Below is my column in the Hill on second Trump trial and how core values quickly became the extraneous to the purpose of this constitutional process. The final chaos triggered by Rep. Jaime Raskin (D., Md) only highlighted the procedural and legal irregularities in a trial that seem increasingly detached from values like due process.
Here is the column:
In the 1946 movie “Gilda,” Rita Hayworth delivered perhaps the ultimate film noir line. Looking at her former lover, she declared, “I hate you so much that I would destroy myself to take you down with me.” Hayworth made self-destruction sound positively alluring. That line came to mind as I watched House impeachment managers and Democratic senators systematically discard basic values that once defined fair trials — and American values — under the Constitution.
When Donald Trump’s defense counsel objected that he was not afforded due process in the House, the managers shrugged and said due process was not required. When the defense objected that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was protected under the First Amendment, the House scoffed that free speech is not only inapplicable but “frivolous” in an impeachment. Nothing, it seems, is so sacred that it cannot be discarded in pursuit of Trump. Over and over, it was made clear that his trial is about the verdict, not about our constitutional values.
Even with acquittal all but ensured, there was no room for constitutional niceties like free speech or due process. There was only one issue — the same one that has driven our media and politics for four years: Trump. Through that time, some of us have objected that extreme legal interpretations and biased coverage destroy our legal and journalistic values. It was not done out of love for Trump: I voted against him in two elections and have regularly denounced his actions and rhetoric, including his Jan. 6 speech. However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him.
That is why the second Trump impeachment trial played out with a film noir flourish, featuring the same “lost innocence,” “hard-edged cynicism” and “desperate desire” of that movie genre — most obviously when House managers dismissed any due process in an impeachment proceeding. Indisputably, the House could have held at least a couple days of hearings and still impeached Trump before he left office. It knew the Senate would not hold a trial before the end of his term, so it had until Jan. 20 to impeach him. It did so on Jan. 13.
A hearing would have given Trump a formal opportunity to respond to the allegation against him; no one has ever been impeached without such an opportunity. It would have allowed witnesses to be called (including many who already were speaking publicly), to create even a minimal record for the trial. Yet the House refused, and then declined for more than four weeks to call a dozen witnesses with direct evidence to create a record even after its snap impeachment.
So the House could have afforded basic due process but chose not to do so simply because it does not have to. When confronted about this in the Senate, one House manager scoffed at the notion that Trump should be afforded more due process. Representative Ted Lieu said, “Trump is receiving any and all process that he is due.” A chilling answer, since Trump received none in the House. There was a time when denying due process would have been shocking. Even if you believe that due process is not required in an impeachment, it is expected. We do not afford due process to people simply because we have to.
It is like decency, civility and other values. They are not observed because they are mandatory but because they are right. It is a value that defines us and our actions. Moreover, this is a process dedicated to upholding the Constitution. To deny a basic constitutional value in its defense is akin to burning down a house in the name of fire safety. Yet, the House’s position is that a president can be impeached and tried without any record of a hearing, an investigation or witnesses.
Then came the matter of free speech. Trump’s defense argued that it is inherently wrong to impeach a president for speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The House managers cited a letter from law professors declaring the argument “frivolous” even though some of those professors believe Trump’s speech may indeed be protected under cases like Brandenburg versus Ohio.
Understanding how such language would be considered protected by the courts is relevant in whether it should be treated as a constitutional violation for the purpose of impeachment. Just as courts balance the value of criminal prosecution against the impact on free speech, the Senate can strike that same balance in an impeachment trial. Even if you believe the First Amendment does not apply in a case of incitement, you still must decide if this represented incitement or an exercise of free speech. Yet in a letter that spun with circular logic, the professors declared that “the First Amendment does not apply” to impeachment proceedings. At least not in a trial of Trump.
House managers were asked why they did not present a case with specific elements of incitement set forth by the Supreme Court. Lead manager Representative Jamie Raskin said blissfully this case and Trump are a one-time instance of “presidential incitement” with its own ill-defined elements. In other words, it doesn’t have to meet the definition of incitement. Under such logic, the House could have impeached Trump for Endangered Species Act violations and said it need not involve any endangered species.
This impeachment trial captures our age of rage. For four years, people claimed total impunity in discarding legal or journalistic standards. They claimed that attacks on free speech, due process, or media objectivity are noble in pursuit of Trump. You can be lionized for tossing aside such values in order to get him. A few years ago, a trial would have been viewed as wrong without direct evidence, due process, or clear standards. Yet this is a trial of Trump, and many have allowed Trump to define them more than their values. Like “Gilda,” they are willing to destroy their values to destroy him.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as a witness with the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current trial. You can find him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Here’s the basic problem and why these “statesmen” and their flying monkeys in the press are willing to throw out centuries of bedrock American principles to get at Trump. For eons, politicians of both parties in every culture have relied on one dynamic to deflect resentment, stay in power and unite their constituencies – the outside threat. That shifted any localized resentment for the seemingly endemic self-aggrandizement away from society’s leaders and onto the “other.” Since about the 60s (and learning from fascists in the 30s), “modern” politicians figured they can make more graft from a globalized world with near limitless markets. Thus, the hoary blame the “other” strategy is self-defeating if you want to play money games in the MidEast, Europe and Asia. What to do? Well, you turn the enemy inward toward some segment of the native population and elevate the fear level. So the threat is now from within and the time-tested “divide and conquer” strategy works to Balkanize different groups within your own society. Being internally weakened, any resentment usually reserved for native politicians is diffused and aimed primarily against the group out-of-favor. In our case, it’s the mythical white supremacists/racists who get the hate.
In came Trump, who changed that dynamic back to resentment against the native politicians thus threatening their graft system. It’s why they hate him so ferociously. He upsets their corruption scheme by consolidating and the focusing the populations attention on the shenanigans of their leaders.This populism unites the once divided population (see Trump inroads with Black and Hispanics) and directly threatens the wealth and power — and hence the security — of the elite. When you’re insecure, you hate. It’s diabolically simple.
One of the great rules of life when something seems motivated by craziness, is that you just don’t understand who benefits. Everything has a purpose and the “love of money” still stands undefeated as the champion of most everything we call evil. Cui Bono.
I recommend watching “The Social Dilemma” documentary on Netflix. And then watching it again.
Perhaps. I’m not persuaded.
See, for example, the controversies at the Dalton School. The whole mess does have a commercial angle – the economic interest some of the trustees have in a diversity-racket contractor named ‘Pollyanna”, but that doesn’t explain why most of the school’s employees are on board with Teh Crazy.
It still amazes me that you don’t understand that Trump loves himself and money, and he only loves the US to the extent that he can get something from it. Trump used Balkanization to benefit himself.
He’d have been better off financially if he’d stuck to his business.
He didn’t expect to be elected. He was initially just expecting to use his candidacy to help himself financially in 2016 and feed his ego.
But then he was elected, and he used the office to help himself financially as best he could (for example, by visiting his businesses every 3 days — Trump’s businesses charged Secret Service more than $1.1 million during his presidency) and feed his ego.
Anonymous the Stupid is making accusations without a foundation. Trump probably lost over a billion or so dollars by being President. Based on the entire picture it is likely he knew the Presidency would cost him a lot of money.
“I cherish our values more than I dislike him” How refreshing and decent. It reminds me of this quote which has traveled with me for years-
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
Yes!
There are a number of good lines from AMFAS that you could cited, but this is perhaps the best.
Another one of my favorites: The law requires more than an assumption. The law requires a fact.
Democrats are communists. So, laws, constitution, bill of rights mean nothing. We have been taken over by the communists assisted by the moslems. End of story.
Yes! Please talk more about the idiosyncrasies of EXPLOITATION OF LEGAL PROCESS. Just as when any legal process is derailed by PEOPLE WHO COLLUDE to subvert Justice—we have here, people IN CONGRESS who are so easily able to lie, cheat, steal, frame and BAND TOGETHER to do any Partisan bidding. The treasonous behavior is now done in this hybrid way, bringing the clandestine and the overt together, skillfully, under the noses of a very, very tolerant ‘press.’ The complexity of this issue is almost sickenly beautiful. The effects of it will hand our power over to Putin and Jinping simultaneously.
We witnessed the Raskin Doctfine trample
The Constitution.
Only in America.
“and how core values quickly became the extraneous to the purpose of this constitutional process. “
It seems the Democrats have lost their core values for all Constitutional processes.
And demanding that Pence reject the legal EC votes is ok?
MollyG
And there in a nutshell is the problem with political discourse today.
“You did something, so I am justified in doing worse.”
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where we end up.
Also tells us a lot about your commitment to ethical values.
Trying to illegally throw out the will of the voters in order to install an unelected president is far far worse then anything JT brought up in this post.
Except that Allan’s claim that “Democrats have lost their core values for all Constitutional processes” is false. If you’re going to claim that what’s going on is “You did something, so I am justified in doing worse,” you have describe those things truthfully. To be clear: if one group does something bad, it does NOT justify another group doing something bad. Hopefully we agree on that.
Being truthful is part of a “commitment to ethical values.” Allan (the 9:42 AM Anonymous) is not truthful, and he is not ethical more generally, which is why he spends so much of his time insulting people he disagrees with.
Anonymous the Stupid my comment has nothing to do with justifying an act because someone else did the act as well. It is about the loss of core principles seen in the Democrat party of today. That is why civil libertarians such as Dershowitz and now Turley are rapidly losing the support of Democrats. Dershowitz and Turley haven’t changed, the Democrats have.
You are caught up in rooting for a team without any consideration for the consequences of their actions. I have followed Dershowitz for decades having political differences with him all the time. I never once thought he was dishonest and never had anything bad to say about him or his beliefs. That is where you are different. You have given up on core values if you ever had them. You are disingenuous, dishonest and a hypocrite.
In innumerable ways the left is now the right and the right is now the left.
Molly, you don’t understand the difference between disagreement and illegal action. You are accustomed to the latter.
Pence had zero ability to affect the EC vote counting at all and he rightfully knew it. What Trump wanted Pence to do was illegal.
That what Trump wanted Pence to do might not have been the best thing, I don’t think it would have provided the desired result. It might not have been good but I don’t think a request of that nature is illegal.
What Trump wanted of Pence was legal and constitutional.
What the country needed was a lawful election. that did not occur.
