Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
You are assuming that all persons, looking at the same situation, would come to the same conclusions based on the same logical thought process. This is one of the fallacies of those who assume that logic must dictate values and conduct. One can logically decide that a baby has no immediate value, and can therefore be disposed of. Logic, unhinged from any values, breeds more than its share of atrocities
And logic hinged can see value to life and still dispose of it. Individual rights do not supersede each other irrespective of value assigned to life otherwise there would be no question whether I would receive your kidney. And I don't believe there ever was...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
You are creating a straw man argument. To state that logic, by itself, does not necessary lead to a moral outcome, does not automatically mean that we must abandon it to a completely irrational faith.
This is gibberish. Clean it up if you want a reply...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
Faith, is not, by itself, irrational, since believers can express logical reasons for their belief. But, when it is irrational, it becomes fanaticism, and is just as destructive as secular logic without values
In a very clumsy way you are making my argument...irrationalism absent rationalism does degenerate into fanaticism, (and I would add) examples are the dark ages, or today’s reactionary Islam and Christianity. Further, since irrationalism does not allow us to question religious edicts there exists no means, other than some form of force, logical or physical, to escape.

And you are mistaken. Faith by itself is fully irrational. Create a logical reason for a belief and there exists no need to have faith in that belief.

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
Rationalism and faith together gave us the Renaissance and the enlightenment. Rationalism alone gave us the gulags. Rationalism alone gives us the means to any end, but the determination of the end is a moral decision, not a logical one.
So rationalism is a slippery slope from which we cannot recover? You are mistaken. Anytime we can question we can recover from our mistakes. It's only when edicts disallow questions that man is forced to submit. The gulags were the product of authoritarian rule and authoritarianism can be reached when either rational or irrational philosophies are at their worst. The difference is that with the irrationalism there really is a slippery slope from which it is almost impossible to recover...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
We do want freedom. We just don't think that a small group of judges dictating the rules of our lives based on their whims constitutes freedom.
My question was with respect to secularism not a hand full of judges. In a nation as diverse as ours you cannot have freedom for everyone without secularism and yet conservatives seem terrified of it. I have to wonder if it is secularism or diversity that they fear...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Constitution was written in simple, clear language that even a judge should be able to understand. You dislike citizens united, because you believe that corporations should be able to influence elections, but the NY Times is a corporation. Why is it that the Times can endorse a candidate on the OPED page (and omit embarrassing news on the front page) without any issue, but if I were to buy an ad right next to that endorsement and repeated the contents of it, it would be illegal by your logic?
Why would that be illegal based on my logic? The individual like or dislike for a action does not predicate its legality and it is the legality that is the only thing of importance. You also left out that the Times can do the same thing whether it is a corporation or not as could you if the Times agreed to publish it...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
No, but then, irrational arguments generally leave me cold. A display of a historical document doesn't infringe my rights, and I'm a member of a minority. It doesn't threaten yours, either, but it does offend you, which is not a rational decision, but an emotional one.
To view something as irrelevant because it has no application to my life does not imply that I am offended by it, and that is rational, and whether you or I view something as an infringement isn't the question, nor has it ever been. We do not, individually, write the laws that govern our country...which is probably very fortune for all of us...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
Two things. First, I'm sorry for your Grandmother's horrific experience, but that level of abuse was always grounds for divorce, even back in the 1800s. She did have that option, but chose not to act on it.
Options are only relevant if you can see them and she couldn't. Liberalisms greatest attribute is that it removes stigma from our lives and allows us to see in order to free ourselves...

Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
Your grandmother's experience was highly atypical. Most marriages don't entail 40 years of physical abuse, and the laws back then had remedies, which she either didn't know about, or chose not to take up. It wasn't religion that kept her married, it was her choice, and clearly there may have been rational choices that kept her there (financial security, desire to provide for her children, or maybe she did love him, despite everything). The point is that you are blaming religion for her life, instead of recognizing that she had options that she chose not to take. That's the kind of secular irrationality that we've come to expect from liberals, even as they pride themselves on their rationality.
Blame religion? Not at all, in fact religion for much of my grandmothers life all she had and was probably the most positive influence throughout. No, if I blame anything it is a society that stuck it's head in the sands with respect to such things and preferred to pretend that abuses didn't happen. What my grandmother was talking about was that by my time women were no longer being ostracized and shunned for abuses that were not their fault nor looked down upon for being divorced; at least by the majority of the country.