number of people here do not adhere to, and separation of church and state, which nobody has even mentioned yet in this discussion. And be mindful, separation of church and state was not meant to keep the state out of the church, they meant it to keep the church out of government. You should keep that in mind when people like Santorum preach moral law.

          • Anonymous

            Read me the part of the constitution that says separation of church and state please. There’s a reason no one mentioned it…because it’s not in the document OK.
            This is the actual constitution folks are speaking of, not some letter to the Danbury Baptists.

            • KenInMontana

              This is not found in the document itself, however it comes from a man who possessed a greater understanding of the Founder’s intent than anyone here or (I would hazard to state) anyone living. Justice J. Story.

              § 992. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

              The entire document can be viewed here:
              http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_church_and_state.htm

      • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

        There’s nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there’s more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn’t be intertwined… Try reading the Constitution before telling people what’s in it.

      • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

        There’s nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there’s more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn’t be intertwined… Try reading the Constitution before telling people what’s in it.

    • http://twitter.com/BrendanJamesMcD Brendan McDonnell

      Our forefathers basically implemented their religious beliefs into the Constitution. If there were no right or wrong then there would be no need for a government to uphold the laws of the land. Get owned sir.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WOY5DTX2BTIWL7JHC24NOQDDZM Jatrix

      He never mentioned the bible, or are you talking about a different clip?

  • Anonymous

    Santorum is koo koo for coco puffs .

  • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

    This is the common “Conservative” Position which is why I have always stated the Conservatives are just as much of a threat to personal liberty as Progressives.

    Conservatives are very very much Statist/Totalitarians, they just want different rules for their statist government.

    Real Conservatives are not defenders of Liberty, Libertarians are, people that like Personal Freedom and Liberty but call themselves “Conservative” are confused as to what they really are.

    • Anonymous

      Again, well stated.

      • Caleb Steele

        Wait…you don’t believe in an objective moral law?!! If you do, then you believe in a moral authority to which everyone must submit. If not…then how on earth can you criticize anyone for acting immorally (e.g., imposing moral values on someone else)?? THAT is inconsistent.

    • Caleb Steele

      that’s a heck of a claim! You probably need to define several of those terms (“Real Conservative,” “Statist,” “Totalitarian”…) to substatiate that claim. At this point, it seems to me that if what you say is true, then I’ve never met a real conservative. And I used to think I was one!

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        Real Conservatives are those that Claim to Support Personal liberty but only for activities or topics they have deemed (mainly through religious doctrine) to be “moral” everything they have deemed (again mainly through religious doctrine) to me Immoral should be banned, even when those activities do not pose a direct threat to anyone other than possibly the consenting adults that choose to participate in those actives.

        Current Hot Topic ones today are the War on Drugs, Prostitution, and War On Terror (giving up personal Liberty in exchange for the promise of security)

        But in the past they have been things like Wicca Worship, certain books, alcohol prohibition, McCarthyism, etc etc etc

        Modern Conservativism is actually Anti-Communism, it was born in the 50’s to combat communism, not to preserve personal freedom.

        • Anonymous

          I ‘m tired of “real conservatives” telling me I’m a liberal because I’m not religious. I am more freedom loving and intellectually honest than they will ever be.

          I’m registered and have always considered myself a republican, and therefore conservative, but maybe it’s time to just become outright libertarian. If being religious is a requirement for being a conservative then I am automatically disqualified.

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            I have never Registrar nor will I ever Register as a Republican, I will not Registrar as a Libertarian (the party) either as I do not believe in Political Parties at all.

            “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty ” — George Washington

            Political Parties are a direct threat to Public Liberty and should be opposed by all freedom loving people

            • Anonymous

              It is interesting. The problem is these days when you say you support the republicans in office, you are generally supporting people who favor the constitution, and when you say you support the democrats, there’s about a 95% chance you are supporting people who hate the constitution and want to destroy it.

              I really don’t like this idea of a litmus test though, or that there’s a certain platform I’m supposed to believe in. I suppose that very concept would be a form of tyranny.

              • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                I vote for the person that I feel will best represent ME. Period.

                I reject the notion that I must vote republican because the democrats are worse. The only real solution is for every person to stop electing the parties and start electing people

                • Anonymous

                  I agree with you in principle but at the same time, the political reality is there is strength in numbers.

                  Hopefully someday more people will look at the candidates as individuals, and not as party members. But the only people who would do that are people like you and me who take the time out of our days to follow politics and comment on it. Most people don’t care, and if they do care, they are probably getting their info from Jon Stewart.

                • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                  At the end of the day I am only responsible for, and will only be judged by MY actions not the actions of others. Everyone else making a mistake is not a reason nor an excuse for me to make the same mistake, I should not I must stand on principle even if that principle puts me at odds with every other person on the planet.

            • Anonymous

              It is interesting. The problem is these days when you say you support the republicans in office, you are generally supporting people who favor the constitution, and when you say you support the democrats, there’s about a 95% chance you are supporting people who hate the constitution and want to destroy it.

              I really don’t like this idea of a litmus test though, or that there’s a certain platform I’m supposed to believe in. I suppose that very concept would be a form of tyranny.

            • Anonymous

              It is interesting. The problem is these days when you say you support the republicans in office, you are generally supporting people who favor the constitution, and when you say you support the democrats, there’s about a 95% chance you are supporting people who hate the constitution and want to destroy it.