What we have been dealing with is the fallout of that lawlessness.
I do not know whether Troops are in the capital out of fear of Antifa/BLM or conservatives.
Either way it is wrong and the left is culpable.
“What Trump wanted of Pence was legal and constitutional.”
No, it wasn’t, which is why Pence refused to do it.
Pence:
“Some believe that as Vice President, I should be able to accept or reject electoral votes unilaterally. Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a Joint Session of Congress. After a careful study of our Constitution, our laws, and our history, I believe neither view is correct. …
“Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States.
“Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that design. As a student of history who loves the Constitution and reveres its Framers, I do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress, and no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.”
Again what Trump asked for is constitutional.
Further this particular circumstance has actually occurred before.
Pence is misrepresenting his choices.
The vice president does not have the unilateral authority to determine the outcome of the election.
Nor would any action that he was asked to take or could have taken done that.
He has the choice to present competing slates of electors – and that has occured many times.
And congress has the choice to choose between those slates of electors.
To the extent this is settled – it is settled in favor of what Trump asked.
There are approximately 44 states in which the outcome of the election was clear. Those states electors should all been confirmed.
How Pence, the senate and the house dealt with the remaining 6 states was constitutionally entirely up to them.
Under the circumstances they should have done as Cruz asked and conduct a 10 day audit.
Instead we have a govenrment whose legitimacy will be clouded forever.
S. Meyer, Trump demanding pence do something he has no constitutional authority to do is not merely a “disagreement”. Trump was demanding Pence to illegal invalidate multiple state’s certified results.
Was it illegal for pence to do what trump demanded?
I don’t think it would be illegal (as in a criminal act) for Pence to do what Trump requested. I don’t think it would amount to anything other than an eventual retraction.
Anonymous, “ It seems the Democrats have lost their core values for all Constitutional processes.”
Republicans have not been holding up to their own “core values” for the entire Trump term. They even declared openly that they would net honor their constitutional oath to be impartial jurors. The constitution REQUIRES senators to take an oath to be impartial and objective jurors. Only a 7 republicans actually did honor the constitutional process and they got criticized for it by the ones who were not abiding by the constitutional process themselves.
Democrats did a much better job of presenting their case than Trump’s lawyers ever did. They didn’t care because they knew the majority of republicans were already decided not to convict. They made the process a joke to begin with by not taking their job seriously. The majority voted on the constitutionality of the trial and a bipartisan majority agreed. Those who disagrees still had a duty to be impartial and they chose not to honor their constitutional responsibility. Turley’s criticism is wholly disingenuous.
You make points that cannot logically be defended. There was no Constitutional basis for the impeachment other than the lack of principles that Democrats have dispensed with.
You can’t stand it that one who has been a pillar of the Democrat Party actually holds the Party to its former principles.
One can quibble with the details and standards, but to say there was no constitutional basis is just wrong. While included but not highlighted, the call with the GA SoS is clearly impeachable by itself.
There was a Constitutional basis if you wish to say the House is entitled to impeach a ham sandwich, but that is not the type of mindset I look forward to running our government.
S. Meyer,
“ There was no Constitutional basis for the impeachment other than the lack of principles that Democrats have dispensed with.”
What is a constitutional basis for impeachment then?
The president not calling off the mob assaulting the Capitol? What about demanding the Vice President do something unconstitutional like “sending back votes to the states?
Trump took an oath to protect and defend the government against all enemies foreign and domestic. Letting the mob he incited to attack the Capitol is a direct violation of his constitutional duty. Impeachment for such a transgression is clearly within a “constitutional basis” as you say.
You have no principles and are a hypocrite. That is why you say what you do. In no way did the President’s speech cause what happened to happen. If you think it did then you have to indict a lot of Democrats in Congress, Mayors and governors. You fail the shoe on the other foot test.
The words he said were preceded by days of planning by the perpetrators already known to the FBI. Do you think he gave them an advance copy of the speech? The words weren’t even advocating violence and he was not close to the capitol. The gathering at the capitol started before Trump came close to the end of his speech.
Your technique of argument is dishonest. Your focus is only to hear what you want to hear and push the outcome you desire. I’m not interested in that one sided garbage. That is the selfish political way the Democrats in particular have totally adopted today.
“You have no principles and are a hypocrite. … Your technique of argument is dishonest. Your focus is only to hear what you want to hear and push the outcome you desire,” Allan says, looking in the mirror.
Anonymous the Stupid, you are being disingenuous because you are trapped in your world where principles don’t count and hypocrisy rules. I can list my principles and stick with them. You don’t even know the difference between the isms and do not understand the underlying politics behind fascism. You might find it interesting to learn a bit about Giovani Gentile.
In the end many of us agree to what we would like to see and differ in the way we get there. Some think the way is actually the end product. Right now that is the way you think.
Democrats did a much better job of presenting their case than Trump’s lawyers ever did. They didn’t care because they knew the majority of republicans were already decided not to convict. They made the process a joke to begin with by not taking their job seriously.
Correct. House Democrats began with the punchline: Incitement to Insurrection and then turned it over to House managers to explain the joke to the Senators. The problem for the Democrats is they had too many Republicans that don’t believe foundational principles of our constitution, due process and rights are a laughing matter. Had Democrats not spent 4 years trying to remove Trump from office, this latest joke might have been taken a bit more seriously. Not serious enough to move Senators that still honor their oath, but perhaps public opinion. You seem to fancy a majority moving to defy due process, to abuse first amendment protections is honorable. The opposite is true. Your opinion is a vile and insidious interpretation our countries expression of democracy. Our constitution is the foundation of our democracy; not a doormat to wipe your feet on. It protects the minority against a majority that have allowed their passions to overwhelm right reason. For 4 years we’ve witnessed allegations being made against Trump that ended up to be exactly what Democrats have done. And as if to put one final ironic point to their efforts, they charge him with incitement to insurrection. So a mob in the House impeach without witnesses, without evidence and without allowing the defendant an opportunity to provide a defense. Then we move over to the Senate where another mob agrees with the first mob that none of those principles of justice matter. Just lynch him already and be done with it.
So here it is: Democrats have spent 4 years inciting an insurrection against Trump. What they’ve done makes January 6, 2021 seem like amateur hour. They’ve weaponized everything imaginable to erase Trump and conservatives from the political stage. But as of right now, 43 honorable men and women stood up to the mob and said; not in this constitutional republic.
“However, I cherish our values more than I dislike him.”
*That* is why you are an Enlightenment scholar, and not a modern propaganda hack. It is inspiring to see a man of principle stand tall — especially in an age of pygmies bowing to: the ends justifies the means.
It is for that very virtue that some brand you with a Scarlet A.
Olly, “ House Democrats began with the punchline: Incitement to Insurrection and then turned it over to House managers to explain the joke to the Senators.”
The charge of incitement to insurrection was backed up by evidence, not just by his speech on the 6th, but by the months of sowing the idea of a stolen election into the minds of his supporters. The calls to Secretaries of State to change results, the lying about voter fraud, and demanding the Vice President illegally void state’s certified election results.
Trump’s own behavior and constant violations of his own oath as president over four years often enabled by republicans themselves and making excuses for his behavior they also found reprehensible for a president forced the democrats do their jobs. Jobs republicans abdicated when they chose to enable Trump’s lying, and whims of authoritarian fantasies.
Trump never called for the violence to stop. He actively mocked the Vice President during the insurrection incited by him. Not protecting the Capitol from the mob he incited is the basis for impeachment. Clinton got impeached for lesser offenses.
It was a total disgrace (I don t like to use that phrase, but it works) how this entire proceeding took place. A person was being tried for exercising his right to free speech, and hardly any of the defenders of our basic civil rights stood up in his defense. I am referring to those alleged “Constitutional scholars” who claimed that Trump’s assertions of freedom of the speech were frivolous.
Has the title “Constitutional scholar” come to mean anyone that will proffer an opinion about what s/he believes the Constitution SHOULD say, or what it APPEARS to say, rather than what it actually SAYS?
I scoffed at the way that tern was applied to Barack Obama when he was in the Presidential spotlight, since I had the opinion that he was mostly arguing for what he wanted the Constitution to say, rather than what it did say. The debate then was about whether he was reading what the document said, or whether he was saying what he thought the document said, and acting upon that thought. After eight years of Obama in office, I came to the conclusion that a “Constitutional scholar” had devolved into taking sides about the words of a document.
Now we have witnessed what happens when people who pretend to understand the law decide that they can make any rule apply to the way we handle an impeachment case. And the whole world is a whole lot worse off from the result.
Congratulations! You’ve finally opened your eyes. Too bad it couldn’t have been 15 years ago with the so many of us and when much of what ails us now (big tech, then nascent social media, millennials and their parents, higher ed, constitutionality, mainstream media, etc.) could still have been course corrected. Plenty of alarms were sounded then, nobody cared to listen.
Kevin, incitement is not protected speech.
There was no incitement
Art Deco, yes there was. It wasn’t just the speech on the 6th. It was a long running incitement by making false claims of voter fraud and pressuring and threatening election officials into changing the results.
A beautifully expressed cri de coeur. Just what I needed to read after last week’s s#!t storm. Thanks, professor.
This impeachment trial captures our age of rage.
Self-regulation has not been embraced in America for decades, coinciding with the rejection of religion. A society without religion produces what you are now decrying. George Washington and countless others have written as such, e.g. Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, Abraham Lincoln, Father John Courtney Murray, SJ, et al.
GEORGE WASHINGTON PRESIDENCY
September 19, 1796:
Farewell Address
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/september-19-1796-farewell-address
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness–these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Estovir, religion abhorrs individual liberty. It demands obedience to a single authority. Religion is incompatible with democratic ideals. Even libertarians would be hard pressed to accept the premise of religious adherence to their individual freedom. Under religion you’re never free.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you might first want to read some works on religion, e.g., those by Thomas Merton and Teilhard de Chardin, or peruse a study ib the lives of the saints, review the beliefs of the independent Protestant sects, or check out a mystic or a monk or two, read something about Zen, or break the spine of Lao Tzu’s writings, consider Shintoism, and look at the beliefs of the North American Indians and the Mayans. Then, perhaps, you can generalize about all religions.
