Billy Graham endorses Hillary for President!

[Ben Kenobi]

TLC:

If you have to force someone to do something, then they don't believe in the same thing you do, do they? That's kind of my point. You can force people to do things, but you cannot force them to believe anything, regardless of what you do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, if you pass laws which are based on a certain belief system. A law banning blasphemy, for example, is obviously forcing a religious belief on others (by contrast, people can be against abortion and not be religious, even though most against abortion are religious).

The ideals of the western world are a belief system. This includes things like freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. So to pass laws because you believe all these things to be good, is in your opinion, forcing these beliefs on everyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The ideals of the western world are a belief system. This includes things like freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. So to pass laws because you believe all these things to be good, is in your opinion, forcing these beliefs on everyone.

Yes. However, they aren't religious beliefs, which are expressly forbidden from being forced on others by our Constitution (and for good reason).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Isn't Graham fighting Alzheimers?

Reagan suffered from Alzheimers too, so . . . . . .?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The ideals of the western world are a belief system. This includes things like freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. So to pass laws because you believe all these things to be good, is in your opinion, forcing these beliefs on everyone.

It's the first time I see philosophy referred to as "a belief system."

[Mr. Harley]

BK - you are confusing coercive laws versus permissive laws (Imran, help out please – what are the technical terms used in your field if any). This is the single greatest confusor used by those who wish to legislate morality. That in fact is the same argument used for the imposition of Sharia in Moslem countries – is that who you want to associate with

To use your example, there is no difference between a “Freedom of the Press” law and a Blasphemy law. They are totally different. A “Freedom of the Press” protects your freedom to write almost any opinion you want, and protects you from coercion by others. The Blasphemy law forces your behavior to conform to whatever standards those writing and passing it wish to impose on you, in this case typically from a religious vantage.

People then throw out the next confusor. All laws are coercive (by implication criminal law especially). I cannot remember who said this, but your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. Much of criminal, (and in certain areas of environmental law IMHO, i..e. when your toxic waste ends up in my drinking water), is based on that premise. Those laws are protective, instead of being coercive. This similarly applies to many areas of Business law regarding fraud. Again, one of the individuals is being “robbed”, except instead of strong arm tactics, they abuse the business structure of the country, putting that at risk in addition to sanctioning thievery.

Many business laws are there for the enforcement of various kinds of contracts. These laws are there simply because every society must have a method to enforce contracts, or that society dissolves into tribalism. Enforcement becomes a matter of warfare, with the stronger groups able to flout contracts because they have the largest armies. This leads to Warlordism and Balkanization. You could argue this is “imposing a belief system” but I would argue that this is simply providing the most basic framework to having a functioning society.

Now there are two very grey areas. The first is “victimless” crimes. I suspect Berz could write a much more comprehensive indictment of these, but they are coercive laws that prevent personal behavior that affects nobody else directly or consenting behavior between adults. These very much fall into your example, Ben.

These laws are imposing a belief system, which for example right now includes the fact that “Marijuana is bad.” Some people argue, very persuasively, that these laws are necessary to maintain societal order and cohesiveness (those who bother to try and hide the moral/religious nature of these laws). There are many of us who argue that such laws ARE imposing moral believes, and should be banned. FYI, this argument has been going on since the founding of the USA.

The other group of coercive laws include various business and regulatory laws. These often for example attempt to address things like asymmetrical power, i.e. work weeks, pay, etc. These have to do with a vision of what you want your society to be. These clearly fall into your area of “imposing a belief system” and, again IMHO, are very legitimate areas for various political groups to argue with and get into conflict over. One example is that some states give workers a right to take employment issues to court, while other’s permit business to impose an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. These two very different views are whether you believe businesses should be largely unfettered in the majority of areas in employment, or whether you believe workers should have certain rights, labeled by their proponents as basic.

