Posted: 7/11/2016 6:20:07 PM EDT
|
Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee? FBHO |
|
Quoted:
that depends on your definition of guarantee. if Dawkins or Dennett were answering that I bet they would say no. if you take a hardline approach to the term "guarantee" to imply with certainty than the answer is yes. I think, considering the precise way the question is written, that you must take a hard line on the definition of guarantee. |
|
Quoted:
Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee? FBHO "Guarantee" presupposes a "guarantor." Think about that for a minute then we'll continue. Okay, here we go. A "State" is a bunch of people who've banded together for mutual protection, right? (In its simplest terms.) By having a "Guarantor," you have a bunch of people who have set themselves into a position of superiority... which in fact we already have. A benevolent government WILL guarantee such rights-- freedom of action, freedom from crime, etc-- which in a smaller group were a normal state of being, because the individuals comprising that smaller group were in fact the guarantors-- they were the "Militia." THAT is why we have "States' Rights!" And the penalty for failing to guarantee those rights is removal from office. A non-benevolent government will pull the wool over its citizens' eyes, lying, cheating, and providing special privileges for those who support it, while systematically denying those rights to those citizens who don't. |
|
Quoted:
"Guarantee" presupposes a "guarantor." Think about that for a minute then we'll continue. Okay, here we go. A "State" is a bunch of people who've banded together for mutual protection, right? (In its simplest terms.) By having a "Guarantor," you have a bunch of people who have set themselves into a position of superiority... which in fact we already have. A benevolent government WILL guarantee such rights-- freedom of action, freedom from crime, etc-- which in a smaller group were a normal state of being, because the individuals comprising that smaller group were in fact the guarantors-- they were the "Militia." THAT is why we have "States' Rights!" And the penalty for failing to guarantee those rights is removal from office. A non-benevolent government will pull the wool over its citizens' eyes, lying, cheating, and providing special privileges for those who support it, while systematically denying those rights to those citizens who don't. Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee? FBHO "Guarantee" presupposes a "guarantor." Think about that for a minute then we'll continue. Okay, here we go. A "State" is a bunch of people who've banded together for mutual protection, right? (In its simplest terms.) By having a "Guarantor," you have a bunch of people who have set themselves into a position of superiority... which in fact we already have. A benevolent government WILL guarantee such rights-- freedom of action, freedom from crime, etc-- which in a smaller group were a normal state of being, because the individuals comprising that smaller group were in fact the guarantors-- they were the "Militia." THAT is why we have "States' Rights!" And the penalty for failing to guarantee those rights is removal from office. A non-benevolent government will pull the wool over its citizens' eyes, lying, cheating, and providing special privileges for those who support it, while systematically denying those rights to those citizens who don't. What happens when a vast majority of the populace votes contrary to natural law (however you wish to define it)? |
|
Quoted:
What happens when a vast majority of the populace votes contrary to natural law (however you wish to define it)? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee? FBHO "Guarantee" presupposes a "guarantor." Think about that for a minute then we'll continue. Okay, here we go. A "State" is a bunch of people who've banded together for mutual protection, right? (In its simplest terms.) By having a "Guarantor," you have a bunch of people who have set themselves into a position of superiority... which in fact we already have. A benevolent government WILL guarantee such rights-- freedom of action, freedom from crime, etc-- which in a smaller group were a normal state of being, because the individuals comprising that smaller group were in fact the guarantors-- they were the "Militia." THAT is why we have "States' Rights!" And the penalty for failing to guarantee those rights is removal from office. A non-benevolent government will pull the wool over its citizens' eyes, lying, cheating, and providing special privileges for those who support it, while systematically denying those rights to those citizens who don't. What happens when a vast majority of the populace votes contrary to natural law (however you wish to define it)? Tyranny. |
|
Quoted:
Tyranny. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does the free, secularized state exist on the basis of normative presuppositions that it itself cannot guarantee? FBHO "Guarantee" presupposes a "guarantor." Think about that for a minute then we'll continue. Okay, here we go. A "State" is a bunch of people who've banded together for mutual protection, right? (In its simplest terms.) By having a "Guarantor," you have a bunch of people who have set themselves into a position of superiority... which in fact we already have. A benevolent government WILL guarantee such rights-- freedom of action, freedom from crime, etc-- which in a smaller group were a normal state of being, because the individuals comprising that smaller group were in fact the guarantors-- they were the "Militia." THAT is why we have "States' Rights!" And the penalty for failing to guarantee those rights is removal from office. A non-benevolent government will pull the wool over its citizens' eyes, lying, cheating, and providing special privileges for those who support it, while systematically denying those rights to those citizens who don't. What happens when a vast majority of the populace votes contrary to natural law (however you wish to define it)? Tyranny. Seems then the answer to the original question is yes then. What happened to the ARF atheist contingency? |
|
Quoted:
I think, considering the precise way the question is written, that you must take a hard line on the definition of guarantee. Quoted:
Quoted:
that depends on your definition of guarantee. if Dawkins or Dennett were answering that I bet they would say no. if you take a hardline approach to the term "guarantee" to imply with certainty than the answer is yes. I think, considering the precise way the question is written, that you must take a hard line on the definition of guarantee. your usage of normativity is actually a bit vague, since it can apply in different ways. "do not steal" and "a person owns his body" are both normative statements, but not in the same way. |
|
I'm going to just reject the premise of your argument and cut to the chase. (without the time to defend my argument this morning....sorry.)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ....." This is as secular as I get and these guys had it exactly right. Lots of specific perfect words in that statement. People just don't talk like this anymore. |