              I really don’t like this idea of a litmus test though, or that there’s a certain platform I’m supposed to believe in. I suppose that very concept would be a form of tyranny.

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        Ohh and “Statism” and “Totaltarian” is basically the same, meaning desire to have Strong Government to controls the behavior of its subject in a manner that is personally acceptable to that person.

        It is very very easy to complain and disavow a government that is suppressing activities you favor, it is not so easy to stand and say “While I think that Activity is Immoral and Wrong I have no right to tell you what you can or cant do. ”

        • Caleb Steele

          Well, we agree…and we disagree. Respectfully. I honestly have never met a conservative like that, and I run in some very conservative circles. But I don’t know all of them, so I can’t say you don’t know such conservatives. I think that by far most conservatives are as opposed to statism as you are. But I don’t want to come across as jumping on anyone arbitrarily or gratuitously so I’ll just leave it there.

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            Just read the Posts by orthodoxyordeath here and you will see a live example of a Conservative Statist

            It sounds like you hang out with Libertarians not Conservatives. currently there are ALOT of people that claim to be conservatives with in reality are libertarian.

            • Caleb Steele

              well, the way you are using terms is a little confusing. It’s the statist part that seems to be the issue, not the conservative part. I don’t think orthodoxyordeath fits the statist definition as generally, traditionally understood. It seems more ad hominem than legitimate, IMHO.

        • Caleb Steele

          Well, we agree…and we disagree. Respectfully. I honestly have never met a conservative like that, and I run in some very conservative circles. But I don’t know all of them, so I can’t say you don’t know such conservatives. I think that by far most conservatives are as opposed to statism as you are. But I don’t want to come across as jumping on anyone arbitrarily or gratuitously so I’ll just leave it there.

    • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

      Of course true libertarians believe in some sort of open borders world where nation states only exist in the loosest of sense. Which is why I still call myself a conservative instead of a libertarian. Because ultimately, true, hard-core libertarians, believe in some sort of utopia state that can be achieved.

      Now, I disagree with Santorum. In a society, you have a set of rules. That set of rules is put down on paper. That’s the rules you go by. Not some rules from a religious book or moral belief system. But Santorum’s beliefs do not translate to all conservatives. To say that we are as great a threat to liberty as progressives based on this is simply wrong.

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        Open Borders no, Less Restrictive and very open immigration free of quotas and other arbitrary criteria yes. We have to know who is coming and going and be allowed to reject those that are criminals or real security threats, but that is all that should be a factor in Immigration.

        Besides that is a LONG TERM goal, that could only be accomplished after a Massive shift in Entitlement, and society structuring. Dont confuse a Long term Libertarian Goal with a talking point, I do not know any mainstream libertarian that is saying just open up the boarders to free unregulated traffic with no security at all tomorrow

        • http://twitter.com/RichMcCreedy Richard McCreedy

          No, see, then you aren’t a true libertarian.

          See, I’m just playing the word game here. But there are, in fact, many libertarians who believe in open borders and that ultimately there can be a world where no borders exist. Are they representative of the whole? Are they “true” libertarians? No.

          Well, Santorum doesn’t represent the whole of us either. His position is not the “true” conservative position. Listen to some of the other candidates. Perry for instance has said it’s a 10th ammendment issue, and then he said he would support an ammendment when it comes to marriage. Now, you might not like the policy, but at the very least he is saying he wants to operate within the boundaries of the constitution. He isn’t just assuming some higher law that can trump the constitution when he sees fit. THat, to me, is closer to the true conservative position.

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            There is a difference between “some” and “majority” My position is held by the Majority of libertarians and the Libertarian Party.

            Your position is NOT held by the majority of Conservatives and infact more Conservatives support Santorum’s position than not.

  • KenInMontana

    Santorum just flushed his Presidential Campaign with that.

    • Anonymous

      I like the 10th as much as you do – it’s protection for us from the Feds – but Santorum was correct.

      • KenInMontana

        If it is not among the enumerated powers, it is outside the authority of the Federal government. Likewise any law passed by congress unsupported by those enumerated powers is rendered void by the Constitution. It is not just the Tenth he would be subverting, it is an attack on the Ninth, the First and the Fourth Amendments as well. The Founders knew all too well the dangers of an all powerful central government which is precisely why they included the Ninth and Tenth amendments. So no, Santorum is wrong, on this, it is for the people and the states to decide these questions.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you for the clarity Ken. The ignorance of these politicians is trumped only by their arrogance. They all would be king.

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        I am looking at my constitution and I do not see “moral law” clause anywhere????

  • Anonymous

    so in honor of the slippery slope argument, what would stop someone from making the argument that it’s “moral” to bestow health care upon all our heads? whether it’s a load of crap, someone can pull anything out of the air and attempt to make a “moral” case for it, then where are we. there are some things that i believe we have a duty to protect (life, etc.) but when it comes to states rights, let them screw themselves if it’s a bad idea. i personally believe the govt doesn’t have a place in marriage. which is why i think it’s fine if, by the constitutional process, ny allows gay marriage and states that don’t want it don’t have it.

    we are at a time in history when pushing as much freedom as the founders envisioned is the most important aspect in this race. the stakes are too high.

