Spoke with my Congressman yesterday

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Policies should be based upon what is best for society and individuals -- determined not by moral code, but by rational thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, but how do you define what is "Best" unless you have some idea about what is "good" and what is "bad".

Just about every law (murder, stealing, etc.) comes down to some moral belief about what is right and what is wrong. Murder is only against the law because we agree that it is morally a "bad" thing. A pretty simple example, but it illustrates the point. Some people believe that this notion of murder being bad is a religious thing; some thing its a law of nature. Regardless of the source, we all (or mostly) agree. The source of our moral belief doesn't matter- that we agree enough to make it a law does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the point. We can come to the conclusion that murder is wrong rationally, not just because some book says it is ot because it is a 'natural' assumption.

For example, if murder was legal, we would all have to spend time and resources defending ourselves individually. If someone suggests we pool some resources to create a policing system which makes murder illegal and punished people who break the law, its takes less resources overall and people have more time to work and more money to spend on other things, raising GNP, productivity, etc and increasing quality of life in the commmunity.

Moral codes are based on the communities current understanding of what actions are most +EV. If the codes were absolute and the bible is a valid source, then why not continue to support slavery as advocated in Exodus?

Because we now see a bigger picture and realise it was wrong. Was God mistaken at the time?

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the point. We can come to the conclusion that murder is wrong rationally, not just because some book says it is ot because it is a 'natural' assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that people have different reasons for thinking that murder is wrong. However, in a democracy our reasons for thinking so are not the key. It is that we agree as a community. If half the people believe that murder is wrong because of their religious belief, should their opinions not matter because of the source of their ideas?

[ QUOTE ]
If the codes were absolute and the bible is a valid source, then why not continue to support slavery as advocated in Exodus?

[/ QUOTE ]We don't support slavery because as a democracy, we don't believe slavery to be morally correct. Some might believe the bible and interpret it differently than you- others might not look at the bible at all. The point is that whatever the source of our moral outlook, we are voting our beliefs, and those come from somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Because we now see a bigger picture and realise it was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, we do realise that it is wrong. Which means that we have made a moral judgement and then in turn turned that into law. This is what I'm trying to say. We have moral beliefs, and those beliefs derrive from some source, whether the bible, a gut feeling, or through logic. If enough people can agree, those beliefs get transformed into laws that govern our nation so that people are prevented from "bad" things happening to them.

[ QUOTE ]
Was God mistaken at the time?

[/ QUOTE ]This is irrelevent because we aren't having a discussion about the accuracy of the bible or interpretations of the laws of Exoduc. Obviously many people, rightly or wrongly, derrive their moral beliefs from the bible, as do many others from other sources. The question is whether or not those moral beliefs are aloud to affect law.

My contention is that all law is based on our moral beliefs. Murder, rape, stealing, etc. are all things that we are protected from, and I honestly don't think it is only because of a resource issue. It is because we have a moral center which tells us those things are not right and we cannot stand to live in a society that permits those things to happen to others without consequence. Moral belief DOES inform our laws.

And if that point is true, that moral belief influences our laws, then how can we make judgement on one person's source over anothers? The key is that as a democracy, one person's belief should not be aloud to carry the day. We as a people must decide together what is right and good, incorporating all of our ideas of morality from whatever sources we use. So those who draw inspiriation from the bible cannot by themselves rule the nation unless their moral beleifs happen to run parallel to others whose moral beleifs are derived elsewhere.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
And if that point is true, that moral belief influences our laws, then how can we make judgement on one person's source over anothers? The key is that as a democracy, one person's belief should not be aloud to carry the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we disagree about the role of morality in rational decisionmaking (Alex-db is right on), but what you write here is exactly correct. Even if a particular moral belief system is shared by the majority of citizens, it doesn't mean that this should be pushed on everyone else. Thus, America has a majority-Christian population but it is NOT a "Christian nation". The only people that advocate this notion wish to push their beliefs on everybody.

Anyway, it can be hard to determine whether someone's position on an issue is derived from morality or rational decision-making. Laws against murder are a good example. You are wrong to assume that they must have some (wishy-washy and meaningless) "morality" behind them. As stated before, laws against murder are rational because society would function very poorly indeed if murder was legal. But since everybody agrees that murder should be illegal, for either "moral" or rational reasons, then it's not too much of a problem to know the exact reasons for why people support them.

When it comes to stuff like gambling, though, it's key to know why people support laws against it. Is it for rational reasons, or "moral" reasons? If the former, then it can be debated; if the latter, then it cannot be debated because it is murky "morality". This is why democracy requires not bringing "morality" into the fray.

[jt1]

Jeff76 and retleftolc are right. Most laws are at least somewhat in response to a moral code. Even relying on reason is a moral decision. (Who is to say that Reason is better than Faith...of course you may be able to reason it out but that's a red-herring like trying to defend Christianity by quoting the bible.) As is relying on scripture or in my case, the precepts of individual freedom. But regardless of what moral code the majority base their decisions on, that same majority always has the power (though not necessarily the desire) to control what the minority does. Say we had the constitutionaly protected right to do whatever we wanted as long as it is being done on private property and it isn't directly hurting anyone else: The majority could still change the constitution.

Unfortunately the majority in America believe government has the right and sometimes even the obligation to restrict the free movement of her citizens. Fortunatly, enough people believe in the individuals perogative, and this voting bloc reduces the ability of government to effectively enforce those restrictions. So much so that anyone can pretty much do anything in this country as long as they practice their "vice" quiety and without ambition to profit. Of course, as internet gamblers we all seek to profit from our vice. We are the lucky ones, however, because our "vice" is practiced on the world wide web: An area that is impossible to regulate. China can do it only because there isn't enough incentive yet for internet companies to mask their websites for a Chinese demographic. I would guess, however, that propaganda websites with a will are easily able to get around the restrictions.

Say the governement chose to forbid ISP's to transmit links to gambling websites. Those gambling websites would just indentify themselves as something other than a gambling website and they would do that often enough and with enough sophistication that even an ISP or government agency with unlimited financing couldn't detect them. Furthermore, they could still advertise as either a play money site or a poker educational site with links to a bakery in Italy that takes you to jewlry shop in Zanzibar, etc until you find yourself at a wine shop in France where you can download the software. And the next day there will be different websites from which to get to the main site which will also be under a different name. This may reduce traffic somewhat but if the websites do it well then the reduced traffic won't be noticable. Forgive me if this theory is naive or childish but that is the extent of my understanding of how the gambling websites will get around any American law.

Furthermore, NV and the Indian tribes will probably kill the Senate version & if not the ACLU would take any restrictions on ISP's to court and also try to kill it in the Senate. Financial institutions and ISP's will also try to water it down. The House can get away with this sh** because lobbyists and PAC's aren't going to bother to "persuade" a representative who consistently gets 75% of the vote in his small little gerrymandered district.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
lol I remember that episode too and I thought to myself those Harvard nerds have never read the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I am pretty sure it is deliberately mistaken, as are many thing on the Simpsons. Flanders also names a lot of biblical characters and events that don't exist.

The Serpent of Rehaboam?
The Well of Zohassadar?
The Bridal Feast of Beth Chedruharazzeb?