I don’t see anything about the SotM that was intended to be feel good or to impress the audience.


I would say it’s purpose was also to encourage the listener to refocus importance away from their persona and onto their character, and to look to be validated solely by ‘God’ rather than by the surrounding social world.

I feel bad when someone gives such a good response to such a non-serious post.

Mathew records the longest segment of The Sermon on the Mount and it does contain some harangues and hell fire, along with the moral positives and aspect of community that OriP summarized so well. Blessed is he that posts well, for his name shall endure forever.

What the entire Sermon of the Mount all meant, within the context of a different world than ours, and how it would apply to a first-century Jewish peasant, is probably much different than how many Christians (and non-Christians) would interpret much of the text today. Although universals are employed it is mix and has much of specifics also. I have grown less fond of this text through the years. I think it deserves only moderate praise (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Confucius, for example, exceed its worth by heaps and heaps). And although not a James Joyce, my dunken tirade at an Irish Pub would be worth a listen, despite OriP’s justified skepticism. Anyway, once a text grows with the power of faith and myth it takes on a life of its own and marches through history.

The same can be said of the American Dec. of Independence. The pursuit of happiness is a Myth Unstoppable.

The power of myth is a human universal (whether religious or political) - For good, or evil, or twisted ordering and results, or enlightenment, or awe, or the inevitable misunderstandings, along with the mixture of all the above.

Only Zenoism surpasses all human understanding.

Irish pubs aren't typically the best place to blaspheme.

FWIW it wasn't really even my intention to suggest that the Sermon on the Mount was true in any particular sense, only that it was formative for me. It's certain that the text "grows with the power of faith and myth", and that was also true of its impact on me personally. I find it interesting to reflect on because I no longer hold onto much (if any) of that faith, but the text still resonates, even as it did when it was so important to the formation of that same faith I no longer really possess.

But mostly I was just being skeptical about the idea that the inalienable rights of the Declaration were "self-evident", even though I've always found them quite powerful and meaningful. In the same way that I'm skeptical about a lot of things in Christianity despite a lot my core values being heavily informed by Christianity.

They don't have a right to deprive business owners of free association, but they do have a right to regulate commerce. This is why the CRA was slipped into the commerce code; a roundabout way of depriving people of their rights. You can say this is ok from a strictly legal point of view, but I can make the same argument about the legality of miscegenation laws in Germany in the 1930s.

I think the CRA is unjust when applied to private business owners and should be limited to truly public goods and monopolies to maximize freedom. If someone doesn't want to bake you a cake? I know its awfully hard to get over a slight so egregious but get over it take your business to a Baker who will.

How so?

Why are these arguments always in the abstract?

It's as if there's some doubt about what pre-CRA America looked like.

It wasn't filled with black people happily taking their business elsewhere.

I accept legal positivism, so I think that immoral laws are still legally binding law (including eg miscegenation laws). It is a matter for individual conscience whether to still obey those immoral laws. I'm a little surprised by your last sentence here as I thought you were presupposing a natural law view of law based on your view of natural rights.

Your view of rights is incoherent, so I don't follow your distinctions here between commerce and association.

Laws against theft outlaw stealing $1 just like they do $100 million. I could criticize these laws for banning thefts under $10, because who really cares, but that would be dumb. Yes, selling and buying cakes in isolation is pretty minor, but unequal voter registration requirements and school segregation in schools and employment are not minor at all.

I like how John Rawls frames basic human rights in his theory of justice. His first principle of justice says that "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." Jim Crow and the violence, racism, and discrimination common in American society before the CRA brought into question whether a system of basic rights that included a right for employers to discriminate on the basis of race is really compatible with other people having a similar liberty.

Constitutional authority granted to the federal government. They use it wherever possible. It's been a source of much controversy.

Because concepts are abstract?

I doubt you know what it looked like any better than anyone else. Personally, I believe in freedom. The litmus test on whether or not someone really believes in freedom is if they believe others should be free to speak and act in ways that they personally find distasteful. Based on our conversations, you and others in this thread fail that test.

No, I mean, you said, they had the right to regulate commerce. How did they get that right? From your answer, it sounds like they gave it to themselves.

In your mangled philosophy I'm not sure what "believing in freedom" even means. What I know is that, in the real world, life was both awful and less "free" for blacks prior to the CRA.

Yet again, I find your line here entirely disingenuous. Of course we know what the world looked like prior to civil rights.

Words aren't just empty symbols that bear no impact.

