--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Founding Fathers considered the existance of a Creator to be > > "self-evident" as well, so I don't think that you are appealing to a > > source whom you want to consider authoritative. > > Hmmm, can you provide sources where one or more wrote "the existance of > God is self-evident"? I'm curious, even though it is not important.
"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 is why > they created system with separation of church and state. They created no such thing. They simply prohibited the establishment of a State religion. As it is, the very first act of the very first US Congress was to certify the electoral votes of Washington as the first President. The second act was to appoint a Congressional chaplain. But obviously, the Founder's didn't consider the existence of God to be self-evident... :) > I think most people would. Throughout world history, most civlilized > cultures and societies have considered unprovoked murder of "us" to be > acceptable behavior. Of course, if you were considered "them", then > murder was sometimes acceptable, but I'd say this was more a case of > people not recognizing similarity between themselves and the other > than considering murder acceptable. Interestingly, the "other" who was > allowed to be killed was often defined by difference of religion. Most, however, is not self-evident, and is not knowledge. Indeed, it still opens up the distinct possibility of laws imposing a set of beliefs upon another group of people that does not believe in these beliefs. > > Most importantly, what about my other questions? What is your opinion > > of those other laws? > > Same. In other words, all laws you agree with are self-evident? >Which leads to the > question of whether children can consent to something. Most societies > agree than 5 year olds can't consent to complicated social activities, > and 21 year olds can. The exact age of consent for different activities > and different cultures and different people varies quite a bit. Best > possible world -- a determination would be made on a case-by-case > basis whether a "child" was able to consent to certain activities > based on the child's development and the activity. But we aren't that > sophisticated yet, so in America we just choose 18 for sex and that's > it. Is it a belief? Probably, but most people recognize it as a belief > of convenience. Quite different than many religious beliefs, I > think. Its only different because you happen to agree with it. If this was a belief being imposed upon you, over your strenuous disagreement, you likely would take a different view. So, are laws that impose the belief that ifanticide is immoral upon someone else evil? If one believes that infanticide until the age of 5 is moral, there is no self-interest effect that would lead you to believe that infanticide is immoral. Yet, our societies impose these laws upon others? Is this evil? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
