Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,202 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

tjdonegan

 

Blog Traffic: 17303

Posts: 258

My Comments: 1005

User Comments: 1638

Photos: 3

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 4

Points: 4933

Last Online: 21 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

MisterCox
 

The need/requirement (i.e., the moral obligation) to speak the truth...

Added: Saturday, September 19th 2020 at 9:40am by tjdonegan
 
 
 

Let us note that those judged to be “nice” often are so judged because they consciously, or unconsciously, flatter the sensibilities of the individual assessing them as nice… Generally, nice people are thought to be, and judged to be, moral people by those they encounter because the rendered assessment is an emotional assessment (the concept of moral being conflated with nice…).

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed any number of people on the social-political Right have participated in her lionization; some have claimed her "principled," some have claimed she had an incisive legal intellect... One listening to some descriptions of RGB - and lacking historical, philosophical, legal and moral understanding - think she was model SCOTUS Justice and a wonderful representative of us humans...

It is an indication that there is something lacking in the moral character of those that mischaracterize reality. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s predominant animating principle was egoism; her understanding of reality merely reflected her. What she understood as ‘good’ are those things which flattered her and – necessarily – the things she disdained were evil/bad… This claim is demonstrated by her refusal to recuse herself [as the Court mandates jurists do…] from cases involving things which she had - by her actions - already publicly decided e.g., Obergefell vs. Hodges (The 2015 SCOTUS case regarding homosexual marriage; Ginsburg had "ministered" homosexual couples in matrimony prior to the 2015 case)... Such is but one example among many [e.g., abortion rights cases] in which Ginsburg demonstrated her understanding of the Law was decided on quasi-informed sentiment. What she understood of the law was reducedtoher;thus, her jurisprudential arguments are necessarily predicated upon sentiment and thus - by definition - unjust!

An honest description of Ruth Bader Ginsburg – as a Jurist – would indicate that she is inveterately unjust [reflexively albeit unconsciously biased] – as one possessed of an antipathy for the Law’s of Nature and Nature’s God - and therefore not worthy of judging cases addressed to the local magistrate much less being a SCOTUS judge…

Now our assessment of RBG as a judge is also views her moral comportment in like manner i.e., she was an egoist! An egoist – by definition - is dispositionally opposed to objective morality; thus, we - correctly – infer that RBG was not a moral paragon, but rather a representative of amorality… That said; she was probably a nice lady{#basic-cool.gif}

Thomas J. Donegan

guildma@msn.com

User Comments

I guess you are making your assessment based on your personal taste of morals?

Hello, Writer!

Morality - if it is morality and not personal taste - is like mathematics, logic and the principle of non-contradiction viz: something which attends to objective reality residing there for the discursive intellect to discover. So, no Writer! I am not expressing ‘my personal taste of morals.’ Rather I am assessing RBG’s moral temperament predicated upon my understanding of moral conduct, and my assessment of RBG’s conduct as a jurist predicated upon the legal criteria – codified in Law – which she flouted whenever she so desired…

Cordially, tjd   

Morality is not like mathematics. Views on sexuality have changed over the years, so how can you equate to mathematics? Did one plus one ever become three? 

Hi, Writer! 

Humam views can change as to what constitutes moral action, but moral action never changes! Abortion, slavery and sodomy are never moral actions, but humans accept them on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday; but by Thursday at 14:27 (i.e., 27 minutes after 2 pm) humans collectively decide they can no longer be tolerated...

I've explained this to you - over, and over, and over, and over and... - that morality is objective and not determined by the subjective tastes, desires, thoughts of you, me or of the collective human race [See my blog posts "Establishing the Natural Law" (January 24, 2020) and "Kantian Morality: The Categorical Imperative" (November 4, 2018) and many more where I have addresses morality as objective existing reality...]. If the human race - every human from the dawn of human existence were to claim the 2 + 2 = 3, or that Euclidean triangles encompass fewer than 180 degrees it would not alter the objective truth that 2 + 2 = 4, and Euclidean triangles contain exactly 180 degrees. Similarly, all humans can claim they believe it is moral to kill an innocent human being, but such actions are still murder!

Take care, Writer!