Democracies typically (with a few exceptions) resolves this issue of such things vs the freedom of speech, by allowing the speech but maintaining hate speech laws or sedition laws for those occasions when dangerous ideals blur the line between mere thought and encouragement to carry them out.

Thus, even if you are nazi - which means you are fundamentally opposed to democracy and individual liberty to begin with, as it is a fascist ideology - you get to talk, but you don't get to call to arms. Basically, you're allowed to spout your nonsense as long as you are harmless.

A few countries go further (like Germany), because they have direct experience with the cost of putting a blind eye to the rise of Nazism. Of course, if you're of the political ilk that thinks the democratic state has no right to protect itself from an ideal, that's fine... but now you're really arguing for a voluntarist society. I find the idea that a voluntarist society must allow for nazism naive, a bit like trusting your smile to save you from a knife robbery - but to each his own.

To claim that someone is opposed to freedom because they won't extend anti-discrimination laws to specific political directions, and political directions that are actually treasonous if carried out, is nonsensical. To claim that nobody needs anti-discrimination laws also flies in the face of everything we know from history. As evident in this thread, as the only counter-argument to actual historical evidence has been to question if such evidence is possible.

If you have to invoke the god of the gaps to defend a political argument, I'd say you cut the branch you are sitting on. "Nazis should be protected against discrimination just like gays because we can't know anything for certain!" is not a very compelling argument.

It boils down to the question of whether or not you believe private businesses have a right to free association. You obviously don't. It only goes one political direction. If you believe government should be limited from imposing upon that right, you believe in tolerance, freedom and rights. If you believe government can do whatever it wants, you believe in tyranny. You want the government to impose upon individuals freedom, just not the individuals you virtue signal for.

Just a hint: this political hypocrisy and malevolent doublemindedness put Trump in the white house.

This goes back to when I first said to you: I think you're equivocating but I'm fine with discrimination in the sense you use it.

It's rare I find anyone who calls my politics tyrannical but if that's how you use the word tyranny, then okay.

I stand with Augustine:



So you're saying this is a good thing?

I'm well aware you're ok with your own hypocrisy and special pleading. Having that pointed out to you multiple times and still being as obstinate as you are I question your moral fabric on this issue.

How is he being obstinate? You have provided no good argument for why we should accept your understanding of freedom and rights as either accurate or good for humans. Pointing out to someone that if they accepted your moral theory that it would be wrong to do x isn't persuasive to people who reject your moral framework.

I don't need to do anything like that. What I have done is provided what is laid out in the constitution and how certain laws have created injustices we are seeing. Whether you're pro gay wedding or pro freedom of association for Christian proprietors, this issue is fundamentally a conflict of rights. Free association rights, which are by precedent held under the natural right of "liberty" in the DoI and Constitution, were unjustly removed by the government with the a
CRA under the guise of anti discrimination. Notwithstanding that core issue, it's up to defenders to justify how a government can detract from the natural right of religious expression and protect it at the same time. The major issue comes back once again to free association.

What he has done is held up rights for one side and dismissed the other. Further, he has said that it's ok to do so. That makes him a hypocrite and a special pleader, and you too if you agree with him.

I suspect underlying most of the defenders is a deep animosity towards religion, and Christianity in particular. That's fine. You're free to believe what you wish and Express your opinions. What you're not free to do without me exposing your hypocrisy is masquerade as defenders of liberty. You're pro gay rights and anti religious. If you could admit that I and others would gain some respect for your newfound consistency.

Most can't do that of course, because admitted bigotry would immediately destroy ones position and self proclaimed tolerance virtues.

In much the same way I would more respect an atheist who was also an admitted nihilist, instead of when challenged putting forth some opaque reference to Platonic realm moral laws that almost no one believes in, which in my integrity gave up the point on despite its clear disingenuousness to the pragmatic part of the conversation. I'd appreciate the favor returned, but based on history I don't expect it will be.

I never engaged in special pleading because I never made the argument you claimed I made.

You need to stop making stuff up when it comes to what other people say.

I've told you the whole damn time that I'm okay with discriminating as you use the term.

I'm also baffled as to why I'm to be held to anything the constitution has to say about anything.

And as to why you think any case in which two things are treated differently is special pleading. That's not the fallacy.

What you've primarily done here is expose your ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of the American system of government as understood by the founders. You've so far demonstrated that you don't understand Locke, Hobbes, natural rights, the state of nature, the impact of natural rights on government legitimacy and more. I've challenged you on nearly all these points and you've either ignored or minimized these problems with your own political theory.