Religion can be a group exercise or an individual one. Even the Catholic Church allows ‘perfect’ confession by the individual, without help of priest or confessional, not unlike the one-on-one with God that Luther and other preached, and most religions find space for the individual, not just Buddhism.
Old guy, cherry picking the better attributes of religions doesn’t negate the problem if creates.
Every religion requires adherence to a single authority figure. Reading about an author’s works still wouldn’t change the simple premise that under any religion you’re never free. You’re not an individual.
The concept of religious liberty in America is acceptable only if one religion remains dominant over the others. The privilage of having their views as the dominant ones often obscures what real religious liberty is. Our own government is supposed to be neutral in treating every religion in the country meaning it must view every religion as equal. Evangelicals cannot accept that concept because they don’t see their own faith as equal to others. They see it as THE only religion that is relevant.
Religion is always dictating what your are supposed to be doing, how to live, etc. the very antithesis of republicans conservatives and libertarians believe.
I was actually echoing Thomas Jefferson’s advice to a young man who was in search of a religion, since he had none — to explore all sects with an open mind and then decide which best suited his temperament (perhaps too distant an echo).
The Minnesota Twins study suggests that some are born with a propensity toward religious feelings, others not. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but different religions have different levels of authoritarianism. Zen tends to be very decentralized, Buddhism and Taoism are almost chaotic, and Islam depends on the authority of the local imam to a great extent. Any system of beliefs can be twisted and abused, but religion brings individuals something that no secular system can — comfort, particularly in times of suffering and crisis.
I grew up in an America far removed from today’s country in which marrying outside your faith was frowned upon, but for most that is no longer the case. I also had a colleague whose father disowned him because he fell in love with a woman of another faith. Those are negative cases, but I would not generalize them to over all religion any more than my more extreme evangelical acquaintances.
Individuals make of religion what they are able.
But religion provides a moral guide that secular system do not, and it offers comfort to those who believe, and even to those who only are capable of honoring the ritual. I still would rather a funeral with the Dies Irae, black candles, and a solemn mass than one in bare room with a stranger mouthing homilies.
The major religions all have ritual for those who have difficulty believing, mysticism for the odd individual, and intellectual engagement for other — big and little rafts, as a Buddhist might put it.
If you have no religion, it is your loss. If you are fallen away, unlike those enamored of cancel culture, you are always welcome back, prodigal son though you may be.
Sorry to go on . . . . and I doubt I have changed your mind.
An old guy, secular systems certainly are able to provide a moral guide, and one based on facts of existence few of us would deny. Primarily, the golden rule is a basic of any society, applicable to group members and would have definitely preceded the mostly monotheistic examples you give. We don’t need a god to know these things are we never would have advanced so far as social beings in very complex societies without them.
The biggest benefit of non-belief which i think is largely unappreciated, is that most – even the religious now, though not so long ago not – do not waste time or energy worrying about demons, devils, angels, or other spirits putting curses on us that we must resist by acts of voodoo, constant praying, or whatever it takes to get them to leave poor aunt Sarah alone. We – mostly – know now to take her to the damn doctor and get it looked at. Think about how both scary and exhausting it was for those poor humans in our past who thought about that stuff all the time.
AnonJF,
“do not waste time or energy worrying about demons, devils, angels, or other spirits putting curses on us that we must resist by acts of voodoo, constant praying, or whatever it takes to get them to leave poor aunt Sarah alone”
That is a caricature. That is not what most (99%) Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, or Jews believe whatsoever.
You arguing against what you want religious people to all be like.
Try Torah Means Teacher. The teacher is a former atheist.
Prairie Rose, why do you believe that religion teaches and achieves morality better than, say, secular humanism does?
Prairie Rose, why do you believe that religion teaches and achieves morality better than, say, secular humanism does?
Do you have examples of where secular humanism provides or has provided a more moral society and security of rights better than one rooted in Christian principles? I spent most of my adult life opposed to organized religion. I saw most Christians as hypocrites to their own teachings. I discovered that it wasn’t the teachings that were flawed, but rather the nature of humans. Believing in a power greater than man is a relatively easy thing to do. But being a Christian is not. It’s actually not much different from believing in the principles of our secular government. Believing in it is easy. Living up to the principles embedded in it are not. Both require humility. Both require one see themselves as subordinate to the law. And it’s always the tension between our human nature and the law that exposes our tendency for hypocrisy. And there is plenty of that on display.
“Do you have examples of where secular humanism provides or has provided a more moral society and security of rights better than one rooted in Christian principles?”
No, I don’t know of any society based on secular humanism. It’s quite young compared to most religions.
Many of the Founders were Deists, not Christians, so I hope you’re not assuming that we’re “rooted in Christian principles.” Washington said things like: “The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy,” and “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” Jefferson said: “One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mythical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Many of the Founders were Deists, not Christians, so I hope you’re not assuming that we’re “rooted in Christian principles.”
That’s the beauty of the freedom of conscience; I have the natural right to interpret from my studies of the Founders, that they believed in the teachings of the principles embedded in the Christian religion. Even when I did not participate in any organized religion and I questioned the existence of God and Jesus Christ as his Son, I still endeavored to follow those principles, largely because I had a fundamental respect for secular law. I often failed, I still do. It is however my study of the Framers and our founding that led me back to the Church. Not because I assert they adhered to any particular religion, but that they believed a power existed that was greater than man. That we have unalienable rights that preexist any form of government. And that the fundamental purpose for government is to secure those rights. I will never claim we have to adhere to a religion for our natural rights to be secure, but given my understanding of human nature, our rights would be far more secure if our culture and those that represent us in government believed in some authority superior to man.
Anonymous,
“Prairie Rose, why do you believe that religion teaches and achieves morality better than, say, secular humanism does?”
That is a good and important question–and a big one at that. I think the Transcendent element of most religions is important. People need to look up to something, something bigger than themselves. We are flawed. We are mortal. Looking towards the Transcendent helps us to reach beyond the baseness that surrounds us (and too often is within us), helping us to Aim towards something better. ‘A man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for’ gets at this idea. There is something to contemplating the Infinite.
Secular humanism asks people to rely upon themselves to intuit morality. But, people are flawed and limited and we can be quite motivated in our thinking–even the best among us get caught in biases. I agree with many elements of secular humanism, logic and reason being amongst the things I value dearly. I think logic and reason can be applied to religion, considering many elements of, at least, Judaism and Christianity (I’m not familiar enough with any other religions to speak about them). In addition to the logic and reason that can be used in conjunction with these religions, the metaphysical and spiritual elements are also available. People are complicated. Some are highly rational and just ‘don’t get’ those who are more mystical. Nahum Roman Footnick, who hosts Torah Means Teacher, would put himself in this camp. Consequently, he has sought out a more mystical rabbi to help him try to understand this side of Judaism.
The structures/ceremonies of religion also serve a purpose to create habits of mindfulness in those wishing to observe religious tenets (e.g., each time a Christian breaks bread–at mealtimes–they are to remember Jesus’ sacrifice, his refusal. People like ceremonies and habits; they create order in what could be a chaotic life.
I have to go get lunch for my kids. I’ll see if I can squeeze in a bit more to this partial thought before recess ends.
“they are to remember Jesus’ sacrifice, his refusal”
Ugh. Hit Submit too quickly.
Refusal to sacrifice his Integrity.
I’m only sorta Methodist, so I know this isn’t necessarily ‘doctrinal’.
Thanks Prairie Rose. I appreciate that you always engage sincerely and civilly, unlike many here.
Re: the need to “look up to something, something bigger than themselves,” for me, evolution (and the time-scale involved), astronomy, etc. serve that purpose, without a deity involved.
My sense is that secular humanists reason about morality rather than intuiting it. Agreed that people are flawed and limited, but I believe that religions were created by people (the texts were written by people, the ceremonies created by people, …) and so are also flawed and limited. We can also practice mindfulness and participate in ceremonies without those practices being religious.
But I can see how a religion brings a lot of these elements together for many people.
Anonymous,
“I appreciate that you always engage sincerely and civilly”
Thank you. You are very kind. It makes for the best kinds of conversations. 🙂
“Re: the need to “look up to something, something bigger than themselves,” for me, evolution (and the time-scale involved), astronomy, etc. serve that purpose, without a deity involved.”
Evolution and astronomy do have massive time and space scales. Yet, how do these physical things fill in the big questions of a morality, a goodness, a perfection to aim for?
What does ‘deity’ mean to you? Our conceptions may be quite different.
“My sense is that secular humanists reason about morality rather than intuiting it.”
There is definitely a place to reason about questions of morality, but it seems to me there needs to be a rock to stand upon. The Golden Rule is a good place to stand. There is a story about Rabbi Hillel who was asked by someone wishing to convert to Judaism whether Hillel could recite the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel said to him (and I paraphrase), “Do not do to others what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and do likewise.” It is helpful to have reminders, things to prick your conscience, jog your memory, or other stays upon your actions and thoughts and that, for me, is where quotes of wisdom (could be from the Bible, the Torah, great books, or elsewhere) or prayers can come in handy. There is no new thing under the sun, it is said, so why reason afresh constantly about things others have encountered before me? It’s a good argument for reading some of the great works of literature, too. I’m not saying to not reason, however, that would be foolish. The stories in the Bible (and other great works) are often things I have not encountered directly, but if I ever encounter something similar, I can have some kind of background knowledge of admirable ways (or not) others have handled the similar situation. I can then try to do better. The stories in the Bible are not always lessons in how one *should* act; quite often they are examples of how one *shouldn’t* act–playing favorites with children is a good example. Playing favorites led to family strife for like 4 generations–from Abraham to Joseph and his brothers.
“Agreed that people are flawed and limited, but I believe that religions were created by people (the texts were written by people, the ceremonies created by people, …) and so are also flawed and limited. We can also practice mindfulness and participate in ceremonies without those practices being religious.”
Treating things as sacred, though, despite their many aspects of temporality, elevates them and us in the process. The texts were written by people, but there is something special there, something that resonates when it echoes Truth. We cannot make it perfect but we try to step close. In Exodus, God tells Moses to turn around and wedge himself in a crevice in the rock so he can see the shadows and flickers of light as God passes by behind him (seeing God directly would be too much for a mere mortal). That is like Plato’s Cave. “And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:17-23) This is not literal. The symbolism and meaning is rich.
