“The truth is not subject to vote.”
No it isnt, but discerning truth is much more difficult.
“No, his opinion carries more weight if it is more credible, whether he is eloquent or not, and most especially if it is correct.”
Umm...that’s what I said...
“His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.”
So by your argument, if an election votes in the “right” candidate, then democracy is vindicated, but if it results in the “wrong” candidate, then the majority have been persuaded because falsehood is more plausible. Sounds like a no-lose situation for your personal prejudices.
“Well then, you need to add to your store of information and reconsider.”
I see. So when we disagree, I need to learn and reconsider, but you dont have to? Why don’t you just come flat out
“The Constitution says what it says. It doesn’t suddenly start meaning something else just because the left makes the argument you just made. It is morally bankrupt to “reinterpret” the Constitution to suit the whims of the moment, rather than using the procedures for amendment set forth in that document.”
The constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. The Bible is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. There’s nothing unusual or wrong in that. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own. It doesnt need help from self-appointed guardians.
“Is it purely on the basis of numbers?”
You really need to get in touch with the principle that the truth is not subject to popular vote.”
Thanks for twisting my argument round to mean exactly the opposite. The comment “Is it purely on the basis of numbers?” is what is known as a “rhetorical question”. Obviously truth is not dependent on numbers, and therefore, the fact that wicca, islam, atheism, reformed toadstool worship (or whatever) cannot be discounted purely on the basis that they are rare. There are plenty of reasons why none of those are “legitimate” reasons, but the fact that they have relatively few adherents in a particular society is NOT one of them.
The point I am trying to make is that I think proscribing various religious groups sets a dangerous precedent. If Islam is proscribed now, what happens in the future? I dont want the State to decide what I can, and cannot think or believe.
And on a more practical point, when religions are proscribed they tend to thrive. Christianity did (and does) and so did the Baptists. And incidentally being a Baptist was regarded as being a member of a whacko cult at one stage. A lot of Baptists were executed, for being Baptists.
“At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished.”
But there is now. Separation of Church and State and all that.
“It would be more accurate to say that some people held anti-Catholic opinion, while others did not.”
OK, I modify my statement. The majority of people in the US at the time held very strong anti-Catholic opinions. It wasn’t just some.
“I know of nothing to show that Justice Story was bigoted against Catholicism”
Its not a question of bigotry. Its a question of belief.
“discerning truth is much more difficult.”
Difficult, but often possible…especially when we have Revelation to guide us.
“Umm...that’s what I said...”
That may be what you intended to say, but what you actually said was that his opinion carries more weight if it is more persuasive.
“So by your argument, if an election votes in the “right” candidate, then democracy is vindicated, but if it results in the “wrong” candidate, then the majority have been persuaded because falsehood is more plausible. Sounds like a no-lose situation for your personal prejudices.”
It is truly amazing that you were able to leap all the way over there from my statement that: “His opinion is more credible because he is closer to the event in question, and therefore had direct access that we don’t, and because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom over the long term. As for persuasion, it is a fact of the human condition that it is easier to persuade most people of a plausible falsehood than an implausible or unpalatable truth.”
Several comments on that:
1. Credibility accruing from demonstrated knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom is not a matter of “personal prejudices.” Unless one is a leftist, in which case one’s entire worldview is a matter of personal prejudice, malice, moral bankruptcy, and lies.
2. Democracy – or, as some of our Founding Fathers called it, mobocracy – can never be vindicated, because it is as unworkable as socialism. A representative republic, on the other hand, is quite workable, so long as the franchise is properly limited.
3. As a matter of empirical, objective observation, there have been many occasions in recent American history in which the majority have been persuaded because the falsehoods of the left were more plausible, and, more importantly, more palatable.
4. One big difference between Conservatives and liberal filth is that Conservatives are aware of the danger of being blinded by one’s prejudices, and further, are able to take measures to guard against that. Yet further, and again unlike liberal scum, Conservatives are highly motivated to guard against being blinded by one’s prejudices, and do a pretty good job of it.
“So when we disagree, I need to learn and reconsider, but you dont have to?”
I really despise this argument. What people attempt to do when they make this argument is discredit the opponent, and not his arguments, by painting him as a closed-minded person who always reacts by saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” without any consideration of the arguments to hand.
People of good faith don’t act that way. They give others the benefit of the doubt until a person proves that he doesn’t deserve it.