    • Anonymous

      In the same way that it’s “moral” for rich people to do with less so the poor can have more, or that it’s “moral” for certain members of a disenfranchised group to have an unfair advantage since the “haves” have had what they’ve had unfairly for too many years, or that it’s “moral” for the United States to take a back seat to the rest of the world because other countries have struggled having global influence under our shadow, etc. etc. etc.

      Thanks for supporting intellectual honesty.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo The Wizard of Oz

    His social conservative stance isn’t the issue….it’s the reach he wants it to have. He is just the right wing version of a meddlesome government. His best answer was that on abortion though- I wholeheartedly agree with him there, and he was able to cover some of the main points very well as the issue pertains to life and the flawed arguments (involving statistics that are never mentioned) that choose to leave the door open for abortion, with no fair legal way to enforce.

  • Caleb Steele

    Here’s a sound moral argument:
    (1) If God does not exist, then OBJECTIVE moral values do not exist.
    (2) OBJECTIVE moral values do exist.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    If possible, let’s keep discussions rational rather than emotional.

    • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

      The ground is wet. Therefore, it’s raining?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

      • Caleb Steele

        uhhhh.. what??? I presented a logically sound deductive argument, so the conclusion follows logically and necessarily from the two premises. So, if you disagree, which of the two premises do you disagree with??

        • Anonymous

          You really lost me on 2. I don’t see the logic in it.

          How can an objective law exist, when the only people who can discuss said “objective” law are giving their own subjective interpretations of that “law”?

          In my view the only way something is objective is if you can somehow view that thing outside of your own subjective experience. Is there anything that you have ever seen or read about or heard about or studied that has been OUTSIDE (objective) your own personal, individual, subjective experience?

          • Caleb Steele

            Its just a rule of logic called modus tollens – denying the consequent of the hypothetical syllogism I presented in (1). Here, if the consequent of a true premise is denied, then the antecedent is also necessarily not true.

            • Anonymous

              That means nothing to me, I guess I’m not a smarty-pants :P like you.

              If you want to respond to the point I made, I’m all ears.

              • Caleb Steele

                You’re as smart as I am I’m sure! I’ve just studied in a different field I suppose.

                Sure. which point?

                • Anonymous

                  Well, you’ve been harping all evening about “objective” this or that. Objective moral law.

                  My question is how can anything be objective when the only means we have to observe those things, are our own subjective experiences.

                • Caleb Steele

                  Well, by definition whatever is objectively true is true Independent of human thought or opinion. Are you asking how we can KNOW that something is objectively true?

                • Anonymous

                  Yes that is the definition… but how in the world could that definition ever be put into practice?

                  What on earth can we discuss with each other that is somehow “independent of human thought or opinion”?

                  We are humans, we are discussing this concept… using our thoughts and opinions. Neither you or I has EVER had an “objective” experience. The concept in itself is an oxymoron. “Objective experience”. Makes no sense.

                  Your point has been that we are subject to some objective moral law. I’m saying there is no such thing as objective. You are saying there is… but in saying that you are giving me your subjective experience of what you claim is objective. The concept itself is meaningless.

                  And you’re here sort of assuming everyone agrees with you that there is this nebulous objective “truth” of what is right and wrong, case closed…. yet I’m saying the very foundation of what you speaking (objective moral law) is in and of itself meaningless, unprovable, at the very least, a subjective opinion.

                • Caleb Steele

                  So you don’t think persecuting homosexual is actually wrong?

                • Caleb Steele

                  Right…through subjective experiences we discover objective truths about our world. Science itself is based upon the assumption that our noetic structures are reliable. It’s pretty difficult to live our lives otherwise. It’s most commonly accepted that we can say that we KNOW something if (1) we are justified in believing it is true and (2) the belief is actually true. Justified, True Beliefs = knowledge.

                • Anonymous

                  “Through subjective experiences we discover objective truths about our world.”

                  Ok, so through my subjective experience I’m having an objective experience at the same time? You’ve got two competing themes in your sentence. They cancel each other out. You can’t subjectively experience an objective truth. It’s nonsensical.

                  We’re going to go around in circles here forever. No point.

                  My point has been that even if there were, hypothetically, an objective “truth”, you, I, or anyone else would never have any access to it, because the experience of “objective” by beings that have an subjective experience is impossible. At best, “objective” is no better (or worse) than any sci-fi fantasy or tall tale. It’s something many people believe in but cannot prove.

                  Thanks for the metaphysical break from politics though.

                • Caleb Steele

                  My gosh man…look at your own sentence!

                  “You can’t subjectively experience an objective truth.”

                  Is that TRUE? How did you come to that conclusion…???

                • Anonymous

                  I was in the middle of replying to your other post, but as I was typing my response I got an email saying you’ve already responded to THREE posts of mine challenging me.

                  Three smarmy responses while I was trying to thoughtfully answer just ONE of your posts.

                  I can’t keep up with your tit-for-tats.

                  You obviously want to “win”. I’m here for understanding.

                  Let’s end it this way: you win, and I’ve deepened my understanding. Have a good one.

                • Caleb Steele

                  HA! Okay, sounds good!

                • Anonymous

                  This subjective stuff is obviously bothering you.

                  If you want you can contact me at a later date when the heat of the moment has died down and we can discuss it. It’s nothing to be afraid of.

                  If you don’t want to, that’s fine too. Just putting it out there because despite your best efforts you seem like a seeker. Please don’t respond to this post.

                  Lates.