A better discussion than I think I could attempt:
https://torahmeansteacher.com/tmt-107-exodus-3317-3321/
What does ‘being religious’ mean? There are layers of definitions.
I’m not very religious about keeping a good sleep schedule. 😉 I’m burning the midnight oil. I hope we may continue tomorrow. Cheers!
Prairie Rose,
“how do these physical things fill in the big questions of a morality, a goodness, a perfection to aim for?”
I don’t turn to things like evolution and astronomy for morality or goodness. I turn to other humans (and sometimes to other animals expressing what looks to me like empathy, generosity, care, etc.) for morality and goodness. Perfection is an interesting issue. Depends on the kind of perfection one is talking about. Certainly there are elements of the natural world that strike me as being as close to perfection as anything created by humans.
“What does ‘deity’ mean to you? Our conceptions may be quite different.”
I don’t think about gods very much. I guess I consider them in at least a couple of ways. One is as supernatural beings with great powers, where we don’t know whether or not they exist (my personal view), and another is as beings in different religions, where they may be seen as all-powerful, as a creator of the universe, as interested in the well-being of humans, as providing some kinds of reward or punishment in an afterlife, etc., varying with the religion.
I agree that the Golden Rule is a good place to stand. I interpret it as a human crystallization of moral lessons, and believed by both religious and nonreligious people. Religious texts and literature can definitely inform our thinking about morality. So can research about moral issues and history, and opinion pieces written by thoughtful people.
I don’t think much about the sacred, but to the extent I do, it’s again linked to nature and the need to not destroy things that preexist humans and that we cannot replace.
Thanks for recommending the link. I haven’t read it yet, but I will.
Anonymous,
“I turn to other humans (and sometimes to other animals expressing what looks to me like empathy, generosity, care, etc.) for morality and goodness.”
In what way do you turn to other humans for morality and goodness? Where do they get their wisdom? Who do find most useful to turn to for morality and goodness?
Hi Prairie Rose, sorry for my slow response.
“In what way do you turn to other humans for morality and goodness?”
Mostly by watching people’s actions and using what I consider moral acts as a model for my own, and by thinking about people’s proposals, arguments, questions, etc., when they’re discussing moral issues.
“Where do they get their wisdom?”
I assume that this arises in the same way that other wisdom arises, through study, reasoning, having good models and support, …
“Who do find most useful to turn to for morality and goodness?”
Outside of friends and family, there isn’t someone that I turn to regularly, but there are lots of models if we simply keep our eyes open. For example, I was looking for a movie to watch last night, and after I happened on it, I chose to watch Prosecuting Evil, a documentary about Ben Ferencz, the last living prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials and a key figure in creating the International Court of Justice. Not only is he a positive model, but hearing more about the defenses provided by the Nazis being tried provides a negative model of how people excuse evil.
I did take a look at the website you linked to, but discovered that it was mostly a podcast rather than a written discussion, and I wasn’t up for listening to the hour-long discussion, maybe some other time.
Prairie, I did not say that is what most of the religious believe today. I said:
“The biggest benefit of non-belief which i think is largely unappreciated, is that most – even the religious now, though not so long ago not – do not waste time or energy worrying about demons, devils, angels, or other spirits…”
That huge advancement for humanity did not come from religious enlightenment, it came from the obvious success of reason and science – our shamans actually do heal the sick . You only have to go back maybe a couple of centuries for that numbing belief in spirits to be widespread, Now we still have prayer as a recommended additive to medicine, but not as a substitute or 1st choice. Thankfully.
Sorry, AnonJF. I tripped over your interjection. My attention was very much divided the other day. It is still rather divided today.
No problem Prairie. We all do that on occasion, or at least I do.
Prairie Rose, anonJF is not arguing what he wants religious people to all be like. He’s arguing that religious people are actually like.
The central belief that morality comes from a God is hugely flawed. If that were true there would be no need to teach it to children. It would already be innate. Obviously that’s not true. Catholic priests have molested children for decades and the church turned a blind eye to that immorality while simultaneously focusing its criticism on immoral issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
AnonJF is right. The basic tenet of the golden rule is universal. Unfortunately it is not a big part of religious dogma as it is for the non-religious.
You appear to be confusing superstition with religion. They can coincide, but religion stands to superstition like the Constitution to an op.ed. piece in a postmodern rag. The golden rule was formulated by the Greeks, whose society was chock full of philosophers, rhetoricians, and gods. It was not an either/or question, but a and/also condominium. Religion was part and parcel of Greek medical ethics, epic poetry, tragedies and comedies, and politics.
The problem with the ethics generated by secular systems is that they are constantly in flux, while the morals propounded by major religions tend to be stable. Then there are the tenets of Zen, which have few strictures but insist on self-awareness, enlightenment, and being at peace with the world around you (depending on whom you have read; I tended to depend on Suzuki).
I am truly sorry if some ignorant and superstitious people gave your aunt Sarah a hard time. But I have also seen lives ruined by psychologists and social workers and public health officials and politicians.
Should we ban them as well?
As for the poor humans in the past, with or without religion, life was often brutal, nasty, and short, in part because the physician had no idea what he was doing and until Andreas Versalius published his anatomy most of them had no better idea of where the major organs lay than the local priest. A slight exaggeration, but not that much of one. After all, women once believed that breast-feeding drained them of vital fluids, making babies little more than vampires. To blame religion for human ignorance in the past is a bit of a stretch.
old guy, religion is a superstition. It is belief in a spirit world with magical events.
As to longevity, you understand that humans very close to us physically and mentally have existed for many hundreds of thousands of years. How long ago were the Greeks? By the way, they invented the golden mean but the golden rule is basic to social entities. It’s impossible to organize humans in cooperating units without it, and we have lived like that for those multiple hundreds of thousands of years. Since we also invented the various religions, those are our moral codes with the added threat that if you don.t follow them God will get you.
Ah Joe. So confident you are.
And yet physicists now freely debate whether or not we are living in a simulation composed by Superior Beings. Really!
Give a listen to this and ask yourself how qualitatively different it is from “Creation” notions from organized religion.
It seems to me that it is equally speculative. If the one is “superstition” then this is too
Perhaps there is more to “superstition” than you allow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc
Sal Sar
Anonymous, arguing that there is a creator necessary for the existence of the universe is perhaps a valid point of view. However, even if granted that there is one – and I don’t know enough to make a judgement either way – is not the same thing as saying we know what that creator’s intent is, if he/she/it has an intent, and especially as it regards humans on our distant and lonely sphere. I’m sorry to say but fir that reason, creationism gives us no more guidance as to some purpose or recommended behavior for humans.
In my book, the only creatures who have helped and loved and cared about me are fellow humans. The fact that we have risen from our background on the savannah to the point we are now gives me belief and hope in our worthiness and our ability for sublimity. Mozart and James Brown are heaven enough for me, or the best I will get and sharing with others as high a joy as I can reasonably wish for. Life is worth living, which is why almost all living beings will strive to stay alive almost no matter what. Our uniquely advanced ability to understand it only makes it richer in my opinion.
PS Didn’t recognize you at first Kurtz.
I concede that authority to speak for a creator does not necessarily follow from the reasoned belief that there is a creator. Your first paragraph
your second paragraph is agreeable
I am simply pointing out that there is a fundamental metaphysical uncertainty about the origin of the cosmos.
going back before the big bang, science has no more certainty than religion
indeed now they bandy about this simulation theory that is remarkably similar to genesis, with substitution of the dramatis personae
that belies popular belief in the authority of the supposed representatives of science to pontificate on endless topics as they often do.
I am a student of science and religion, but a partisan of neither
Sal
AnonJF,
“creationism gives us no more guidance as to some purpose or recommended behavior for humans.”
There is a lot to explore in this. One thing that comes to mind is the creation story in Genesis. I do not think it is literal. That’s not a very helpful analysis of it anyway. It is rich with meaning. At the end of each day, after God has created another new thing, He notes that ‘It was good.’ Right there is a marker of value. And, if it was God who created all these things, they are touched by the Sacred and should be treated with at least some thoughtfulness.
Why do we presume the only choices are the Genesis story of creation and Darwin’s mid 19th century version of evolution ?
“Religion was part and parcel of Greek medical ethics, epic poetry, tragedies and comedies, and politics.”
That is a gross misrepresentation. For an accurate account of the role of reason, and of the gods, in ancient Greece, read _The Greek Way_, by the great classicist Edith Hamilton.
Well said.
“But religion provides a moral guide that secular system do not . . .”
That is incorrect.
Both Aristotle and Ayn Rand (just to name two) offer a secular code of morality. Both codes defend moral absolutes. Neither code, though, is based on the belief in a mystical entity.
If it is moral absolutes you are looking for, you cannot start with the premise: A belief in that is beyond evidence, logic, reason — i.e., that cannot be proven. What follows from a premise based on faith? — anything or nothing.
Non-theistic religion– there is at least one, Buddhism, or at least the Ch’an or Zen variety– offers moral and ethical guidance as well
Many atheists have a good sense of morality. I was an atheist for years
the ancient polytheists claimed that Jewish and Christian religion itself, was concealed atheism. Celsus, said this, if I recall correctly. A matter of perspective, perhaps?
We can find many good reasons for organized religion, but I suspect the “theism” proposition is less important than many people typically believe.
Sal Sar
Kurtz, there are examples of benefits of religion, but it comes with serious baggage, and the most glaring are false hope and false fear – the latter especially. As I described above, our ancestors lived with the constant thought that spirits were seeking to harm them or relatives and they acted in ways now seen as a complete waste of time, sometimes harmful, and always an unnecessary burden, mentally and physically. Good riddance to that!
Think about that. You got sick because an enemy did voodoo on you. If you don’t sacrifice one of your goats, the rest may become sick, or some other terrible thing will happen.
Joe, I spend a lot of time around Chinese immigrants. who were brought up under an aggressively secular government. and yet they propitiate the spirits of their ancestors with incense, offerings of foody, candy, paper money, and even cigarettes. the CCP line is that this is “mixin.” the word you used- superstition
And yet so many Chinese people including CCP members do the very same thing, propitiating their ancestors, believing in spirits, customs, and invisible things that find no proof in empirical science. The party projects a scientific mindset to the outside world, but all the hallmarks of the very same mixin can be easily picked up on government sponsored Chinese tv. So one wonders how deep the naturalistic mindset really goes.
