Philosophy 101

[DLL]

i'm not sure if this is a "dom" statement or an angry reprisal (as in, 'kiss my ass, punk').

xoxoxoxo

 

[DLL]

this begs the question... when you take your pants off, do you hear REM's "losing my religion" in your head?

ever see that phone commercial where the girl goes into a dressing room and listens to the song My Humps thats me in the morning

 

[EJFan]

it would seem to me that a criminal, having paid their debt to society, would start with a clean slate. maybe not too easy from a socio-economic point of view, but certainly from a legal point of view. so i think that, in part, any reservations about this voting issue are based in a lack of faith in the criminal justice system... in other words, we don't actually interpret a served sentence as compensation for anything. why is that?

 

[Recidiva]

it would seem to me that a criminal, having paid their debt to society, would start with a clean slate. maybe not too easy from a socio-economic point of view, but certainly from a legal point of view. so i think that, in part, any reservations about this voting issue are based in a lack of faith in the criminal justice system... in other words, we don't actually interpret a served sentence as compensation for anything. why is that?

I have NO faith in the criminal justice system.

I do have some faith in the fact that people who have a tendency to abide by laws to begin with should be the ones to determine new ones.

 

[DLL]

it would seem to me that a criminal, having paid their debt to society, would start with a clean slate. maybe not too easy from a socio-economic point of view, but certainly from a legal point of view. so i think that, in part, any reservations about this voting issue are based in a lack of faith in the criminal justice system... in other words, we don't actually interpret a served sentence as compensation for anything. why is that?

If you believe that they have served their time and are entitled to return to life on the outside (as usually happens upon release, probation aside for the moment), then you are compelled to support automatic restoration of voting rights. There are many many ways in which convicts are pushed back into a life of crime simply by lack of alternatives--this is one that makes it more difficult to address those other issues. They are being denied a right to politically address a situation with which they are intimately familiar--the corrections system. Few would defend it the way it is, but the people who have been most closely involved with it are denied a political voice......
A further issue is that this is inherantly political--there is, as we all know, a substantial over-representation of minorities, especially blacks, in prison. Historically, blacks vote Democrat. If they are denied the right to vote, what is essentially happening is the disenfranchisment of Democrats......
Finally, some would argue that it can be done, it just takes effort, and if they are unwilling to make the effort, perhaps they don't need to vote anyway. I can tell you that it is NOT easy or even doable for the average person. In fact, most of the legal process is a minefield fraught with complications that it takes a lawyer to unravel. The percentage of cases that are disposed of each year is fractional when compared to the waiting list.

Is it any wonder that recidivism rates are so high in this country?

 

[EJFan]

I have NO faith in the criminal justice system.

why? i get the feeling (and don't disagree with it) that a lot of people share this view... but why do we have it? is it the perception of jails? the perception of recidivism? the perception of laws & law enforcement? what exactly is it that leaves us thinking the justice system is flawed?

 

[DLL]

why? i get the feeling (and don't disagree with it) that a lot of people share this view... but why do we have it? is it the perception of jails? the perception of recidivism? the perception of laws & law enforcement? what exactly is it that leaves us thinking the justice system is flawed?

EJ i am finding it very difficult to think as I kept glancing over to that AV of yours...lol

 

[EJFan]

EJ i am finding it very difficult to think as I kept glancing over to that AV of yours...lol

i know... i have that effect on a lot of women. i'm a sexy beast!

 

[Recidiva]

why? i get the feeling (and don't disagree with it) that a lot of people share this view... but why do we have it? is it the perception of jails? the perception of recidivism? the perception of laws & law enforcement? what exactly is it that leaves us thinking the justice system is flawed?

Well, you can tell by my name that I'm a believer in recidivism.

There are too many crimes that simply can't be behaviorally or chemically altered, because the criminal is compelled to do them by a fun system of brain chemistry that makes it impossible to circumvent short of lobotomy.

I've known way too many good liars and criminals that are very good at what they do and would give up their lives to continue to lie or commit crime to believe that the insipid "punishments" we have would provide much of a reason for them to stop. The worst punishment for these guys is to not be committing these crimes.

Since many serious criminals would rather die than not live out their image of themselves, all built around crime, even death doesn't faze them too much.

Considering that the jails we've built are so corrupt and sick that we've accepted there's just sickness and corruption in all jails, wardens and guards, I'd have to say it's not a workable system of "rehabilitation."

Jails right now are breeding grounds of "how to become a better criminal" and networking. The serious criminal won't find a stint in jail to be prohibitive to their career, just mostly a place to work out, study law, file for infinite appeals and get free cable.

Of course it's hell for someone who isn't a career criminal. So they become one.