                • Caleb Steele

                  So let me get this straight…according to your own view, your view isn’t true. is that right??

                  “My point has been that even if there were, hypothetically, an objective “truth”, you, I, or anyone else would never have any access to it, because the experience of “objective” by beings that have an subjective experience is impossible. At best, “objective” is no better (or worse) than any sci-fi fantasy or tall tale. It’s something many people believe in but cannot prove.”

                • Caleb Steele

                  “Ok, so through my subjective experience I’m having an objective experience at the same time? ”

                  Wait…you disagree?? you don’t think you’re experiencing reality?

                • Caleb Steele

                  You clearly believe in objective truth! You’re arguing that you’re right and I’m wrong…Objectively. If you think you aren’t correct in reality (ie, objectively) about your position, then why are you arguing for it so strongly?

                • Anonymous

                  Caleb I’ve already told you that this discussion is over, and I’ve offered for you to contact me at a later date when the tempers aren’t so high.

                  You can keep responding to every post I’ve made, but I think I’ve been pretty clear that I’m not as into the “you vs me” battle you want to be having. You are taking this much further than the original topic of my opinion on what Santorum said.

                  I do not believe in an objective truth. And I’m not arguing… I’m trying to tell you that I am DONE arguing. I’m done with this topic.

                  But I also know that my silly responses to you have kind of unsettled your take on reality. That’s why I said, let’s talk about this LATER… if you WANT.

                  But I think right now it’s best to just say good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. If I don’t hear from you about the metaphysical stuff I’m sure I’ll see you around on the other topics.

                  Have a good night.

                • Caleb Steele

                  Not at all I just hadnt read your last post…that’s why I responded after your kind request not to respond. No thanks on the offer though. You don’t even know what you don’t know on that topic, and it’s hard to dialogue with someone like that. haha. I’m happy to pass on your offer.

                • Anonymous

                  Thank you for the interesting discussion then. I look forward to seeing your posts on other topics.

                • Caleb Steele

                  Here’s the bottom line: if you’re going to play the hard skeptic, then, to be consistent, you should be skeptical of your own skepticism. If you think nothing is objective simply because subjective experience is the basis for all conclusions, then consistency demands that you also be skeptical of that very conclusion. In other words, your own question is in this case unreliably formed and presented. You don’t really seem to believe that, though, and I, not suggesting you do. Obviously you have political opinions that you believ to be objectively true…that’s why you’re here..right?

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KJXTBZY6E5MKAW3U2VFTSYT7PY Thedude

                  Moral law is not necessarily objective, but that is not necessarily a bad thing … but ultimately what you said is correct. Ultimately it is whoever is most determined, or most influential who will influence others to think similarly. With humans involved there is no objectivity, like you said. It it up to each individual to take responsibility for themselves.

                • Caleb Steele

                  so you don’t think things like child abuse or racism or discrimination against homosexuals is actually wrong??

                • datamar

                  He did not claim that. I myself, feel those things are subjectively wrong. I cannot claim they are objectively wrong. You are going on the premise that there are absolute truths (like objective morals), you are not capable of interpreting these things because you perceive the world subjectively through YOUR senses and YOUR mind.

                • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                  Even if he did (and you both agreed), that doesn’t mean it’s “objectively wrong”. It means there are two people agree that something is wrong.

                  Instead, if a person can be found who believes any of those things are not objectively wrong, your entirely argument fails.

                • Anonymous

                  Thanks much for the response.

                  I think as a species we have a general AGREEMENT on what is good and bad. The history of civilization has been on finding reconciliation between the group that believes in peace, love, and happiness, and the group that believes in death, destruction, and misery. Often times you’ll see one person jumping back and forth between both groups, but at the end of the day, I believe most people in their hearts prefer “peace, love, and happiness” and when there are more of them than the people who prefer death and destruction, you get a government similar to ours.

                  There just happen to be more people who believe in peace, love and happiness than believe in death and destruction, and that’s why we are fortunate to live in the country we live in because I feel it is the best system that represents that ideal, it’s the best system to ensure those ideals are viable.

                  It is the country, and the society, that I would like to see survive.

                  But that doesn’t make it “objectively” better or worse than any society. It just means that we’ve been lucky enough to have more people who believe in peace, love, and happiness than not.

        • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

          Foremost, your error is that you’re NOT applying Modus Tollens. It looks like Modus Tollens, but it isn’t. Modus tollens has the form:

          If P, then Q.
          Not Q.
          Therefore, not P.

          But you’re saying:

          If NOT P, then NOT Q.
          Q.
          Therefore, P.

          But that’s invalid: you’re “denying the antecedent”. You’ve confused yourself by scattering various “nots” throughout your argument. To visually simplify what you’re saying, you replace “NOT P” with X, and “NOT Q” with Y. You’re really saying:

          If X, then Y.
          Not Y.
          Therefore, Not X.

          But, as my original comment illustrated, this is invalid reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

          Second, all you’ve done is present is argument in a form of logical inference. If the premises aren’t valid to start with, the form of the inference is valid. But the conclusion is nonsense.

          Your first premise, you conclude that if God does not exist, then there is no objective moral code. And, yet, there seems to be no reason why God is a necessary requirement to have an “objective moral code”, whatever that might look like.