There, against the most aggressive attacks on religion in history, attacks under which Christianity and Islam faltered and withered, the folk beliefs of the Chinese people endure
I am not going to insult them by dismissing it all as mixin. Some of it may seem ridiculous, but I respect their success as a people.
I can respect Islam too, or Hinduism. Or Judaism. For similar reasons.
I try and respect Christianity, the religion of my ancestors, with at least as much charity as I extend to those whose ancestry I do not share. This is my personal approach.
Martin Heidegger is considered an atheist philosopher. And yet he suggested very explicitly that existence itself is mysterious and sacred. Thaumazein is an old Greek world he used to express this wonderment. I think that is the best mood with which to approach “metaphysics” and I invite you to a good mood on it too
Sal
Kurtz, hard for me to respect religions except as relics of our long struggle to survive and advance in a harsh universe. Maybe that’s similar to confucianism’s ancestor worship. While I have not studied it or know practitioners as you do, I wonder how much it is an understandable and practical attempt to keep alive through remembrance those who came before and who ultimately, like us, will be forgotten along with the ones trying to remember. We are all heading to complete obscurity and even Trump and Obama – he made this very point in an excerpt from his book I saw him discuss – will be completely forgotten given enough time. The earth is 13 billion years old. We leave something in the DNA, in the spirit of the people that makes our lives more than the here and now? Who knows, but it’s possibly sustaining.
One can ask, are humans a valuable and worthy adventure? The answer is, no one but ourselves is even thinking about the question, or much of any other questions, so hell yes! We can answer and get no argument.
There was an opening quote in the Whole Earth Catalog by Stewart Brand, it’s primary author:
“We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”
And those on the left live in constant fear too.
Please name a single purportedly scientific “malhtusian” claim ever that has come true ?
There is no difference between ancients sacrificing virgins to apease the gods and end a drought, than those on the left terrified that the sea level will rise 80m in the next 80 years. And worse than the ancients you are sacrificing the lives and prosperity of billions
Rare event Sam: +1
AnonJF: +1/2
If you aren’t being intentionally ironic, then pfft. You follow the most totalitarian ‘religion’ since the Inquisition. Sorry, but beliefs are just that: we can choose to keep them or release them at any time, we all have free will. There is no such thing as force so powerful your brain turns to mush, as in, ‘I had no choice.’. Choices may be uncomfortable, but there nonetheless (so be honest and say you chose personal comfort instead, mmkay?). What you posit is about as credible as claiming, ‘The Devil made me do it! I had no choice!’. Bull****.
And incidentally, Estovir was addressing morality, not forced prostration, though I actually believe and have seen that morality can come without ‘religion’ per se. Nevertheless, real understanding is sure as hell doomed with 21st century pissing contests over ‘feelings’ engaged in by adults with the emotional intelligence of turnips. That mentality represents morality and compassion like burnt toast represents quantum computing.
James, “ Estovir was addressing morality, not forced prostration, though I actually believe and have seen that morality can come without ‘religion’ per se.”
Estovir, is implying that the lack of morality in the country is due to the rejection of religion. Morality does not come from religion nor it is exclusive to what is moral. In fact religion in this country has perverted morality. The constant judgements of others because they are differen, be it color of their skin or their choice of lifestyle, and it’s own hypocrisy such as making excuses for choosing to follow an immoral leader in exchange for getting their wishes to impose their moral values on others is exactly why religion is being rejected.
The younger generations are not blind to the sheer hypocrisy. This is why religion is being rejected. Religion has lost credibility with its embrace of hypocrisy as unspoken virtue.
I disagree both with the notion that religion is the only source of morality and also with the typical naturalist belief that religion is bad.
Both are simple minded proselytisms
Sal Sar
Religion is the typical repository for positive morality.
Negative morality rests on free will. Most religion accepts free will as a tenent.
Conversely free will does not require religion.
I am not clear on the difference between negative or positive morality. What i have read is obtuse and did not seem worthy of much additional attention
Free will does not require religion
However, physics does not posit a basis for free will. Scientists when pressed will often admit that they believe it is illusory
And yet, most sane people understand that we have it, if only to a degree
here is an interesting conversation about it
Sal
Negative morality – “thou shalt not …”
Most law is negative morality.
Postive Morality – “feed the hungry, ….”
Positive morality and FORCE – aka government do no go together.
Forcing another to act positively is amoral at best and mostly immoral
“Scientists when pressed will often admit that they believe it is illusory”
A conclusion they *chose* to come to?
Sal, most secular humanists I have met are hypocritical. I think they like the term humanist for its similarity to humane and the Humane Society. However, many so call humane societies put dogs and cats to death because eventually they hit on reality and their own needs and wants. Many adopt the term to feel superior to others.
I am not promoting religion and not dissing those that are not religious, but I do note that to feel superior people like Svelaz diss religion. Religion has been a source for civilized behavior and the development of our western civilization.
Take Judaism, it has laws regarding diet that were based on health issues. Sacrificing a lamb instead of a woman or child. Where did anyone hear of literacy for all men age 13?
My question for Svelaz who believes religion is the root of all evil is what religion did Stalin or Mao have?
“Religion has been a source for civilized behavior and the development of our western civilization.”
I vehemently disagree.
One of the hallmarks of “civilized behavior” is the commitment to settle disputes by using persuasion, evidence, arguments — i.e., by an appeal to *reason*. It is a Western mindset captured eloquently by the expression: “Leave your weapons at the door.”
It is a commitment to reason that civilizes men. That commitment came, ultimately, from the philosophy of Aristotle, then through the Renaissance (via Aquinas), and the Enlightenment. The Founders owe their pro-reason convictions to Aristotle — not to religion.
Once you elevate anything above reason, as religion does, you leave men with only one means of settling disputes: physical force. The best historical examples of that horror are the centuries of church-state atrocities and the centuries of holy wars.
Sam,
SM said a source, not the only source. No doubt that the pre-reformation culture was often dominated by religious persecution, but the reformation and Gutenberg’s Bible expanded literacy throughout Europe. I would argue the Enlightenment Era (Age of Reason) was positively impacted by the expansion of literacy and to what Kant described as breaking the bonds of self-incurred tutelage. I would say that just as a civilized culture needs secular laws, it also needs the moral absolutes found in the major religions. I believe both are necessary, as it promotes Right Reason.
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and at all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Sam, things do not develop individually rather they do so concurrently. Reason is part of the development of mankind
Individual and concurrent are not mutually exclusive.
In context with my statement I don’t understand your point. Did I say they were mutually exclusive? Not sure what you are getting at.
🙂 Now which of you will get the last word?
Olly, maybe it will be you if you can answer the question.
Your problem is that you have no set principles to live by. Therefore, you act in a manner that is inconsistent and fractious to society. You live in the short term without concern for the tomorrows that come or for the concerns of any one else. That type of life is more like the life of an Amoeba where no principles or knowledge are accumulated permitting the amoeba to merely exist without ever having truly existed.
S. Meyer, “ Your problem is that you have no set principles to live by. Therefore, you act in a manner that is inconsistent and fractious to society.”
You have no way of knowing that you don’t know what I believe or what my principles are.
Society is moving away from religion. More people identify as non religious, not atheists, just don’t identify with any religion.
Society can live without belief in a deity. Deities come and go. The more people know the less important religion becomes. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. all had well established religions that lasted for hundreds and thousands of years. The current iterations are no different. A new one always takes its place. Christianity itself has so many sects its actually ridiculous.
“You have no way of knowing that you don’t know what I believe or what my principles are.”
We judge you based on your posts.
From those it is clear you know very little about most things you post about, and that you contradict yourself constantly.
“Society is moving away from religion.”
Not a prediction I am prepared to make.
The world is large with many concurrent shifts.
Islam as an example has been growing.
“Society can live without belief in a deity.”
Faith is an inherent human attribute. You fixate on dieties. Religion does not require etherial gods.
Many communists are deeply religious.
Environmentalists are incredibly religious, particularly warmists.
Humans can and do make most anything into a religion.
Today many make science into a religion to the detriment of actual science.
There are more “sects” of agnositics and athiests than christians.
“You have no way of knowing that you don’t know what I believe or what my principles are.”
What better way of knowing than listening to what you say?
Estovir, religion abhorrs individual liberty.
Thanks for another dose of historical illiteracy. You trying to keep up with Gainesville?
Art Deco, give me an example where religion accepts individual liberty?
How does Christianity or Judaism or Islam allow you to live your life as you see fit? No constraints? Taboos at all?
How does Christianity or Judaism or Islam allow you to live your life as you see fit? No constraints? Taboos at all?
Individual liberty in it’s purest sense has no constraints other than what nature imposes on it. So even when you’re alone, living in nature, you still are not completely at liberty to do as you wish if you want to survive. Once you encounter others in the state of nature, you are faced with additional constraints on your liberty. You can fight against them, or work together to better secure your natural right to life, liberty and property. And always with a desire for the least amount of constraints to achieve that outcome. The enemy of liberty and the security of rights is not religion, it’s human nature.
Do you have an example of a society that maximizes individual liberty and the security of rights, that places human nature and not natures God as supreme?
Olly, “ You can fight against them, or work together to better secure your natural right to life, liberty and property.”
But that leaves out the “individual” part of liberty. The whole point of having individual liberty is to determine your own choices independent of others or authority. To decide for yourself what’s best for you. Religion doesn’t allow that at all. You don’t get to determine your own choices.
“ The enemy of liberty and the security of rights is not religion, it’s human nature.”
No. Religion doesn’t guarantee security of rights. It didn’t for slaves during the 1800’s and before. Women didn’t have rights either. Religion restricts personal or individual liberty. Religion is the antithesis of personal or individual liberty.
Countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and a few others have societies that maximize individual liberties. Those are countries were women were granted the right to vote much earlier than we did. They abolished slavery long before we did or didn’t accept it all together.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries
“But that leaves out the “individual” part of liberty. The whole point of having individual liberty is to determine your own choices independent of others or authority. To decide for yourself what’s best for you. Religion doesn’t allow that at all. You don’t get to determine your own choices.”
Are we really free without religion? Or do other aspects of culture, swallow up what was left on the plate when religion has left the room?
Are we truly free?