Codially, tjd

Abortion is a moral issue I agree, but poverty is also a moral issue. We can't address one without the other.

Hi, Writer!

Morality is not addressed [i.e., it is not the purview of Government] by Government, except in a restrictive manner. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness. The Government - like the 10 Commandments - should indicate what actions are forbidden (murder, slavery, theft, character disparagement) - but should not mandate positive moral action e.g., feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor. Those activities - the activities of positive/proactive amelioration-of-want/need - should not be compelled by Government; rather each of us ought to be morally moved to help the 'least-among-His-brethren'... This too is a difference between the social-political Left and Right; the Left knows it can feign concerned for the disenfranchised and use human suffering – as a pretense for political advocacy - to acquire power (SCOTUS Justices are not immune from faking their concern for the disadvantaged...); the social-political Right is not so adept at utilizing suffering to advance its power. This is largely because those on the social-political Right value human life – seeing humans as creatures uniquely different than other sentient beings, as reflections albeit dim-reflections of the Creator God; as a consequence those on the Right, understand manipulations and usury as sinful/immoral… But, at-the-end-of-the-day, Government should only be used to restrict anti-social conduct; Churches and families are to sponsor the moral amelioration of society via organized activity…

Cordially, tjd

There are few things as disgusting as whining about poverty right after you supported 2 billion dollars in rioting damage to "see where it goes"

You ain't fit to address shit. I hope you get destroyed just as your BLM/Antifa heroes destroyed others.

STFU about poverty!

I think the perception is that those on the Right place more value on the unborn than on the born. I think the 10 Commandment is basically extinct at this stage. I haven't heard anyone mentioned it in decades.

Hi, Writer!

I am somewhat taken aback by your confusion regarding topics which I thought I had made as clear as crystal...? That, said:

The perception that 'the Right place more value on the unborn than the born' is ridiculous; a perception generated by those on the social-political Left; such calumniation enjoys a certain currency (i.e., it finds acceptance) among those dominated by their sentiments [i.e., ‘feelers’; truth is ascertain via dispassionate reason; emotion - generally - confuses issues…] any individual morally disposed would understand it is an utterance of those intent upon directing people’s attention away from the moral horror of abortion. Those that compile empirical evidence regarding such things as charitable donations have consistently reported that the pro-Life social-political Right’s charitable acts/donations dwarf those donated by social-political Leftists… The Left’s charity – ultimately comes through their deceptive tax laws; generally, Democrats – who wish to ‘tax the rich’ write tax law to shield Billionaires like Gates, Soros, Bezos, Bloomberg, Buffet and others [this is why Buffet, Gates and others argue for increasing taxes on the rich…], and they exempt the income of entertainers [this is why Hollywood Lefties seek increased taxes leveled upon the rich; they don’t have to pay those taxes…]; the rich that – generally – have their taxes raised are small-business owners, and their wealth – apart from their business holdings - is generally small-potatoes. Democrats prey upon small-businesses via the tax-code. The Press mumbles the reports that social-political Leftist exempt themselves from tax laws and are stingy with charitable donations for the disenfranchised, while those on the social-political Right are much more generous, even though they usually have lesser financial resources… The social-political Right care about human life as a matter of principle. Social-political Leftist are more inclined to desire to limit suffering via population culling [the weak, and the infirm – as well as the intrauterine babies – are all candidates for elimination/extinction when Democrats have the control they seek!]… 

Regarding your comments on The Ten Commandments, the word "analogy" is apropos here! When I liken one thing to another I hope that the comparison is grasped, by the reader! You do understand analogy? A Government – like the United States Government formerly was – was understood as limited Government which emphasized self-governance of one’s day-to-day affairs. Such a Government limits its purview to the delineation of those things which must not be done, for example: “One must not murder!” and also a delineation of things which must be done, for example: “One must pay taxes!” The character of these laws is analogous to the Ten Commandments; so Writer, I am not arguing for the Ten Commandments! I was merely using the analogy in an attempt to explain that Government must minimally protect certain things, for example: human life, and that the articulation of that protection is analogous to the dictum of the Decalogue wherein: “One shall not murder!” And – again as an analogous statement – regarding the limitation of Government; addressing “poverty” may be a Government concern, but it cannot be a fundamental goal/aim/issue of Government; quite simply because there are a multiplicity of gradients of what constitutes “poverty”, while there is no ambiguity between living beings and those that are dead. And again; all that I was attempting to do – in mentioning the Decalogue – was to differentiate – via analogy – the difference between those things which Government must do/avoid doing, and those things which Government may address/regulate…