 

[DLL]

i know... i have that effect on a lot of women. i'm a sexy beast!

visions of austin powers in my head now

 

[EJFan]

ok... so the jails, laws and justice system are corrupt... whether that's accurate or not, let's assume it's spot-on. what actions need to be taken to correct these things?

i thought bill maher made an excellent point on larry king's show a few weeks ago. he said that we put people on trial for ridiculous things (yeah, he's a libertarian). the example he pointed to was that hot ass blonde teacher who was convicted for sleeping with her male student. he essentially said that yes, it's wrong and she shouldn't teach... but to send someone to jail for it (we're talking about a female teacher and male student here, btw) was kind of absurd.

 

[Eilan]

the example he pointed to was that hot ass blonde teacher who was convicted for sleeping with her male student. he essentially said that yes, it's wrong and she shouldn't teach... but to send someone to jail for it (we're talking about a female teacher and male student here, btw) was kind of absurd.

Do you think he would have thought the same thing if the genders were reversed?

 

[Recidiva]

ok... so the jails, laws and justice system are corrupt... whether that's accurate or not, let's assume it's spot-on. what actions need to be taken to correct these things?

i thought bill maher made an excellent point on larry king's show a few weeks ago. he said that we put people on trial for ridiculous things (yeah, he's a libertarian). the example he pointed to was that hot ass blonde teacher who was convicted for sleeping with her male student. he essentially said that yes, it's wrong and she shouldn't teach... but to send someone to jail for it (we're talking about a female teacher and male student here, btw) was kind of absurd.

Absolutely true.

However, the state makes money and gets tax breaks, funding and revenue from enforcing these "laws"

It's like parking tickets. Do you think anyone's really going to make parking free when it's so much easier to make law after law after ridiculous stupid law that rakes in the cash for the civic politicians because the street needs to be cleaned on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays between 4 and 6 so you can't park here?

The political system is rigged to continue to make money on everything. There's no way a political body is going to cut its own revenue, funding or budget. They'll just make more and more things illegal. Making things legal removes a black market, which removes the penalties for punishing a black market...nobody makes money any more.

Perfect example is the CIA, who sells drugs to fund weapons to lie about where they're selling drugs and weapons.

No way the federal government is legalizing drugs or weapons. It would completely deplete their black bag and slush funds.

Happens this way on every civic level of a government. Although it sounds nice to put responsible people in charge of keeping order, eventually the system becomes so corrupt and is basically a pyramid money-making scheme where nobody will question another level of the pyramid effectively because it hits their bottom line.

 

[Recidiva]

Do you think he would have thought the same thing if the genders were reversed?

To charge someone with sexual assault is one thing, which a female can press suit.

However, to put people in jail when there's no discernible "victim" is the point being made.

Do we really believe that people are completely sexually inactive and innocent until the legal age says so?

An individual should be able to press suit when there is sexual assault, but offended parents using the state to force a verdict among consenting individuals is what's happening in most of these cases.

 

[EJFan]

Do you think he would have thought the same thing if the genders were reversed?

i'm not sure, but he always makes the point that there's a double standard because there are two sexes. this has nothing to do with feminism or with making a woman "less" of a person. it's just the fact that there are two sexes and they're not the same... not better or worse, just different.

i think, from a biological standpoint, that women/girls tend to be more discriminating and mature more quickly... able to determine that something like this is "wrong" and it grants the situation of a male sexually abusing a female more gravity. boys/men, on the other hand, just want to get a piece of ass and are less emotionally damaged by this type of scenario.

 

[Recidiva]

i'm not sure, but he always makes the point that there's a double standard because there are two sexes. this has nothing to do with feminism or with making a woman "less" of a person. it's just the fact that there are two sexes and they're not the same... not better or worse, just different.

i think, from a biological standpoint, that women/girls tend to be more discriminating and mature more quickly... able to determine that something like this is "wrong" and it grants the situation of a male sexually abusing a female more gravity. boys/men, on the other hand, just want to get a piece of ass and are less emotionally damaged by this type of scenario.

People feel the opposite way about this also, that men are more easily manipulated and the older women are using them.

However, having met my own share of extremely mature young males who are sexually predatory (internet has taught us much!), I'm much more likely to not pigeonhole people into what society thinks they are, and let them be themselves.

Experience has taught me that age does not reflect your maturity at all.

 

[EJFan]

As ingrained as these holidays are in American society, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate them as official government holidays. You'd never get enough support in Congress for a bill to get anywhere.

i was thinking about this last night, BG...

i realize that the recognition of christian holidays (on the government calendar) has become part of our culture. i think, however, that the origin of this (when there was a clear christian majority and our society operated largely within US borders) is no longer a valid rationale. there are far too many faiths for the government to consider it prudent to identify these holidays... and there is too much communication and commerce with other nations of varying faiths to leave our market unmanned.

one option, of course, is to include holidays from all major religions on the government calendar. that would leave us with about 3 months worth of work time.

another option is to eliminate them entirely. i believe that if we don't do so, at SOME point, the constituency will change. if a group lobbies the legislature for equal representation of their holidays on the federal calendar then we'd have a new dynamic in voting/campaigning at work.

i feel that in order to display some proactivity and avoid a shift in the dynamic it would be prudent to handle this before such lobbying takes place. given how our democracy lends itself to legislating away societal concerns, i believe it's almost a given that it'll happen. imagine that you're a muslim or a buddhist... i doubt you'd find the observance of christmas to be offensive but it would be reasonable to expect equal observation of your holiday... particularly as the population of these and other faiths is increasing.

now... i'm not suggesting that we should abandon christianity or take "in god we trust" off of coins or remove "under god" from the pledge... those are other topics entirely. i'm also not saying that christian holidays shouldn't be observed. i'm merely suggesting that it might be a better idea to let this be addressed by those involved, not by the government's calendar.