Sal Sar
Sal, we are never truly free. “Justice” Michael Sandall
The whole point of having individual liberty is to determine your own choices independent of others or authority. To decide for yourself what’s best for you.
And how does one decide what is best for them? Even alone in nature, you do not have the liberty to do anything you want. There exists natural forces that will still dictate what you can do. So given these natural limitations on your liberty, you will decide what’s best for you. The moment you’re no longer alone, you now have to deal with a different natural force…human nature.
Religion doesn’t allow that at all. You don’t get to determine your own choices.
Of course it does. Religion is not some magical force that binds human nature. Even the most restrictive of religions aren’t more powerful than human nature. Religion is not God. Religion is a belief in something superior to man.
No. Religion doesn’t guarantee security of rights.
I never said it did. There is one common denominator for those that follow a religion and those that follow no religion: their nature. Religion has been used as an excuse for our nature. Our nature is the same today as it was in the beginning. The difference is what is the best check against it. God’s law and man’s law have proven to be only a parchment barrier to our nature. The sooner we recognize that human nature is the worst threat to liberty and rights, the sooner we stop glorifying humans with the supreme power to exercise the worst of their nature.
“But that leaves out the “individual” part of liberty. The whole point of having individual liberty is to determine your own choices independent of others or authority. To decide for yourself what’s best for you. Religion doesn’t allow that at all. You don’t get to determine your own choices.”
Where are you getting these stupid ideas ? Free Will is the CORE of nearly every major religion.
There is no moral culpability for poor choices without free will.
The claim you are making applies even more to government. Christianity leaves me free to covet my nbeighbors property – merely threatening consequences in a possible afterlife. Government imposes loss of life, liberty or property in this life.
Few religions today use FORCE to compell compliance ALL govenrments do.
“Free Will is the CORE of nearly every major religion.”
A claim that is undercut by two destructive premises: Original sin (which is determinism), and faith (which severs free will from reason).
Original sin is not determinism.
As an analogy – the fact that we will all eventually die, does not have free will.
Faith is a CHOICE.
Free will does not require that we make GOOD choices. Only that we are not barred from making choices by force.
We are free to murder others – but if we do so there may be consequences.
“No. Religion doesn’t guarantee security of rights.”
That is correct – modern religion does not use force. It can not secure anything.
“It didn’t for slaves during the 1800’s and before. Women didn’t have rights either.”
Correct – nor did government. there were slaves under every form of government that ever existed.
And Women had few rights.
“Religion restricts personal or individual liberty. Religion is the antithesis of personal or individual liberty.”
Pure Bunk.
Free will is the core of every major religion. It is specifically because you are free that you are morally culpable for your actions.
“Countries like the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and a few others have societies that maximize individual liberties. Those are countries were women were granted the right to vote much earlier than we did. They abolished slavery long before we did or didn’t accept it all together.”
Not particularly looking to piss on other countries. I would suggest looking much more deeply into the netherlands involvement in slavery.
Yes, they stopped sooner – they also started sooner. It can be argued that 17th, 18th and 19th century slavery would not have existed but for Holland.
As to Freedom Index’s – absolutely the US is failing with respect to freedom – that is the indesputable fault of the modern left.
Free will is the core of every major religion. It is specifically because you are free that you are morally culpable for your actions.
John,
Perhaps it’s too fine a point, or as the saying goes, a distinction without a difference, but I see human nature at the core of every major religion and free will as the expression of that nature. I believe Law exists, not to put a check on our free will, but to put a check on our nature.
Free Will is not commonplace in nature. I am not interested in a debate over whether some other creature shows some inkling of free will.
It is inarguable that no other creature has a fraction the free will that humans do.
Free will is inherently human. It is core to religion, and it is core to all morality.
There is no morality without free will
Free Will is not commonplace in nature.
I never made that argument.
I am not interested in a debate over whether some other creature shows some inkling of free will.
Then don’t set up a strawman to merely discredit that point.
It is inarguable that no other creature has a fraction the free will that humans do.
Free will is inherently human. It is core to religion, and it is core to all morality.
Don’t look now, but you are debating your own strawman.
I am merely disagreeing with the degree to which you appear to beleive free will is natural.
Arguably Free Will arose from nature and likely provides some evolutionary value.
It is still very rare and predominantly if not exclusively human.
If it is nature it is a very very miniscule part of nature.
But with respect to humans it is enormous
I am merely disagreeing with the degree to which you appear to beleive free will is natural.
What degree would that be? Once again you’re debating a point I never made.
For what it’s worth, I do believe you are winning on points against your own strawman. 😉 👍
Svez, you could go to university and pay for these answers if you wanted to learn. Instead you invite the topic here as a matter of argument
Since you believe you have the answers, obviously, supply them for yourself. Perhaps your arrogance will be rewarding.
Sal Sar
Jocko Willink is a former SEAL and an avid social media presence. Here he makes a good point that was known in the ancient world and ever since, to the wise
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/10/17/jocko-willink-the-relationship-between-discipline-and-freedom/?sh=645c8e5f6df8
only in self discipline, can we find a measure of freedom. otherwise we are enchained to our passions.
sal sar
You seriously do not understand Chridtianity or Judaism.
Prairie, I don’t think he understands principles.
religion abhorrs individual liberty. It demands obedience to a single authority.
What religion(s) abhor individual liberty and how is that expressed in their religion? Without religion and/or a belief in God, is there not still an authority that will demand obedience? Interestingly, we just went through an impeachment process where fidelity to oaths have been questioned. On one side was a majority that insisted the defendant has no first amendment right or a right to due process prior to voting to impeach. That certainly sounds like a different religion that abhors individual liberty. They certainly have acted to demand obedience to their authority. On the other side was a minority that believe just the opposite. I’m a Christian. My religion is compatible with our secular law. My religion rejects any authority that violates our natural right to life, liberty and property. I’m also Independent. This means politically, I’m open to voting for candidates that I believe will best secure those rights.
Olly, “ What religion(s) abhor individual liberty and how is that expressed in their religion? Without religion and/or a belief in God, is there not still an authority that will demand obedience?
Christianity demands that if you choose to believe in only one savior and lord you are choosing to abide by the rules. If you choose not to believe you are condemned to eternal torment and damnation. The choices are ni different than being enslaved for the purpose of getting a “gift” at the end of the line. As long as you obey all the rules however convoluted they may be you are not going to end up being tormented or punished for eternity simply because you chose not to believe. That’s an authoritarian rule in its purest form.
Your religion is actually incompatible with secular law. Your religion doesn’t allow for equal treatment of others. That’s how slavery and racism was justified. Under secular law all religions are considered equal. Your religion would never accept such a premise of being in equal standing of all other religions in this country. Your religion doesn’t allow for freedom of speech, democracy or questioning of authority like secular law guarantees us.
You clearly do not understand either religion or choice.
If I choose to buy a burger at McD’s for $1 – I give up a dollar in return for a burger.
That is a free choice. I am not enslaved.
If I chose to beleive in Christianity or Islam – I am not enslaved. I have mad a free choice. And I am free to change my mind.
There is no force involved.
Is there anyone who would permit any religion to use force to deprive people of free choice ?
Yet, leftists and governments do that all the time.
I would hope every person here would join me in opposing actual instances where any religion sought to acheive compliance through force.
I would hope every person here would join me in opposing actual instances where unjustified force was used to acheive compliance
Whether that was through christianity, Islam, conservatism, progressivism, or science.
“Your religion is actually incompatible with secular law.”
Poppycock.
Absent an actual moral and philosophical foundation for secular law you can not claim it is inherently incompatible with anything.
We have myriads of instances throughout history where religion and secular power were conjoined.
Some of those continue today.
Secularism is an ideology adopted in politics to justify rule by well-moneyed private interests. This is a fairly obvious commonality between the American war of independence, the French Revolution, and many others since. It marks a transition from the feudal age in which both the state and economy were dominated by religious and aristocratic elites acting in tandem, to a takeover by the rising money powers, the bourgeoisie.
Karl Marx understood this. But I realize most leftists have little read or understood Marx. Or history much either.
Secularism’s relevance today is minimal. Even in nominally religious states, laws are generally established by elected non-clerical authorities.
Yet somehow Svez finds that it is worth needling people about in conversation.
Sal Sar
“Your religion doesn’t allow for equal treatment of others.”
What religion are you talking about ?
The golden Rule “do unto others ar you would have them do unto you” is the core to just about every major religion in the world.
“That’s how slavery and racism was justified.”
You seem under the delusion that slavery and racism are caused by religion.
Slavery has existed in just about every human society for 150,000 years
Nor is slavery inherently racial. Whites have been enslaved by whites and blacks by blacks.
Slavery is historically more strongly linked to governments and war, with victors enslaving losers – even when they were from neighboring cities.
“Under secular law all religions are considered equal.”
Nope.
Under US law, all religions are protected from government interferance in their pracitice.
That is specific to the US, and has no presumption of equality.
“Your religion would never accept such a premise of being in equal standing of all other religions in this country. Your religion doesn’t allow for freedom of speech, democracy or questioning of authority like secular law guarantees us.”
Where do you get this nonsense ?
Secular law does not mean US constitutional law.
And just as all government is not the US government and all moments are not this moment.
All religions are not the same, nor the same over time.
Most religions today allow freedom of speech, and questioning authority”
Democracy is just about the worst form of govenrment there is.
The US is not a democracy. BTW many religions are far more democratic than the US.
Most convents, religious orders, monastaries are “democratic” to the point of near communism.
Wherever you were educated – demand your money back. You have been robbed.
“Under secular law all religions are considered equal. Your religion would never accept such a premise of being in equal standing of all other religions in this country. Your religion doesn’t allow for freedom of speech, democracy or questioning of authority like secular law guarantees us.”
Svelez has delusions about his personal secularism. He doesn’t believe in the rule of law. He doesn’t believe in equality under the law. He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech.
Svelaz’s secularism believes in cancel culture, the color of one’s skin is more important than one’s character, and democracy where 51% can enslave the other 49%. If that is what your secularism is, keep it but stay away from moral and honest people.
Your religion is actually incompatible with secular law. Your religion doesn’t allow for equal treatment of others. That’s how slavery and racism was justified. Under secular law all religions are considered equal. Your religion would never accept such a premise of being in equal standing of all other religions in this country. Your religion doesn’t allow for freedom of speech, democracy or questioning of authority like secular law guarantees us.