          Your second premise is a bare assertion of fact. Frankly, I think you’re wrong. It has no basis for being asserted, and has been the the discussion of philosophy and ethics for many thousands of years. I suspect you are confused about what “objective” actually means. Please consult your nearest dictionary and compare with the definition of “subjective”.

          • Caleb Steele

            Sure I am applying it correctly. the negatives do nothing to change the rule. You even agreed with me. Have a look:

            “Modus tollens has the form:

            If P, then Q.
            Not Q.
            Therefore, not P.

            …You’re really saying:

            If X, then Y.
            Not Y.
            Therefore, Not X.”

            “Second, all you’ve done is present is argument in a form of logical inference.
            If the premises aren’t valid to start with, the form of the inference is valid. But the conclusion is nonsense.”

            Nope – it’s a deductive argument, not inference. You know the difference, right?

            A valid argument follows the rules of logic. This does so – as explained above. A SOUND argument follows the rules of logic and has true premises. So you’re right about the premises needing to be true for the argument to be sound. But that’s just obvious, right?

            As for supporting reasons for premise (1), it seems clear to me that if God does not exist then we are just the accidental byproducts of time+matter+chance. In this case the same blind, accidental evolutionary process that made up to maggots, rats, and snakes just as accidentally produced our species. So why think we are any more significant than an these species? We are just one of countless other species, living for a brief time on a spec of dirt lost amid countless other planets in countless other solar systems in countless other galaxies, every bit as accidental and irrelevant, and doomed to the same hopeless fate. Did this accidental, material evolutionary process that arbitrarily spit us out somehow bestow moral significance on our species? Just ours? When a lion kills a zebra, it kills it…but it doesn’t murder it, right? Or when an animal forcibly mates, it doesn’t rape it, does it? So why think our species is any different? Did a blind, accidental evolutionary process somehow also produce an abstract set of moral standards for only homo sapiens to live by? At what point in our evolutionary history did evolution issue moral obligations for us to follow? And who or what imposes moral duties on us? It seems doubtful that immaterial things like moral values and duties could be the product of a material process like evolution.

            That’s why I think premise 1 is more probable than not: If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.

            • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

              “Sure I am applying it correctly. the negatives do nothing to change the rule. You even agreed with me.”

              I’m sorry, but the negations dramatically change the validity of the logical reasoning. As I’ve said, it’s classical fallacy–so well known it has a special name. And I’m not agreeing with you. I’ve very explicitly disagreed with you.

              “Nope – it’s a deductive argument, not inference. You know the difference, right?”

              All deductive arguments follow rules of inference. Grab a dictionary. Or just wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

              (Perhaps you’re confused about the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. “Inference” is performed in both methods.)

              “A valid argument follows the rules of logic. This does so – as explained above.”

              Sorry, it does not. For the analogous reasons that you explained why a sidewalk could be wet without it having rained. Likewise, the “denial” of your consequent, does not mean that God must necessarily exist.

              That does not mean God does not exist. It means your particular argument fails to logically prove that God exists.

              “As for supporting reasons for premise (blah blah blah) … Did a blind, accidental evolutionary process somehow also produce an abstract set of moral standards for only homo sapiens to live by?”

              Seems possible. Especially if developing a “moral sense” would enhance homo sapiens abilities to live in groups, thereby increasing their ability to survive and reproduce. And if that’s the case, that hardly seems “blind or accidental”.

              Kinda seems that’s even one of right-wing conservatives central tenets: “traditional morality” must be maintained because if it is not, society will collapse and we’ll all be doomed.

              “It seems doubtful that immaterial things like moral values and duties could be the product of a material process like evolution.”

              I don’t see how you think it’s “immaterial”. When you feel obligated to do something or entitled to do something, your brain is doing something. Have you ever touched a brain? (Maybe even had an MRI of your own?) The goings-on inside your skull are certainly not “immaterial”.

              “That’s why I think premise 1 is more probable than not: If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.”

              Your argument seems to be that you do not know the answers to your numerous questions. Therefore, a supreme being must step in and wave his Almighty Hand to explain away the problem. Surely you aware this is also faulty reasoning, i.e. an argument from ignorance, “God of the Gaps”.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jordan-Chambers/1271467862 Jordan Chambers

                Wikipedia is literally the worst accredited source to quote from. Just so you know

                • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                  It’s not “accredited”. But when you’re talking about simple definitions, it’s just easy to link to. I also suggested a dictionary be used.

              • Caleb Steele

                By objective I mean valid and binding regardless of what anyone thinks or believes. For example, the earth is round is objectively true despite what people believe or have believed in the past. In the context of morality, I’m saying, for example, that the holocaust is objectively wrong regardless of what people believe. So even if the Nazis had succeeded in WWII and then brainwashed everyone into believing that what they did was morally right, it would still be wrong.

                • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                  “So even if the Nazis had succeeded in WWII and then brainwashed everyone into believing that what they did was morally right, it would still be wrong.”

                  According to whom?

              • Caleb Steele

                Thoughts are immaterial. Emotions are immaterial. Moral values (kindness, love, justice, compassion, etc.) if they “exist” are immaterial. Just meaning they are not composed of matter. They aren’t made of material or substance. But evolution only operates with material subtance… matter…living matter. Since moral values aren’t material, it’s outside the operations of evolution to even produce such things. I agree with you that an evolutionary account may describe morality as a result of socio-biological pressures where there may have evolved among homo sapiens a sort of “herd morality” which functions well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But on this view alone there doesn’t seem to be anything that makes this herd morality objectively true.

                • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

                  “Thoughts are immaterial. Emotions are immaterial.”

                  You’re again making bare assertions of fact. What is a thought and an emotion? They would seem only and just as “immaterial” as words that can be written on paper.

                  “But on this view alone there doesn’t seem to be anything that makes this herd morality objectively true.”

                  Notwithstanding I haven’t stated it is…

                  It does not “seem”? What would make it seem objectively true?

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kim-Gabaldon/100000038640163 Kim Gabaldon

              Actually, you can get the religion out of it if you use the true definition of “morality” as “right conduct”, and apply it to the well-being of the particular species in question. Of a lion kills a zebra, it is not murder any more than a human killing a steer and eating it. For the lion to do that is right conduct. Humans are a complex and social animal. Our well-being depends largely on our emotional health, and our emotions are affected by our thoughts, of which there are endless variants. I suppose that you could come up with some objective moral values, but they would have to be very few and very basic. I would not wade in too far, just what is necessary to keep us functioning alongside each other.

          • Caleb Steele

            Oh I see where the confusion is. You think I’m denying the antecedent. Yeah, that would be an invalid way of reasoning. But I’m not denying the antecedent. I’m denying the Consequent Here it is again:

            (1) If God does NOT exist, Then OMV do not exist (IF not P, then not Q)
            The antecedent is the “IF” part (-P) & the Consequent is the “THEN” part (-Q).

            (2) OMV DO exist (in other words the consequent “NOT Q” is denied = ie, not “not Q”…i.e. “Q”)

            (3) Therefore, God exists.
            Only NOW the antecedent “NOT P” is denied. This is a valid form of reasoning because this IS a modus tollens argument – it denies the CONSEQUENT of the syllogism (not q) rather than the antecedent (not p) in premise 2.

            It may help if you some if you have a look at logical equivalents. Here are a few:

            P is equivalent to not not P
            “If P, then Q” is equivalent to “-P v Q”
            and “If NOT P, then NOT Q” is equivalent to “If Q, then P”

            Check out “The Art of Reasoning” by David Kelley if you’re interested or need further help on this. I hate boring everyone with discussions on propositional logic! But I assure you the reasoning is sound. Look at the book above if you’re still having trouble understanding.

            • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

              There’s a number of problems with this. And apparently you’re just not grasping the subtle issue of WHAT you’re trying to prove and HOW you’re trying to do it.

              Your argument looks like modus tollens, but it is is not. Though it is an argument, one in which you are trying to disprove the antecedent of the major premise, the underlying problem is WHAT you’re trying try to prove with that particular form of inference: existence of B is conditioned on A’s existence.

              You’re trying to prove something beyond the explanatory power of symbolic logic. Now you’re TALKING about material implication. But you’re STATING logical implication. The difference between the two is EXACTLY this situation.

              Existence is a material property. You cannot condition any arbitrary B’s existence on A’s existence. If B exists, it exists–because its truth–regardless of A’s existence and regardless of whether you can prove it. Stating that A implies B states MORE than the mere fact of existence; it states a relationship between A and B ABOUT existence.

              What you have done is state that A does not exist, therefore B does not exist. Then you state, that B exists. And conclude that A must exist.

              But you cannot conclude that A exists solely because B exists: material implication does not allow that inference. You cannot use modus tollens to contradict because the implication allows the antecedent to be either true or false. You assume it’s false (and that, therefore, God exists). But that’s just not a unique conclusion.

              It’s like trying to say that:

              If Unicorns do not exist, then Santa does not exist.
              Santa exists.
              Therefore, Unicorns exist.

              It’s existentially nonsensical and illogical. Santa’s existence has no bearing on Unicorn’s existence. And it’s very, very different than a major premise like: If Unicorns do not exist, then no Unicorn horns can be poached.

              In trying to apply a modus tollens-like argument, an error typically made while “affirming the consequent” is committed (even though you’re actually denying it): “if not P, then not Q. But Q.” –This does not mean “Not P” is false (or “God exists).

              You are the master of your argument. And if your underlying argument had merit, you would simply structure it:

              If OMV exists, then God exists.
              OMV exists.
              Therefore, God exists.

              But you won’t do that, because you cannot even demonstrate that OMV exists. Instead, the desired conclusion is attempted to be reached by cramming the argument into a box that it just won’t fit in.

              • Caleb Steele

                This is “propositional logic,” and at issue are the truth values of the propositions regarding existence of God and of objective moral values and duties. This is a valid argument in that it follows the axioms of logic. From what I can tell, you’ve been arguing not that this argument is unsound, but that it is invalid because it violates a rule of logic. If you want to disagree with premise (1), fine. I’d love to know why, but I assume we’ll never get there since, from what I can tell, you are still trying to make the case that I’m affirming the consequent. Do I understand you right? Or is it that I’m denying the antecedent? Or both?! I have to start here, I suppose, just in case it’s one of these. So, here’s the argument:

                (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
                (2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
                (3) Therefore, God exists.