Cordially, tjd

 

You raise a good point regarding the perception of the Right as caring for the unborn and not caring for the born. Maybe the media has distorted the message, but it they did, it has stuck. I know that my previous church and members bought a mansion to house and single pregnant mothers keep their baby and teach them skills like sewing. I am not a member of the church anymore but I still support their cause whenever they ask for funds. They've done food collection for the poor and I've also supported those activities. It is unfortunate that the media doesn't promote news like this that will show a different side to our country, a side that promotes love, hope, and unity.  

Hi again, Writer!

The mainstream - unfortunately - has an agenda and it does not include informing the Public about things that it morally, and Constitutionally, obliged; neither does it include stories - like the one you relate - that may tend to unify Americans. The Press seems to serve the interests of special-interests (those that have utilize, and continue to utilize the American Government to enrich themselves and their friends. Trump was elected to put an end to that, and that is why both Democrats and many Republicans want to be rid of him...); if Trump is re-elected he is going to need to deal with the American Press and the American education system...

Cordially, tjd

She was "unknown" to me. Meaning, though she was a SCOTUS, she, more often then not, ruled against anything that I was interested in.  And anything I was against, she ruled for.  Therefore, I basically ignored what she was doing, and she became unknown.

Hi, ellie! 

The caustically divisive atmosphere which permeates the United States is predicated upon moral division. One of the things which Representative Government presupposes (i.e., takes for granted) is the existence of the delimiting condition of a common moral ground; or if you will - a ‘more perfect Union.’ In 1787 (the year that the US Constitution was drafted…) the dominant worldview came to be referred to – by Historians – Christendom (the objective existence ordered – created – by ‘Nature’s God, and the Laws-of-Nature’) – which placed definitive limits upon human appetites, and conveyed – to all – the belief that humans are not to be trusted; thus, the United States Constitution divided Government and placed at odds the different branches and States… About the same time (circa 1781) the University [where culture is framed] was organically seduced and inverted; gradually placing the University and its corollary culture in diametric opposition to the United States Constitution as understood by its framer’s. The Courts reflect the University worldview – because jurists [like all peoples] assimilate and synthesize (to varying degree’s) the nihilist materialism upon which the University is grounded; this reduces law - and its associative Government – to a tool of despotism. Ginsburg – as an unabashed Leftist – utilized her opportunities the Court provided – to dissolve what mortar-of-social-cohesion [a.k.a. morality] that she could… Such is her true legacy!

Cordially, tjd

 

Yes, that she sure did.

Indeed. Dying (albeit long delayed) has got to be the best thing this woman has done in many a year.   

Grand opportunity for a marvelous new Supreme court Justice who is worthy of the title.

Hello, Anonymous!

Sorry, but I didn't see your excellent note! I fully agree with you! I wish I have seen it earlier...

Cordially, tjd 

Not being born-again, she was inherently dishonest.

Hi, FedUp! 

Humans - post the fall – may be reflexively dishonest – but, ‘inherent dishonesty’ would place that dishonesty in their nature and encumber God with their sin; such is an inherent contradiction!

Cordially, tjd

Good answer.  Yes, God is so "encumbered", and more.

  "...God is so "encumbered", and more. "

That is, God sinned and made himself both mortal and non-eternal when He created as He has done.  Think about it.

Hello again, FedUp!