I am quite certain that there are areas in which you are more knowledgeable than I, and in which I could learn from you. However, we’re talking about the US Constitution, in which tradition I have been steeped my entire life. I’m presuming that isn’t true of you, as a non-American. Further, this is a subject I have discussed many, many times. I am justified in thinking that I have seen and carefully considered all the evidence and arguments arrayed against me. If you have a new one, trot it out, but don’t ask me to go over the same well-winnowed ground once again.
“The constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time.”
Illegally and treasonously. That practice is the proximate cause of most of America’s present woes.
“The Bible is interpreted and reinterpreted all the time. There’s nothing unusual or wrong in that.”
Certainly there is. If you’re interested in an article discussing that, I can either e-mail it to you or try to find a link.
“It doesnt need help from self-appointed guardians.”
There’s another one of those invalid arguments that I despise.
We are all charged by God to defend the truth. There is no “self-appointing” about it. Further, our understanding of the truth most definitely does need defending contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli, et contra Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos qui ad perditionem animarem pervagantur in mundo.
The denigration of those who advocate alignment with God and the good as “self-appointed guardians” of personal prejudices, prejudices with no real validity, is one of Satan’s most successful ploys. The falsehood upon which it fundamentally rests is the assertion that it is the prejudice of the single, individual person that is being advocated, and not the revealed word of God as understood by all the best minds of Western Civilization across two millennia.
“Thanks for twisting my argument round to mean exactly the opposite.”
I don’t do that. If I misinterpreted it, you weren’t clear.
“but the fact that they have relatively few adherents in a particular society is NOT one of them.”
I think there were two factors there. One is that you weren’t clear, and the other is that it would never have occurred to me to think that having few adherents has any bearing on the truth.
“The point I am trying to make is that I think proscribing various religious groups sets a dangerous precedent.”
Mohammedism is not a religious group. It is a Satanic death cult that has been at Christianity’s throat since the day that the Earl of Hell first whispered in the ear of mohammed (cursed be his memory). Wicca is one of his more recent, and, as yet, less successful ploys.
“If Islam is proscribed now, what happens in the future? I dont want the State to decide what I can, and cannot think or believe.”
That’s yet another of those sophistries that I despise. The premise here is that if we disallow anything, we will end up disallowing everything. Taken to an extreme, this would mean that disallowing murder is a slippery slope to disallowing tea.
There certainly are slippery slopes. For instance, contraception was the first step on a slippery slope that led through abortion to euthanasia. Some people say that this can only be prevented by refusing the government the power to prohibit anything. However, limiting government power didn’t stop legalized contraception from leading us to euthanasia. While limited government is a good thing, alone it clearly does not keep us from sliding down slippery slopes.
The only thing that will keep us from sliding down slippery slopes is electing the “right” people and disdaining the “wrong” people, and this is something that is only achieved through a solid historical and moral education, combined with a properly formed Christian conscience.
“And on a more practical point, when religions are proscribed they tend to thrive.”
More sophistry. Mohammedism ceased to thrive in Spain from 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella finally succeeded in kicking the last of their murdering, Satanist butts out. Wicca will cease to prosper when its adherents are correctly seen as nutbars.
“A lot of Baptists were executed, for being Baptists.”
Yes, Satan has fomented a lot of religious conflict in Western Civilization. That fact serves to demonstrate absolutely nothing more than that Satan has fomented a lot of religious conflict in Western Civilization. It cannot be used to impeach Christianity, nor any Christian denomination.
“At the time that the Constitution was ratified, several of the original states had official state religions, and there was nothing in the Constitution that required them to be abolished.”
>But there is now. Separation of Church and State and all that.
The history you have been taught is inaccurate. There is absolutely no, no, no, no, no “separation of Church and state” requirement in the Constitution. Not then, not now, not ever. This was invented whole cloth by the Satanic left (sorry to be redundant) as part of their attack on religion and believers.
“The majority of people in the US at the time held very strong anti-Catholic opinions. It wasn’t just some.”
The history I have learned does not bear that out. In fact, my mother’s people were Florida Catholics from the mid-seventeen hundreds, and no such history was passed down to me.
“Its not a question of bigotry. Its a question of belief.”
Not all belief is bigotry, but all bigotry is belief. Unreasonable belief in falsehood, but belief nonetheless.
As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
I have never once run across a Catholic-basher who correctly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church. If an educated, intelligent, wise man like Justice Story believed that the Catholic Church should be proscribed, this could only be ascribed to the phenomenon that Bishop Sheen describes, and that can only be called bigotry.
That said, I have seen no indication that Justice Story was, in fact, bigoted against the Catholic Church.