You apparently have no idea what my religion teaches. One thing is absolutely certain from your contributions on this blog, whatever your religionis, it is not compatible with our secular law.
Said John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
If you read Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography, you get a sense of how intent he was in living his life according to Biblical precepts. Like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin had a deep faith in God. As is par for the current zeitgeist, you have to read the text source yourself and not trust the secular websites. They lie and purposely omit Franklin’s devout silent prayer life, something few Americans do. BF wrote prayers, a quasi liturgy of the hours (divine office) and his scrupulosity would be mocked today (see nearby comments).
Excerpt follows but his own words testify that religion was essential in society, a universal construct in the Founding Fathers
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
By Benjamin Franklin
The Federalist Papers Project
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org
I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho’ some of the dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern’d it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteem’d the essentials of every religion; and, being to be found in all the religions we had in our country, I respected them all….
I had some years before compos’d a little Liturgy, or form of prayer, for my own private use (viz., in 1728), entitled, Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion. I return’d to the use of this, and went no more to the public assemblies. My conduct might be blameable, but I leave it, without attempting further to excuse it; my present purpose being to relate facts, and not to make apologies for them.
It was about this time I conceiv’d the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wish’d to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I might not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my care was employ’d in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded, at length, that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous, was not sufficient to prevent our slipping; and that the contrary habits must be broken, and good ones acquired and established, before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. For this purpose I therefore contrived the following method.
In the various enumerations of the moral virtues I had met with in my reading, I found the catalogue more or less numerous, as different writers included more or fewer ideas under the same name. Temperance, for example, was by some confined to eating and drinking, while by others it was extended to mean the moderating every other pleasure, appetite, inclination, or passion, bodily or mental, even to our avarice and ambition. I propos’d to myself, for the sake of clearness, to use rather more names, with fewer ideas annex’d to each, than a few names with more ideas; and I included under thirteen names of virtues all that at that time occurr’d to me as necessary or desirable, and annexed to each a short precept, which fully express’d the extent I gave to its meaning.
These names of virtues, with their precepts, were:
1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. MODERATION. Avoid extreams; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
yes and here we are in the phase of ochlocracy, where the mob is controlled by billionaires who influence them in so many subtle ways
sal sar
Trump is old news. If his trajectory remains the same with Florida eating the lunch of the likes of California and New York, Ron Desantis 2024. After the Capitol riots Trump only has his base. Independents and Trump “policy” voters are looking for an alternative.
@Craig… The latest polling shows that over 90% of those who voted for Trump would vote for him again today. It appears you don’t know what you’re talking about
It’s true. But the blue bubbles within communities are such that people like my liberal brother are confident their conservative counties ‘flipped’ based on conversations with five people they know, though even sites like Trump hating Politico report otherwise even today. The ignorance – and it’s easily remedied ignorance – is astonishing.
At least we now have the blueprint for how the Democrats intend tp use the power of majority in both houses and the Executive Branch. Not that it should surprise anyone at this point. Let me guess next on the agenda is gun control.
My thoughts too. I think it’s why they are keeping the troops – they have some nasty, nasty stuff in store for us.
Steal an election
Militarize the Capitol
Persecute Opposition
Seize civilian arms
Biden/Harris are running the playbook of every modern dictator and most people are too blind to see it.
@raheemkassam
They have said so. They intend to provoke civil war and use it as a pretense to impose a dictatorial regime.
The billionaire masters have endorsed this plan of attack on the people
Remember it is not the mercenaries who are your foe at the end of the day, it is their paymasters.
Sal Sar
Professor Turley is entirely correct in everything he said about the Impeachments (plural) and had the Democrats actually listened to what the Professor told them….they very likely could have won their first failed effort and thus prevented any need for the last disaster.
The key issue the Professor has instructed them to under take is a proper and thorough investigation and documentation of the High Crimes and such they are going to list in the Articles of Impeachment.
Neither time did they do that….and you can pick your own reason for that as you wish….they did not do what they were advised to do to forge a winning case.
The hype and hate of Trump is so plain and easy to see….and there is no doubt that hate has blinded the Left.
That is why they fail every time they try to take Trump down….you would think they would learn but for some reason even getting Snake bit does not get their attention.
Some data re Trump Court Cases filed challenging the Election Results and Procedures.
http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2020_Election_Cases.htm?fbclid=IwAR0_MtLvFpEdqWsuQYlGPcWq703ZiFiLVz250WwY0Bep93H3MxL6iDvpNd8
Ralph, If democrats followed Turley’s advice that still wouldn’t have had a conviction. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that nothing would dissuade them from acquitting Trump. There’s a reason why Turley didn’t choose to be part of Trump’s defense. He didn’t have one. Not even the “free speech” defense.
Too many republicans enabled trump during his term. To convict him would have exposed them to scrutiny about their own complicity and Trump’s rabid disillusioned base.
The fact that the supposedly “impartial jurors” they were supposed to be was a farce because they literally met with Trump’s lawyers to discuss strategy destroyed any semblance of impartiality. Those that actually did their duty like Sen. Cassidy got condemned by their own party. Turley’s advice would have been equally useless if democrats took it.
If the Republicans in the Senate had voted to hear witnesses in the first trial and voted to convict, as they should have, they could have averted what followed.
If Mitch McConnell hadn’t put the Senate on recess immediately after Congress accepted the EC votes, the Senate could have tried Trump before he left office, and all of the Senators who used that as an excuse — including McConnell — could have voted to convict and disqualify.
The table in your link is clearly incorrect (e.g., it miscounts who prevailed, and for several active cases, it says that the case was decided). That’s just from skimming, I haven’t checked all the info, and there may be other errors.
What is rapidly occurring is the beginning of the end of the mutually assured destruction of the utterly corrupt two Party system.
It will begin to accelerate rapidly over the next few years as the average voter becomes more and more aware that the entrenched elitists in both Parties are completely owned and controlled by big money interests, and could care less about their constituents.
They have no “values” to destroy.
Walworths, “ They have no “values” to destroy.”
That’s quite true if he “party of values” the Republican Party. They abandoned that principle a long time ago in the pursuit of power. Now it’s just a game of who can be the biggest hypocrite and get away with it.
Trump never represented any of the values republicans “hold dear”. From moral values to financial values such as spending and national debt. Republicans willfully ignored the countless violence against their own values in order to appease Trump’s own rabid base. They can no longer claim any moral high ground, fiscal responsibility, or even leadership due to enabling Trump’s lying.
They clearly destroyed their “values” over four years. There’s a reason why many republicans want to split into a third party. The current one is just a cesspool of broken values.
What’s up with all the quotation marks?
It’s Svelaz’s repeated attempts to appear “educated” and “enlightened.”
Perhaps you misunderstand the values which are shared by those you so ardently dislike Svez.
It could be an exercise in cultural diversity for you to understand 75 million Americans in a non-prejudiced manner, perhaps?
Sal Sar
Time for those 74,2 million to actually understand the 82 million Sal Sar.
Elvis Bug
+10
They lost another presidential vote (7 out of last 8 now) and average income of Democratic voters less than GOP. There are no “real Americans” but if there were, they wouldn’t be the MAGAs.
Those 75M are REAL, ARMED and ANGRY and they know how to use their weapons.
We do not even know if there are 80M Biden Voters. We do know they are too lazy to go to the polls and vote.
You think Biden voters are consequential ?
The left Rants that the capital protests were an insurection.
They weren’t.
But they COULD HAVE BEEN. Trump voters ARE capable of taking over govenrment by force.
They didn’t, but they could have. Biden voters are only capable of taking over government by mail.
Actually acting consequentially – that is beyond them.
This is a red cape in front of the usual crew.
Trump’s substantive aims – strict enforcement of immigration laws, Federalist Society judges, a more combative stance in trade negotiations, a more permissive policy in resource development, reductions in marginal tax rates, replacement of Obamacare, a foreign policy regulated by reasons-of-state, a crackdown on Chinese infiltration of businesses and higher education, and an end to propagating identity politics in the civil service and the military (as well as through regulatory agencies) – are quite ordinary. The hostility to him is in part a reflection of hidden agendas Democratic politicians and mediaswine will not argue for openly and in part just madcap emotional processing undertaken by a professional-managerial class that is quite decadent, disoriented, untrustworthy, and vicious.
ADx4, this is a good list. The policy results were improved border security, energy independence, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, a growing economy and low unemployment (particularly for minorities), the first steps toward control of China’s conduct, reduction in the number of US troops fighting endless wars, the isolation of Iran and significant peace deals in the Middle East, increased contributions by the Europeans to NATO defense and tougher policies toward Russia (Nordstream 2, lethal weapons to Ukraine, sanctions, withdrawal from treaties), advocacy of free speech and opposition to woke cancel culture, and calling out critical race theory for the empty destructive ideology it is. So which Republicans will have the guts to advocate without apology for Trump’s agenda?
Turley writes:
“This impeachment trial captures our age of rage.”
Indeed, and for Turley that means constant ankle biting and attacking 2 managers – Raskine and Swalwell, who ate his lunch in public. His subsequent butt hurt is apparently now chronic, so, along with his fully predictable columns ALWAYS attacking Democrats, CNN, and MSNBC for things only an idiot would think were not also being practiced by his teams at the GOP and Fox News, he gets the hits in on these 2, and often an entire column – must 3 be 4 on Swalwell by now.. So to the hashtags predictable, GOP lapdog, Fox tool, add petty score keeper.
Raskine and Swalwell, who ate his lunch in public
You’re always suffering from wish-fulfillment fantasies (‘collusion has been proved’).
Raskine and Swalwell eat something, but I wouldn’t call it lunch.
It is obvious that the House Managers want to cram down our throats the lie that this was a free and fair election. They repeated at least 99 times that President Trump lied about fairness of the election to the American public. Until a FORENSIC AUDIT is made of the Battleground states President Trump is still the legitimate President and Mr Biden is not. The audit in Michigan is a joke, video from TCP loading docks irrefutable evidence of fraud. Video from Georgia clearly shows that the Georgia Secretary State lied to Georgia’s Supreme Court. The election workers were told to go home by their supervisor and that the lady ran the same ballots 3 times thru the machine and her daughter did the same thing. Oh and not a small detail the document President Trump was referring to was provided by Georgia’s own State Department, oh yah it wasn’t verified. They’ve had 3 more months to verify
The Big Lie = it was a free and fair election = The Big Lie
Do you, AnonJF, support CNN’s call to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position?