Right, so you just have no idea what you are talking about. How can inalienable natural rights conflict with each other? You are describing an incoherent (or maybe just very tragic) moral universe. I can't argue against a position that doesn't make sense any more than by pointing out this inconsistency.

This is neither hypocritical nor special pleading. You are assuming a belief in maximalist religious expression rights that most people probably do not share. If they don't hold that view of religious rights, then they are not being hypocritical when they support some constraints on religion (which everyone does anyway to some extent). I know you favor procedural attacks over substantive arguments, but try just arguing on the merits for your own view, that society would be better if we allowed racial discrimination against consumers or employees. It would be a more useful conversation.

This is self-serving BS. You have no interest in an open discussion here. You are looking for a rhetorical win and to denigrate people. If someone agreed with you that they supported gay rights because they hate Christians, you would then immediately switch to criticizing them for being biased and hateful towards Christians. Bladesman87 acknowledges that from your perspective he is supporting tyranny and you immediately criticize the "moral fabric" of his character for doing so.

On the substance, meh. It's hard to misrepresent my views or attitudes about religion or Christianity to the people in this forum. We mostly know each other here, so I'm content to let people make their own judgement about whether I'm biased or anti-religion (not that I think that is necessarily bad). And I'm not bothered by whether you think my support of liberty is hypocritical since the political theory underlying your view of freedom doesn't make any sense.

I'll also just point out how exactly your reasoning mirrors that of your political opponents who claim that all Christian opposition to gay rights is because of prejudice and hatred of gay people.

Freedom, equality and fraternity, each to its own realm such that ; man thinks, feels and wills.

In "freedom" we speak to the spiritual in man such that he frees himself from an ancient consciousness which included him as a toe on the foot. Included in this realm is education, medicine, knowledge,.. but to be clear there is no equality in this realm as each man proceeds within this realm with a true perspective , only limited by his characterological disposition. This means that there is only "one truth" but due to man's limitations in organicness or position (center) each of this "truth' is gained. this is the realm of thinking and thoughts.

In "feeling" we can speak to equality such that the "laws" to which we speak see men as "equals" which means that you and I can have different "feelings" concerning our worlds and in the realm of human and divine justice we are all equal. As an Irishman I do feel differently than a Frenchman or Englishman , this feeling of being within our nation, borne by "ego blood" but more like a panoply to which we all live within.

And oh yes I love vanilla as apposed to chocolate which in a manner, on the whole due to feelings but can be intellectually imbued. There can be and has been much world tragedy due to 'feelings" for it is certainly evident that the enforcement of 'feelings" upon another (even to those closest to you) can only bring conflict and i suppose that the political imbroglio of our times is evidence of this.

The third realm is "will" and brings to the fore movement and in this Man "tills the earth" and "the heavens". As a thought transfers to one's leg and one walks we have thinking the "magical essence of the will". the important point here is that in 'willing' we have our economic system to which the U.S.A. is paramount and the proper approach is "fraternity" . Using an aged example the period of drought, famine, economic dearth, etc. no matter how clever can not always be foreseen and in this economics becomes the "fraternity of men".

Just as grain was stored within the Egyptian silos to be used in times of famine as per Joseph, just so the the ennobling approach to "working the earth" is 'fraternity" .

As mankind displays these three realms we speak to the "head in thinking", the chest with its rhythms in "feeling and the willful extremities in "willing". Of course there is "willing" in the head as is "thinking and thoughts" in the foot . Physiologically there is no separation and the anatomy of the human being evidences this.

Just to be clear the route to community with others is through the realm of thinking as evidenced by the ideas of "treaties" which is a poor example but in no way can we come together with others through 'feelings" or "will" which is the individual aspect of the human soul. I build a bridge and you create a culinary delight etc...

Exactly. They shouldn't really be able to, which proves my point. The right to religious expression is a natural right. The right to not be discriminated against is a government mandated substrate law that violates the natural right of free association. That's where the conflict is. Anti discrimination laws violate natural rights, and are very thinly constitutional when wrapped in commerce legislation, as the CRA is.




I just said anyone who hates Christians and wants them to be deprived of their right to religious expression is free to Express their opinion, so you're quite wrong about this. I simply pointed out said persons are not going to be able to masquerade as defenders of liberty while advocating this in subterfuge.

All it takes is a cursory reading of pro-lgbt news sites to see this is precisely what most gay rights advocates desire. The very existence of Christianity is offensive to them.

Correct. Anyone who advocates tyranny is lacking moral fibre.