Abortion, as I’ve mentioned Ben, is also one of those very few areas where coercive and permissive laws start to have a very messy overlap, as in you Ben will never have to be concerned about carrying a child after you are raped, or abused (as an adolescent) by a parent, relative, or adult authority figure. Conversely, that fetus/child is also affected by the prospective mother’s choices, and you have the makings of over a quarter century of arguments on this issue. However, we are talking a very small subset of the body of laws in any country. Most laws are not coercive, at least in democracies – funny thing, that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
TLC:

If you have to force someone to do something, then they don't believe in the same thing you do, do they? That's kind of my point. You can force people to do things, but you cannot force them to believe anything, regardless of what you do.

Read my post again, this time with comprehension.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That's exactly what happened in 2000 in her NY Senate race. The Republicans greivously overestimated the amount of mileage they could get on just attacking her nonstop. The ended up engendering sympathy for her. Lazio really screwed the pooch in the debate wherein he crossed over to her podium and shoved a paper in her face.

In the end, Hillary won handily, carrying even staunchly Republican upstate areas.

Don't forget that they ran a fuktard with zero charisma against her as well.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


They most likely do . There are plenty of religious Democrats.

Including Billy Graham:

Couric: I read, though, that you're a Democrat. Is that true?

Graham: Yes. I am.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sikander
Don't forget that they ran a fuktard with zero charisma against her as well.

That was the post-election hindsight. At the time, Lazio was admired for being an up-and-coming NY legislator with good looks. And I don't think he was any less charismatic than Hillary.

However, his defeat did pretty much sink any future he had with the GOP. Anyone who loses to Hillary would no doubt be pariah material.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. However, they aren't religious beliefs, which are expressly forbidden from being forced on others by our Constitution (and for good reason).

You said belief system, Imran, which is a much broader term than religion. If you want to confine it so that only religious beliefs can be barred, then that's fine too.

However, it is an interesting point, that it's not about relativism. Society permits some beliefs to be enforced through laws, even as it permits freedom of conscience on others.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, my apologies TLC.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK - you are confusing coercive laws versus permissive laws (Imran, help out please – what are the technical terms used in your field if any). This is the single greatest confusor used by those who wish to legislate morality. That in fact is the same argument used for the imposition of Sharia in Moslem countries – is that who you want to associate with

First of all, you are assuming that I want to side with the folks who want sharia, and that's not the case. I'm trying to draw out this very point that laws are in fact coercive, and that this is also a good thing that we have laws, even though they are coercive.

To use your example, there is no difference between a “Freedom of the Press” law and a Blasphemy law. They are totally different. A “Freedom of the Press” protects your freedom to write almost any opinion you want, and protects you from coercion by others. The Blasphemy law forces your behavior to conform to whatever standards those writing and passing it wish to impose on you, in this case typically from a religious vantage.

Those who would defend blasphemy prohibitions, say that the laws are intended to protect people from harms done to their belief systems. They see blasphemy, rather than an expression of beliefs, as a direct attack on their own beliefs.

Also, you forget that freedom of the press acts as a coercive restraint on those who attempt to restrict speech. It is a powerful tool, when enforced, and to say that it acts as permissive, only sees it from one side. I have, in many situations, wished for a stronger freedom of speech, in order to defend my own speech from those who would rather prefer me to go away.

People then throw out the next confusor. All laws are coercive (by implication criminal law especially). I cannot remember who said this, but your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. Much of criminal, (and in certain areas of environmental law IMHO, i..e. when your toxic waste ends up in my drinking water), is based on that premise. Those laws are protective, instead of being coercive. This similarly applies to many areas of Business law regarding fraud. Again, one of the individuals is being “robbed”, except instead of strong arm tactics, they abuse the business structure of the country, putting that at risk in addition to sanctioning thievery.

A libertarian said that, and the libertarian is right. All laws are coercive, in acting as a restraint upon those who wish to violate them. Where I disagree with the libertarian, is that certain restraints are necessary, in order to preserve the freedoms of everyone.