If you do, then you’re outright evil, and if you don’t, why are you not appalled by CNN more than anything else??
Can you, Diogenes, quote where CNN “call[ed] to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position”?
Otherwise, yours is a loaded question, and no one has no reason to assume your characterization is correct.
Again Anonymous the Stupid is asking others to do provide proof when the argument being made has been so prominently made in the news. Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t debate the argument. He obstructs the discussion.
IKR. That’s what’s so depressing. AnonJF knows all this. He’s just being a little Pol Pot.
Sorry, I meant Anonymous the Stupid. I lose track of the Anons.
It’s hard to keep track. That is why they need names even if they don’t give one.
No, Diogenes, I don’t know that CNN “call[ed] to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position,” which is why I asked you to quote where they did that.
Thank you for linking to Darcy’s column below. The thing is: Darcy didn’t “call to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position.”
He said, in part, “Tech companies have community guidelines governing the content posted on their platforms. Do cable carriers? If so, what are they? … I asked all of these companies for comment on Thursday. I asked them if they have any guidelines governing the content that they carry on their platforms. I asked them if they have any regret over carrying right-wing channels that were in many ways partly responsible for what took place in our nation’s capital this week.
“Only CenturyLink provided a comment, saying it was committed to providing “a variety of broadcast channels covering thousands of topics” and that as a company it does not “endorse specific media or outlets.” CenturyLink didn’t respond to a follow up email, but at least it responded in some way. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, and Dish did not. They chose to simply ignore the questions.”
See how your attempt to provide evidence for your claim moves the conversation forward? Now we can discuss the details of what Darcy said, and why your substitution, CNN “call[ed] to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position,” isn’t an accurate summary. Do YOU understand why your claim is not an accurate summary of Darcy’s column?
If Tucker Carlson suggested that Fox’s view of the truth should be a standard for determining who has access to cable platforms, you would say Fox wants to eliminate other news agencies, and I would agree with you, but Fox isn’t calling for such a standard. CNN is.
I won’t mince words. You and people like you are a threat to the Republic.
“If Tucker Carlson suggested that Fox’s view of the truth should be a standard for determining who has access to cable platforms, you would say Fox wants to eliminate other news agencies”
No, I wouldn’t, so don’t pretend I would. It’s dishonest. Speak for yourself and don’t pretend to speak for me.
“Fox isn’t calling for such a standard. CNN is.”
As far as I can tell, neither of them are. You certainly haven’t produced any evidence so far of CNN doing it.
“You and people like you are a threat to the Republic.”
That’s quite a bizarre fantasy you have about me.
You know you would be screaming like hell if Fox called for rightwing standards to block access to cable platforms.
“As far as I can tell, neither of them are. You certainly haven’t produced any evidence so far of CNN doing it.”
I did at 10:45, and you know it. You’re just here to obfuscate any way you can.
No, Diogenes, you didn’t produce evidence of CNN “call[ing] to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position,”
I quoted Darcy’s column and showed that your personal interpretation isn’t what he said. You are inferring things he didn’t imply. Don’t pretend that I have to agree with your erroneous inference.
And instead of discussing what Darcy actually said, you continue to just assume that your erroneous inference is valid. You can’t even bring yourself to really focus on what he said, using quotes.
As for your insult, grow up. Choose to have an adult discussion with someone you disagree with.
“As for your insult, grow up. Choose to have an adult discussion with someone you disagree with.”
The hypocrite and liar Anonymous the Stupid is telling others how to act.
Anonymous the Stupid is a disaster.
I’d love to hear exactly how “You and people like you are a threat to the Republic.” in detail. You seem to have a sweeping way of generalizing that’s much more about personally framing a situation rather than there being a logical, or even a dialectical progression, Dog man. Fallacious syllogism for a thousand, Alex.
Why exactly is Anonymous a threat to the republic and you aren’t? There was an attempt to bread crumb you past your original thesis into a more synthetic discussion and you seem to be retreating even harder into your thesis through fear of exploring new territory.
EB
Why is the left more of a threat than the right ?
That is trivial and there are multiple reasons.
Most new businesses fail. Most new ideas are wrong.
We can survive and thrive in free markets with massive failure – because they are free markets and because the few successes dwarf the cost of the many failures.
Government is not the same as markets. New Ideas are as prone to be bad in government as elsewhere – but in government bad ideas once implimented are rarely terminated – even if they fail.
The core principle of conservatism is GO SLOW IN CHANGING GOVERNMENT. That is incredibly wise, and inherently NOT dangerous. No matter how bad the status quo might be, the world will not fail under that status quo. Any Change might improve things, but more likely it will make things worse.
The left seeks to GO FAST, the right to GO SLOW. The latter is always less dangerous.
Next, the left ALWAYS seeks to use the FORCE of government to impose its will on others.
The right only does so rarely. The left is more dangerous.
The left fixates on positive law. Creating new affirmative duties to others. That is ALWAYS a growing burden – not merely on liberty, but life.
The right is fixated on negative law – thou shalt NOT.
It is ALWAYS less dangerous to tell people what they CAN’T do, than to tell them what they MUST do.
Diogenes, ultimately these people are of a fascist nature and are hypocrites. Lying in pursuit of power is normal for their type. Look at all the despots around the world. All lie in pursuit of power.
The strange thing is, despite all the accusations leveled against Trump he was one of the most honest leaders we have had and even fulfilled or attempted to fulfill his campaign promises.
You are very much on target.
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
EB
Elvis, is that your offering to the Stupid club?
You are in. You are now an official member of the Stupid Club. Report to Anonymous the Stupid immediately.
SM
I object to Joe Friday being compared to Pol Pot
Saloth Sar
Sorry, Sal. It slipped out.
Pol Pot’s spirit is writhing in Gehenna as he is compared to bourgeois minded nonentities.
Anonymous, (SM)
“ Again Anonymous the Stupid is asking others to do provide proof when the argument being made has been so prominently made in the news.”
Diogenes made the unsubstantiated claim, “ Do you, AnonJF, support CNN’s call to eliminate news organizations that contradict CNN’s editorial position?” His words. He’s responsible for providing the evidence for his claim.
Then you make a similar assertion without any evidence either. It is your responsibility to provide it since both of you made the claims. You already saw the evidence obviously, all you have to do is provide it. It shouldn’t be too hard. A few clicks from your mouse is all it takes. Or are you just talking out of your a$$ again?
My assertion is confirmed below at 10:45, not that Svelaz really cares.
I don’t get it. You guys rag on JT and Fox News and then claim CNN advocating deplatforming is not actually CNN deplatforming. You witness–in broad daylight–Twitter censoring and deplatforming, and then you bash JT for going on Fox News. Where else should he go? CNN and Jack the Censor don’t want to hear what he has to say. And you’ll argue as if that’s not true either.
When I say you are a threat to the Republic, I mean it. Gaslighting is all you do. But I don’t want YOU censored or deplatformed. I want the world to know people like you are out there. I don’t have any illusions that a world filled with dictators, con men, and loser will even care, but the 20% of humanity who are susceptible to the truth need to know people like you really exist.
And don’t start with Twitter is a private company jazz. Twitter is a monopoly internet service that has been permitted by a very unwise government to grow without restraint into a monopoly, and now we know–too late–why they created antitrust laws. BREAK ‘EM UP!
as soon as the global corporations became run by a clique of leftist billionaires like jack dorsey, the leftists themselves down so far below them, became ardent capitalists too
I find that interesting. thus I enjoy stimulating conversations about how some of the older themes of socialism can be dusted off and repurposed for use against these tyrants
sal sar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2JbDMtxaA4
I am enjoying a re-read of the excellent book “IRON HEEL” by Jack London
Sal Sar
I’m almost finished with van Creveld’s book. I’ll read Turchin’s next. 🙂
which one, transformation of war, or, decline of the state? it’s hard to read one and like it without reading the other
https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld
if you like those two books, the most relevant addition to them would be “Unrestricted War” by the Chinese Colonels
These dynamics help us understand the complex nature of “what’s happening now”
Sal
https://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf
Decline of the state. It was finished about 20 years ago. Wonder what he would make of globalism now.
The fact that Twitter is a private company merely means the first amendment proscriptions on govenrment censorship do not apply.
It does not make their behavior moral.
It does not even make it legal
First SM promised free speech to get us to use their services. That is a binding contract they have breached.
Next Section 230 protection is a tradeoff in return for providing a neutral public platform.
Twitter is free to censor – but not to also claim immunity for lawsuits.
Totally curious which 20% of humanity are susceptible to ‘the truth’? Bonus question: do you find that accusations of gaslighting help efforts toward…, well, gaslighting?
EB
Svelaz, you don’t know what you are talking about.
SM
Just Google it. Geesh.
CNN’s Darcy, in his own words:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/media/tv-providers-disinfo-reliable-sources/index.html
Thank God Americans still have a Jonathan Turley in our midst.
His intellectual honesty and integrity are a shining light.
Indeed!
The blog should no show photos of dumb humans smoking cigarettes.
“Liberyt”2nd thinks that CENSORS should take a cigarette out of Rita Hayworth’s hand because some 10 year old may see it as he or she reads Jonathan Turley’s column???? This speaks volumes about what the “left” has become. Sorry “Liberty”, the 1940s happened, people smoked and hopefully you will never be able to make us watch what only you allow.
Really “Liberty?” Just don’t look if your eyes are so divorced from reality.
Nicely done. And all of this without achieving their stated goal of removing Trump from office. Oh, wait.
If only Trump had been talking about sex. We all know there is a precedent in defending that felony
If only Bill Clinton hadn’t promulgated laws making executives liable for sexual advances in the work place while at the same time having sex with an intern and then LYING UNDER OATH ABOUT IT.
It wasn’t about sex, it was about lying in a trial brought by a woman who was claiming she was sexually abused by a superior…do you not think she should be able to bring a case? Do you “believe all women”?
Trump is currently facing two defamation suits related to his denial of sexual harassment (Summer Zervos) and rape (E. Jean Carroll).
Let him defend himself in court.