It is not possible for God to sin; sin is: 'turning from God." One may choose to accept such a contradiction - if one so chooses – but, then one may as well embrace Allah; the Muslim god - Allah - is an irrational god, because Allah is not bound by his own law [the 'thinking' of Muslim 'thinkers' is that Allah is not God, if limited by his own law/s...]. This places believers in the unenviable position of worshipping a god that capriciously may change what is acceptable and what is sin. This renders Allah implacable, and the very concept of such a god is in fact inherently contradictory! Allah must translate – in English – as Satan... Yahweh is not only rational i.e., the basis of what is rational i.e., rationality realized i.e., accord with the will of God. When Saint Paul asserts: '...He was without sin, became sin...' he is not being literal (Jesus nature is not made impure, and/or does not become inherently opposed to God/Truth). Rather Paul is claiming that Jesus - by identifying with fallen man (deigning to the incarnation…), and becoming a member - albeit perfect - of the fallen, Christ can redeem - make-payment-of, or pay-off-the-debt accrued/assigned to human nature via the act of our "parents" [Adam & Eve] - and that redemption re-establishes the 'severed-bridge' between Man and Grace... The encumbrance - by Jesus - with our sins, is the merciful act to which Jesus consents to balance the demand of Eternal Justice which is God's Will. Jesus Christ – by freely choosing the Will of the Father [obedience], rather than his human will – such is the very opposite of sin!

Cordially, tjd

" It is not possible for God to sin; sin is: 'turning from God." One may choose to accept such a contradiction - if one so chooses – but, then one may as well embrace Allah; the Muslim god - Allah - is an irrational god, because Allah is not bound by his own law [the 'thinking' of Muslim 'thinkers' is that Allah is not God, if limited by his own law/s...]. "

That is your opinion, and, though perhaps bilions of others have believed it, it does not hold up to the light of day.

God turned "from God", and to mortality, when He decided to create a reality and sentient beings who were actually puppets and who could not 'win' in that reality without Him; and, while not 'winning', so-to-speak, evil Satan and his evil hoardes were loosed upon them to insure their losing and to hurry the losing process along.

Don't just spew the orthodox theology...Think about it.

Hello again, FedUp!

If one chooses to argue Scripture - and it seems that you do? When God created Adam and Eve their existence was preternatural i.e., they were eternal beings, as was the "Garden of Eden*" their existence was like ours in that it depended on God - as everything does. By turning from God (i.e., sinning; opting to choose their will’s over that of God’s; this is reverse in the Garden of Gethsemane by Jesus…) they were rendered susceptible/vulnerable to things which they formerly were not. One may argue all of created existence was made to fall [i.e., fell] with them, but such actually irrelevant to the point regarding God and your claim… Sorry, FedUp, but vapid; utterly vapid – and dangerously nihilistic - claim, viz: "God turned "from God", and to mortality, when He decided to create a reality and sentient beings who were actually puppets and who could not 'win' in that reality without Him; and, while not 'winning', so-to-speak, evil Satan and his evil hoardes were loosed upon them to insure their losing and to hurry the losing process along." By-the-Bye, Nietzsche would agree with you regarding ‘God creating puppets to be tortured on a stage by a cruel god…’

* Granted what we can know about preternatural reality is speculation; speculation… Faith - necessarily – presupposes reason, but reason is rendered unreliable if God is unreliable… Those that believe as you - and Muslims (and many others) - reduce all things to faith, but that ‘faith’ then is reduced to self; and necessarily the self to whom the individual’s faith is reduced is irrational, as is that particular individual. Of course you can assert it is my opinion, but my logic – on this point – is impeccable; if one denies an objective rational order – and your claim necessitates reality is a matter of capricious fiat – one’s view of reality reduced to the knowing subject i.e., to you, and YOU are your god!

Regarding: “Don't just spew the orthodox theology...Think about it.” I haven’t killed myself in sharing my few reflections upon your claim/s - I could probably write a lengthy tome chasing all the related threads of thought presupposed and circumscribed vis-à-vis your claims, but I’ve gotta sleep, and then get up and go to work.

Take care, FedUp!

Cordially, tjd

God knew beforehand how everything would work out, yet went ahead with it anyway.  I needn't expand on the evils He puroposely and selfishly unleashed...knowing exactly all the evils, pains, suffering, and sorrows which would ensue.  THAT's not "love ", that's abuse ...for His selfish reasons. = sins against God

Hi, FedUp!

Rational argument is not able to pursuade sentimentality i.e., the irrationally ordered; such conditions are exemplary of the "mark-of-the-beast." Good luck with the religion/faith of FedUpToHereism...

Cordially, tjd

 

Really?  You have lost all credibility.

Post A Comment