As for environmental legislation, that acts as a coercive restraint on those who produce the toxic waste, in forcing them to adopt specific practices to prevent the waste from getting into the water. Without a coercive restraint, the regulation has no force, other than through social pressure.

Many business laws are there for the enforcement of various kinds of contracts. These laws are there simply because every society must have a method to enforce contracts, or that society dissolves into tribalism. Enforcement becomes a matter of warfare, with the stronger groups able to flout contracts because they have the largest armies. This leads to Warlordism and Balkanization. You could argue this is “imposing a belief system” but I would argue that this is simply providing the most basic framework to having a functioning society.

Thank you! That's what I was hoping someone would say. It is essential for a working society to have regulations and restrictions, even if they are, by nature, coercive.

Now there are two very grey areas. The first is “victimless” crimes. I suspect Berz could write a much more comprehensive indictment of these, but they are coercive laws that prevent personal behavior that affects nobody else directly or consenting behavior between adults. These very much fall into your example, Ben.

What example did I provide?

These laws are imposing a belief system, which for example right now includes the fact that “Marijuana is bad.” Some people argue, very persuasively, that these laws are necessary to maintain societal order and cohesiveness (those who bother to try and hide the moral/religious nature of these laws). There are many of us who argue that such laws ARE imposing moral believes, and should be banned.

First of all, all drugs are regulated in some fashion, whether it be through laws barring drinking and driving, or the sale of such drugs to minors. This represents the fact that these drugs, though pleasureable, have a detrimental effect on the overall system of those who use them. This fact is not an issue in whether the drug ought to be legalised or not. All drugs, can, if used improperly, have a detrimental effect, even if they can have a benefit when used properly.

The argument is not whether these drugs ought to be regulated, but rather, how these drugs ought to be regulated. In banning the sale and distribution of marijuana, society has decided that the drug is harmful, and enough so, that it should not receive the benefits of legalised distribution. The same could be said of many other drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine and heroin.

The first argument if you want to legalise one drug, marijuana, is also to explain why marijuana ought to recieve preferential treatment over these other drugs.

Abortion, as I’ve mentioned Ben, is also one of those very few areas where coercive and permissive laws start to have a very messy overlap, as in you Ben will never have to be concerned about carrying a child after you are raped, or abused (as an adolescent) by a parent, relative, or adult authority figure.

Correct, I may not be concerned about carrying the child, however, no man is an island. To say that a child ought to be killed, because he or she has been conceived through rape, is a message that concerns me, even though I may not have to carry the child.

Conversely, that fetus/child is also affected by the prospective mother’s choices, and you have the makings of over a quarter century of arguments on this issue. However, we are talking a very small subset of the body of laws in any country. Most laws are not coercive, at least in democracies – funny thing, that.

All laws are coercive, otherwise there is no need for them. A law that is not coercive, is unnecessary, and ought not to be a law in the first place.

For me, the abortion debate is very simple. If the unborn child is a person, then society ought to protect the child from death, just as they would any other person. A mother who has the choice to kill her child in the womb, could also ask the same question, as to why she ought to be coerced from killing her child outside of the womb.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You said belief system, Imran, which is a much broader term than religion. If you want to confine it so that only religious beliefs can be barred, then that's fine too.

According to the US Constitution, forcing of religious beliefs are barred. It's specifically in the document. Nothing in it says that forcing of a specific belief system is barred, unless it violates a specific amendment.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran - your premises are so totally different than Ben's that what is occuring is not communication. Look at his premise and jusification about all laws being coercive (BTW Ben what I meant by your example is laws being coercive). His definition of coercive is anything that limits your action, thus diluting the very nature of the term. By that definition, since ALL laws are coercive, the laws he supports the would coerce my behavior to fit his beliefs are no different than any other law, and thus it follows equally justified. He cannot see that the Muslims who wish to impose Sharia, especially on non-Muslim's, subscribe to exactly the same set of arguments. Sigh. Thank God for the framers of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.