Nadler derides God...

Hammster said:

Let’s be clear. There is only one standard for morality.

Click to expand...

There are many different standards for morality. And if you want to argue that no moral standards could exist without God, then you're right. As St. Paul says, even gentiles have a natural understanding of morality, because God made it so.

So, as in our own particular legal tradition, morality is a part of our laws, but not from any religious tradition. Been that way since the earliest Anglo-Saxon codes.

And that’s what I’m talking about. Not once did I say anything about establishing a religion. So maybe the discussion can advance with that in mind.

Click to expand...

It sounds more like we're in agreement than it did a while ago.

But back the OP; shame on those guys who lied about what Nadler said regarding God. It's not only a gutless attack on Nadler, it's insulting to God.

The Barbarian said:

As St.Paul noted, morality and the law are seen by all men, even gentiles. It's nature, as Paul put it. Not only a religious idea; it's given to all humans as part of our nature.

God's universal standard of right and wrong is rooted in our human nature and knowable through reason and a well-formed conscience.
Mosaic

Click to expand...

If what you say is correct then why would religious views be inappropriate for argument in secular government proceedings as they would be just as much based upon human nature as non religious views?

The Barbarian said:

Several answers, trying to clarify for you.



Government cannot establish religious doctrines. However, as you see, a lot of things that religious people believe are really based on natural law, which all humans understand. So those moral codes can be written into law, primarily because they have a practical effect of making people free and secure. But only as they have a useful function for the society, not to make us behave morally.



See above. Religious doctrines can not be established in law. It is not the function of law to make us good, or even to make us behave morally. It is the function of law to protect us from others who might harm or oppress us, and to promote the general welfare; in a free society, morals matter only in the sense of justice, not goodness, which is between man and God, not man and government.

Click to expand...

Have I suggested that doctrines of religion be established into law?

Why do you keep mentioning something that is irrelevant to my question. i.e. What specific moral views are appropriate for argument in secular government proceedings? Continually telling me that one thing is inappropriate doesn't answer the question. Neither does a vague statement that there is a natural law that everyone agrees upon. I don't find the latter to be at all born out in reality. There are some things that most agree are evil and some that most agree are good and some of both variety that are hotly contested but nowhere do Ii see universal agreement.

Determining what is just is a moral question. If government is to determine what is just, which moral views are those in government allowed to consult in order to do so?

BTW I agree with the premise that it is not the function of law to make us good. The function of law is to keep order within society. It is not the function of government to protect us from harm but rather, by legislating and enforcing laws, to persuade us to do no harm and to take steps to see that those of us that are not persuaded and cause harm are made responsible for that harm and properly dealt with. Protecting us from harm is not actually something government is capable of doing.

grasping the after wind said:

Why do you keep mentioning something that is irrelevant to my question. i.e. What specific moral views are appropriate for argument in secular government proceedings?

Click to expand...

The literal meaning of the term 'just' is fair, impartial, evenhanded, candid, or reasonable. It can also mean right or fair according to law. The term can be defined in a wider sense to mean ethically, morally and legally correct or right; lawful. Depending upon conformity to or in opposition to law all human actions are either just or unjust. Anything just would be in perfect harmony with the rights of others.
Just Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The Common Law of England is in general the basis of the law of all the states of the American Union except Louisiana, whose system is based upon the Civil or Roman Law. In most of the states it is provided that the English Common Law and English Statutes relative to private law up to the beginning of the fourth year of James I (March 24, 1606), with a few exceptions, shall be accepted as law in the state. The system of Equity Jurisprudence is accepted in these states along with the Common Law. In every state the common or unwritten law must, of course, give way to the state's constitution and statutes.

The United States, as such, has no Common law.

Strictly speaking the only Federal law is that of the United States Constitution and statutes. The Federal Courts, however, in many cases apply the laws of the state in which the court sits, and thus indirectly are governed by the Common Law.
Section 12. Basis Of American Law

So our two sources of authority for what is right and what is wrong are English common law, derived from Anglo-Saxon and Norman common laws, and the Constitution. As far as government is concerned, what is right and what is wrong ultimately comes to the Constitution. Notice morality isn't part of this, except as common law was based on moral concepts of earlier times, and the Constitution was based primarily on Locke's philosophy.

Locke says " To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another....(Locke, 1988,pp. )
Locke's Philosophy in the Constitution (continued) - John Locke in the U.S. Constitution

None of this really applies to the OP, i.e. the dishonesty of those people in lying about what Nadler said. That is the subject of this thread.

grasping the after wind said:

BTW I agree with the premise that it is not the function of law to make us good. The function of law is to keep order within society. It is not the function of government to protect us from harm but rather, by legislating and enforcing laws, to persuade us to do no harm and to take steps to see that those of us that are not persuaded and cause harm are made responsible for that harm and properly dealt with. Protecting us from harm is not actually something government is capable of doing.

Click to expand...

Here's what the Preamble to the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the purpose of government in America.

Hammster said:

Where did their morality come from?

Click to expand...

According to God, all men recognize it. It's hard-wired into our minds.

grasping the after wind said:

If what you say is correct then why would religious views be inappropriate for argument in secular government proceedings as they would be just as much based upon human nature as non religious views?

Click to expand...

It violates the Constitution,which is the supreme law of the land.

None of this really applies to the OP, i.e. the dishonesty of those people in lying about what Nadler said. That is the subject of this thread.

Hammster said:

And who hardwires it?

Click to expand...

Nature. It's evolved. Whether by neutral changes or for an adaptive reason, it's there.

My thought is that God created the rules of this universe to get such results.

Hammster said:

Christ is the supreme ruler of the land.

Click to expand...

The Constitution is the Supreme law law of the land. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, He says. It believe Him.

Hammster said:

Evolution is contrary to God’s word.

Click to expand...

No, that's a common misconception, but it's wrong. The Bible neither supports nor denies evolution. However, it is observe to occur daily. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?

People often confuse it with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or with consequences of evolution, like common descent.

What do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

Hammster said:

I believe the Father and the Son when they affirm creation.

Click to expand...

That's good. The problem is you don't approve of the way He did it.

The Barbarian said:

Here's what the Preamble to the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the purpose of government in America.

Click to expand...

The preamble, if one cares to pay attention to the words and not assume the words mean something other than they tells us, is giving us the purpose of the Constitution. It doesn't even mention government let alone define a purpose for government. I would expect that if the purpose of government was what they were interested in elucidating the last sentence would have contained the word Government in place of the word Constitution.