                Now, let me go over this just one more time, then I’m going to have to be done. If we can’t even get past the logical structure of the argument so that we’re finally able to discuss whether or not the premises are true, then there’s just nowhere to go from here. So, letting “A” stand for the proposition “God exists” & “C” stand for the proposition “Objective moral values & duties exist”, here’s the argument:

                (1) If NOT A, then NOT C
                (2) C (So, here I’ve denied the consequent “C”. I’m saying NOT (NOT C))
                (3) Therefore, A

                See? Again, in premise (2), the consequent “C” is denied. It’s not affirming the consequent “C,” nor is it denying the antecedent “A.” Both would be invalid ways of reasoning. Instead, I’m denying the consequent “C.” That is in accord with modus tollens.

                Now, YOUR ARE RIGHT if saying that I could have just as easily laid it out: “If “C” (OMV), then “A” (God).” In this case I would be affirming the antecedent, which is in accord with modus ponens. But look for yourself! It simply doesn’t matter logically which way I lay it out. In both cases I affirm that OMV exist in premise (2), and the conclusion is identical: in both cases the conclusion is “Therefore, A (God exists).” See?? If you’d prefer it structured the other way…fine! Go with it. It’s the same. Again, just in case this helps you see it, have a look at these logical equivalents found in ANY textbook on logic. See the one I reference above if you don’t have one:

                A is equivalent to NOT NOT A; C is equivalent to NOT NOT C
                (This is OBVIOUS, no???)

                “If A, then C” is equivalent to “If NOT C, then NOT A”
                (Just apply modus tollens here)

                “If NOT A, then NOT C” is equivalent to “If C, then A”
                (Just apply modus tollens here too)

                I’ve tried to lay this out as simply as possible. If we are still at an impasse about the validity of this argument as it accords with modus tollens in denying the consequent, then I just don’t know what else to say but look at the book above. It’s a textbook. And I’m sure it’ll help you out.

                Hopefully the logical validity of the argument is settled. If it was settled already, then I’m very sorry for wasting your time!

                As far as your problem here:
                “Existence is a material property. You cannot condition any arbitrary B’s existence on A’s existence. If B exists, it exists–because its truth–regardless of A’s existence and regardless of whether you can prove it. Stating that A implies B states MORE than the mere fact of existence; it states a relationship between A and B ABOUT existence….But you cannot conclude that A exists solely because B exists: material implication does not allow that inference.”

                Well, the idea that existence is a purely material property involves ASSUMING that the material world is all there is and that God (or anything else immaterial) does not exist. That’s all in your assumption. But if in arguing that my position is false you just presuppose that materialism is true, then of course you’ll conclude that materialism is true and my position is false! You’ve built it in, so what else could you conclude? Just assuming it as fact a priori IS an invalid way to argue. First, you’re going to have to argue for your position that materialism is true. So what arguments do you have for your position that materialism is true? What reasons do you have to think that existence is just a material property? What about thoughts? Emotions? Other minds, or conscious selves? Numbers? Or propositions? If just one these exist, surely you’ll admit that they have no material properties, right? Do numbers not exist? If they do, of what sort of material is a number composed? Or what material property does a thought have?

      • Caleb Steele

        I don’t know the point you’re making…but the first premise “If it’s not raining, then the sidewalk isn’t wet” is clearly not true. The sidewalk may get wet for other reasons besides rain…someone watering the yard, a nearby water leak, etc…

        • http://twitter.com/bdross bdross

          Exactly. Excellent. Good.

          Now, apply to your own argument.

          • KenInMontana

            Game, Set and Match.

          • Caleb Steele

            Your argument is:
            (1) If it’s not raining then the sidewalk is not wet.
            (2) The sidewalk is wet
            (3) Therefore it’s raining.

            This is a valid argument since it is in accord with the rule modus tollens. I didn’t deny that. But your argument is unsound because the first premise is just false. If it’s not raining it doesn’t follow necessarily that the sidewalk will not be wet because a sidewalk can get wet for reasons other than rain. So again, that premise 1 is false is demonstrated by counter-examples of how a sidewalk can get wet. It valid in structure but unsound because premise 1 is false.

            So, applied to my argument, just show me how premise 1 is false. Premise 2 just follows the rules of logic in denying the consequent of the syllogism presented in premise 1. And because my argument is in accord with modus tollens, the conclusion follows necessarily IF the premises are true.

            Here are the logical equivalents again in case it’ll help you sort all this out. It can be confusing I know. But here are a few:

            P is equivalent to not not P
            “If P, then Q” is equivalent to “-P v Q”
            and “If P, then Q” is equivalent to “If NOT Q, then NOT P”

  • Sardaukar’s Pitbull

    Well, since the 10th Amendment is part of the “Bill of Rights,” you’re d a m n right, Rick! The whole point of the 10th was moral law! Christ Jesus help us all! AMEN and amen. Don’t worry! Pitbull to the rescue!

    p.s. See, I can be “arrogant” too! YOU BETCHA! OoraH! USA!!!!

  • Frederick

    The Problem with Santourm is there isn’t enough Libertarianism in him to check his neo-con. His condition on the 10th Amendment reflects that. His 10th Amendment stance begins, and end with what he thinks is right and wrong. I’m not attracted to this guys character. Ol Abe may have saved the Union, but there was more to Abe than that. The Civil war….Boy, what a mess.

  • Anonymous

    Get rid of all of them! They are a lying pack of thieves! I grew around Congressmen and Senators, and their entire thought process is “what is my take? What am I going ti get out of the deal? What is my home town going to benefit?” They don’t care about the country, only their little corner of the world. They DO NOT care about you, only their rich buddies and the “baby kissing” is garbage. We cannot afford to be “sheeple” any longer. Get rid of your bought officials, if you can. Try it, they own you, they don’t care about you and when we try to take it back, they will throw us in jail.

