Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (55666)	7/9/1999 6:21:00 PM
From: Achilles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Achilles, I have taken a shine to you. You have pressed your position well, and in a serious manner.< Thank -you for your kind words. I like to be liked. >And it would be lovely if we could teach, say, the doctrine of the Four Cardinal Virues (we could use Josef Pieper!), and perhaps review selected chapters of the Nicomachean Ethics (the discussion of eudaimonia, the discussion of the great- souled man, perhaps the types of friendship) and Cicero's "De Officiis". Finally, let us throw in Aquinas's "Treatise on Law", Kant's "Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals", and perhaps the section "What is Moral?" from the "Beyond Good and Evil", by Nietzsche. This would cover the waterfront pretty well...For a bunch of precocious collegians! < I agree with most of your reading list, but must insist that Cicero de Officiis be dropped, since it is a frightful bore. Morality does not have to be boring. >For children, it makes more sense to post something like the Ten Commandments. In any event, we are obliged to tell children what to believe, because they are ignorant, and do not have much aptitude for higher order abstraction. The whole thing turns on whether or not such a posting constitutes "establishment", or, more particularly, proselytizing. I argue that the post means almost nothing to those not already within the religious tradition alluded to, and therefore cannot amount to proselytizing, and therefore is exempt from prohibition....< It seems to me that there are several separate decisions that need to be discussed here. First, is it desirable for the state to promulgate a moral code for children? Second, if it is desirable, is the federal government the appropriate level of government to do this? Third, if both those conditions are accepted, should the moral code be biblical? Finally, if it is biblical, should it be the Ten Commandments? I believe that we could have a healthy debate at each of these four stages, and frankly I would probably argue for the negative on each point. You, however, bring up the question constitutionality, which I have not much addressed. You question whether the posting of the decalogue in fact constitutes 'establishment' or 'proselytization'. 'Establishment', I would argue, can be either positive or negative, and both kinds should be avoided. Thus, not only must the state not tell its people what religion or religious practices to follow, it also must refrain from telling you what religion or religious practices to avoid. It is wrong and unconstitutional for your government to say 'be a Methodist'; it is equally wrong for it to say 'don't be a Catholic'. I would suggest that posting the first two commandments could be construed as 'establishment' of this negative kind. By posting the first commandment (no other gods besides Jehovah)--if we take it at face value--the government in effect says 'don't worship any god except the one Christians, Jews or Muslims worship' or 'don't be a polytheist'. That is telling people what religion not to have. The second (don't make graven images to worship) implies that it is wrong to be (say) a Hindu or any other religion that worships idols. Again, establishment of a negative kind, imo. Surely a strong argument can be made against I and II on constitutional grounds. So too (I suspect) against the fourth (remember the Sabbath and keep it holy), which could interpreted as the Federal government 'establishing' religious observance. Now perhaps the Supreme Court will strike only these three down, and will allow the others to be posted. But 'the Seven Commandments' just doesn't have a ring to it. ;-)