 

[midwestyankee]

The largest entanglement of government and religion involves the most personal area of human relations — marriage. Marriage is generally seen as a religious institution. We often here about the sanctity of marriage, holy matrimony, the wedding sacrament, and "What God has put together … ". Yet the rights and obligations of spouses and the legalities of marriage occupy substantial portions of civil laws. In California, the Family Code contains 138 sections devoted to marriage, excluding the addtional sections relating to the termination of marriage.

Here, we have the unique situation in which government delegates to ordained clergy the authority to establish a legal partnership that only the courts can terminate. In no other area of family law does such a delegation exist. Even adoption through a religious agency requires final approval by a government agency. (Note that a marriage license does not grant government approval of a marriage; it merely provides a means to record the result.)

We also have the government uniquely defining and regulating a situation established through a religious rite. The government does not define or regulate baptism, bris, confirmation, or bar mitzvah. And here, we have government — but not religion — having the final authority to undo a religious rite through divorce or dissolution.

This would not be as serious an issue as a cross in a public park or the Ten Commandments in a court house if it were not for the problem of same-gender marriage. Condemned by many religions but endorsed by others, decisions by the state supreme court in Massachusetts and actions by the city of San Francisco in favor of same-gender marriage have generated a political movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such marriages. This would implant within our nation's fundamental document of civil law a one-size-fits-all religious declaration, nullifying the positions of those religions that support same-gender marriages.

Rather than amend the Constitution, we need to end this entanglement. Marriage should be strictly a religious situation. Civil laws should neither define, regulate, nor even recognize marriage. Instead, the legal aspects of two persons in a committed relationship should be defined and regulated without reference to marriage, perhaps as domestic partnership even for mixed-gender couples. Just as government would not recognize marriage, no religion would be required to recognize domestic partnership. Just as in some European nations, a couple that wants both the religious and legal significance of what we know today as marriage would need separate religious and civil weddings.

my two cents worth

This entanglement does cause all sorts of problems and there is a very simple solution: follow the example of the French. This is not a perfect solution of course, as none are, but it would tilt the prevailing wind of societal norms.

In France. all couples must be married in a civil ceremony. Anyone wishing to be married in a religious ritual may do so but the legal status of the marriage is dependent upon the performance of the civil ceremony. I suspect that if all people were married by the state, then the perceived role of the religious bodies and traditions would become secondary to the state's role in defining what is, as DLL so well demonstrated, a partnership sanctioned and goverened by the state.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Guest]

 

[Eilan]

my wife and I were married (almost 22 years ago) in the chapel in the picture below by a JP. Do you suggest it was any less a marriage than if it was done by Rev. So-and-SO or Father What's-his-name?

Only if you're looking to be considered married in the eyes of a particular deity, I suppose.

For my husband and me, marriage was more about legal issues than religious ones.

I remember a old thread (Cate's maybe?) where this was discussed. I think a lot of the debate has to do with the "ownership," so to speak, of the word marriage. If that makes sense.

 

[midwestyankee]

Separate civil and religious wedding? you've got to be kidding. I don't in any way suggest I know the details of the law, but it seems to me the present system allows for clergy to serve as the representative for providing the civil marriage while simultaneously providing the religious marriage. but not everyone is religious, so then the civil marriage is available.

my wife and I were married (almost 22 years ago) in the chapel in the picture below by a JP. Do you suggest it was any less a marriage than if it was done by Rev. So-and-SO or Father What's-his-name?

DLL's idea is to end the government's involvement in marriage, which would eliminate the possibility of non-religious people getting married. This is a ludicrous idea, though no doubt it's quite popular among the Cittoheads and the Bushies.

The confusion in the arguments about same-sex marriage stem from the fact that most people see marriage in a religious context, yet under the law it is most decidedly a civil matter. I think that this confusion would be reduced, if not eliminated, over time if all legal marriages were performed in a civil ceremony. Let people enjoy the sacraments or rituals of their own religion in addition if they so choose, but let's call a civil matter a civil matter.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Eilan]

It makes me wonder how often first marriages are done outside of a religious service. I would venture a guess that it is more common for second marriages.

Good question. My first marriage was a Catholic ceremony sans mass. Big white dress and everything.

The second time around, we were looking to get married in spite of (not because of) my pregnancy.

 

[Guest]