  • http://twitter.com/Super_Sachiko Jasmine Clark

    agree agree agree. it’s sad that there are so many people in america who want to throw morals out the window and act like anyone can do whatever they want, it’s a free-for-all, there are no rules! the states are not separate countries. all the states are together, the UNITED states of america. that means that if a state has a law that is way off base and crazy, (like what? use your imagination, the possibilities are endless) the federal government is allowed to control that. sheesh. some people are so hung up on the 10th amendment that they act like the federal government doesn’t exist! and they act like morals and values do not exist either. let’s just let every state do whatever the heck insane thing they want and act like 50 different countries!!!

  • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

    Many people, who do not have Hero Worship, believe that Lincoln was attempting to be America’s first Dictator and saw a way to use the slave issue to do it.

    Lincoln was a devote racist and did not free the slave because he felt bad for the black man, infact Lincoln wanted to round all of them up and send them back to Africa.

    “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.”

    • Anonymous

      I dont suffer from ‘hero worship’ as you call it..though it sounds amusing. If Lincoln did in fact quote that, he was referring to the ‘existing institution(of slavery). And he said it was his “first impulse”. It might be my first impulse to keep money I find yet knowing its not mine, later return it(my 2nd impulse?). You get the point. Regardless, sounds as though Lincoln could see more good to send them to their motherland( after all, many were shipped here beyond their own will). He also could very well have figured it would have saved much bloodshed. Sounds like a thinking man’s President!(unlike Obama today!) Your claims of Lincoln being a ‘devote racist’ is laughable. Both Christian and Deist did write the Constitution. And? A Christian would also be appalled at the idea there should be ‘forced religion’ (sorry buddy, I am NOT a believer of Islam!) and NO, I did in NO WAY indirectly advocate it either. The Constitution does not allow ‘forced religion’. there will never be a ‘Fed or State Run Religion’.(so dont worry yourself) A Christian believer does not force religion on others…you are misguided and apparently don’t have much of a clue of what Christianity is..now do you? Be honest with yourself. But last i remember, many people go around saying that America is a Christian nation. I have yet to hear a person say “America: a Deist nation!” Or..”We live in a Libertarian nation!” Yep..this IS a Christian nation..and the majority would agree. Anyone who disagrees is no doubt ignoring the reality and is in a minority..and so it will stay. Thank God for that…literally! Want to know another fun fact tid bit? the Bible states that whichever nation(s) befriends Israel will be blessed(that would be the USA thus far, and the nations that are Israels enemies will be cursed(the muslim world,etc). Funny how some wish America should turn away from Israel..thinking that would ‘solve’ our problems with the muslim world. Would you be in that category oh wise and Ancient one? lol I am happy to respond to you, but next time, try not to twist my words, or use silly words like ‘indirectly advocating’,etc. I’m a direct person and i’m easy to understand in my views. Don’t make feeble attempts of twisting of words or trying to complicate the simple. And please feel free to ask Christians wherever you may roam..and ask them if they think religion should be ‘forced on others’. Then, after you access, admit, at least to yourself, how wrong you are. No need to swallow your pride and admit it to me..I already know the truth of that matter..and i know the Truth. Now leave me, so I may freely worship my God..at least for now, for I know there are those that would like to see that come to an end.

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        Paragraphs please

  • Anonymous

    He’s right. Santorum’s response shows how empty the 10th amendment rhetoric is when it comes to other Republicans who are using it as a way to weasel out of taking a stance on gay marriage. They have all fallen for the polls that seem to show the majority of Americans, even conservatives, are now in favor of gay marriage. The polls don’t show that at all. If the polls show anything, it’s that gay marriage is so low on the list of things that most Americans care about in comparison to all the big issues they do care about that it’s almost a non-issue. But if the economy was good and people felt more secure about the future then they would give gay marriage the thought it deserves and most people wouldn’t favor it.

    But you know what? If the polls are right and gay marriage is now something favored by most Americans, who cares? The United States is not a Democracy where majority rules. Herman Cain made a huge blunder a while back when he was asked about the 10th Amendment and states rights. He was asked if a local government passed laws implementing Sharia Law, would that be valid? He had to say yes because he boxed himself in with his stance on the 10th amendment. And he was not quick enough on his feet to have seen the trap the question led him into.

    Santorum is right. Unfortunately, anyone who says what he said has no chance in hell of getting close to being elected.

  • Anonymous

    I really like Santorum. I think he is a man of high morals and integrity. And he isn’t afraid to put it out there. However, I have a problem with his abortion stance, I don’t believe in abortion overall, but if it is a case of the mothers dying or the baby being born, I can see why doctors would look at abortion as an option.

    • Anonymous

      Did you watch any of the debate last night? I didn’t watch the whole thing, only snippets while channel surfing and clips this morning on web sites.

      Santorum specifically said the life of the mother is the only exception he’s willing to make.

      What gave you the idea he didn’t believe that?

      • Anonymous

        I didn’t hard it that way, I hope that you are right Jayne because I really like Santorium.

  • Caleb Steele

    Is what you just posted true?

  • Anonymous

    Not really a lightbulb moment. Just another predictable response from someone who doesn’t really know what they are talking about.