Sydney Taber
Recent Activity
Sydney Taber commented on Re: Re: Re: Will Atheism be taken seriously in America? on January 16, 2008, 11:40 AM
This is an interesting response to the initial question regarding atheism. While I do think that activism can bring about fear and opposition in some, it is also an educational force. I do think that some Americans fear atheism, but it is their own religious beliefs and the history behind them that inspire this fear. Many christians would impose their religious beliefs on others - they actively proselytize and our politicians pander to their professed religiosity and fears. Yet, should you question their belief system or expect secular government to be secular, suddenly you are persecuting them. That said, I do think that Americans do not take atheists seriously. In polls, a majority of Americans claim that they would not vote for an atheist, despite the fact that most of our founding fathers were distinctly anti-religious if not outwardly atheistic. I may believe that religions are primitive, restrictive, and irrational systems of belief used to control people which we should long ago have rejected, but, if you want to believe, I have no problem %u2013 unless you try to impose it on me or insert it into public policy.
Sydney Taber commented on Does public opinion influence your decisions as a judge? on January 16, 2008, 1:18 AM
I think that Justice Breyer answered this question quite eloquently. While the Supreme Court "is afloat on a sea of public opinion", the Court should not use public opinion on a particular case to sway it. After all, it is their business to pass judgment on laws to determine whether those laws are constitutional. While every decision will be influenced to a certain degree by their personal beliefs and histories, education, social class, legal education, legal experience, and a host of other things, their decisions must be based on the law that applies to the particular issue at hand. That being said, interpretations of law will lead to differing opinions as frequently happens on the Court. Justices base their opinions on a host of considerations including precedents set by past courts, argument amongst themselves, common law, and their own judicial philosophy - it is their job to judge whether a law is constitutional which requires a degree of interpretation. This is exactly what they are supposed to do. The legislative branch creates law; the executive branch enforces law; the judicial branch interprets law. Are they infallible? No. Sometimes the Court will take on a case to revisit a past decision that is no longer sound or to clarify an aspect of law that causes confusion in lower courts. Those who like the notion of strict constructionism would deprive millions of Americans of the right to be free humans and citizens. Strict constructionism is a reactionary judicial philosophy based on the supposition that the Constitution is simple, clear and unchanging. Human society and mores change and so must the law. If, for example, Justice Thomas were to strictly apply the Constitution as he believes the Supreme Court should be doing, he would not be on the Court. He would be considered the equivalent of 3/5 of a white man, women would be chattel and only white males with property would be able to vote.
Sydney Taber commented on Does public opinion influence your decisions as a judge? on January 15, 2008, 8:18 PM
I think that Justice Breyer answered this question quite eloquently. While the Supreme Court "is afloat on a sea of public opinion", the Court should not use public opinion on a particular case to sway it. After all, it is their business to pass judgment on laws to determine whether those laws are constitutional. While every decision will be influenced to a certain degree by their personal beliefs and histories, education, social class, legal education, legal experience, and a host of other things, their decisions must be based on the law that applies to the particular issue at hand. That being said, interpretations of law will lead to differing opinions as frequently happens on the Court. Justices base their opinions on a host of considerations including precedents set by past courts, argument amongst themselves, common law, and their own judicial philosophy - it is their job to judge whether a law is constitutional which requires a degree of interpretation. This is exactly what they are supposed to do. The legislative branch creates law; the executive branch enforces law; the judicial branch interprets law. Are they infallible? No. Sometimes the Court will take on a case to revisit a past decision that is no longer sound or to clarify an aspect of law that causes confusion in lower courts. Those who like the notion of strict constructionism would deprive millions of Americans of the right to be free humans and citizens. Strict constructionism is a reactionary judicial philosophy based on the supposition that the Constitution is simple, clear and unchanging. Human society and mores change and so must the law. If, for example, Justice Thomas were to strictly apply the Constitution as he believes the Supreme Court should be doing, he would not be on the Court. He would be considered the equivalent of 3/5 of a white man, women would be chattel and only white males with property would be able to vote.
Sydney Taber commented on the morals of an Atheist on January 17, 2008, 11:59 PM
Morals are ethical principles that societies have developed to distinguish right from wrong - having nothing to do with gods or religion. Different societies may have different moral standards, but there are some which cross most societal differences - don't take my stuff and I won't take yours; share your stuff with me and I'll share mine with you; don't try to kill me and I won't try to kill you. If people need religion in order to behave morally - then it appears that religion stifles the ability to determine right from wrong as well as personal responsibility. Religions tend to inflame passions, promote ignorance and intolerance and often cause more harm than good within society. My parents taught me to do no harm - I believe that is the essence of morality.