CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. PORTRAITS OF EVIL- WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE EVIL? PT 3.

The Way EVIL is Defined, on a PERSONAL LEVEL, is often a Matter of the Degree in which The Individual Places on Their Religious and Spiritual Outlook as a Guide to Behave within Society as a whole.

Now, in a Free and Open Society you have every Right to Think this way.  If your Concept of a Good and Moral Life is Derived from Scripture, or the Teachings of a Revered Individual, then Pursuing the Manner of Behavior, or Lifestyle Guidelines that are part of the System of Moral Instruction are a choice you have the RIGHT TO MAKE.

Unfortunately, it seems that Many Individuals are Incapable, or Unwilling, to Understand the following:

THAT YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITIONS OF GOOD OR EVIL, RIGHT AND WRONG,  OR ANY INDIVIDUAL MORAL JUDGMENT,  MAY BE DESIRABLE FOR YOUR CHOSEN LIFESTYLE, AND GIVE YOU PEACE OF MIND, AND A SENSE OF WELL BEING.  HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULTS, AND FORCING THEM TO ADOPT THE SAME STANDARDS OF MORALITY AND BEHAVIOR COULD RESULT IN DESPAIR, DEPRESSION AND A GENERAL STATE OF MENTAL ANGUISH AND TURMOIL.

What is even more Disturbing, are Those Individuals who Insist that Their Right to Pursue a LIFESTYLE OF OBSERVING CERTAIN RELIGIOUS RULES, AND A DOCTRINE OF SPECIFIC MORAL BEHAVIOR, ALSO GIVES THEM THE POWER TO FORCE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY TO ADOPT AN IDENTICAL MODE OF LIVING.  WHY? 

BECAUSE IT IS EVIL, OR MORALLY WRONG NOT TO DO SO.  TO THEM FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS DEFINED THIS WAY:  YOU CAN CHOOSE TO OBEY THE MORAL RULES OF MY FAITH, OR YOU CAN SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES THROUGH CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTIES THAT THOSE WHO THINK LIKE ME BELIEVE ARE JUSTIFIED.

However, Just as Some Individual Moral Decisions will Differ From Individual to Individual, ALL LEGAL SYSTEMS must also Adopt a System of Morality that will Enforce and Maintain Certain Standards that those Creating the System believe are Essential to a Proper, Functioning, and Ethical Form of Government.

END OF PART 3.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. PORTRAITS OF EVIL- WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE EVIL? PT 1.

Quite a Question, isn't it?  I can imagine asking a Dozen different people, and getting Twelve separate answers. However, lets try and come up with a Satisfactory Definition that could satisfy Social, Cultural and Ethical Guidelines, while at the same time Satisfying the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking. 

You may have noticed that I Didn't include "Religion'', as a Term that needed to be included in a Universal Definition of Evil. 

WHY?

RELIGION, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS A SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES FAITH AND ADHERENCE TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST OUTSIDE THE REALM OF THE NATURAL WORLD. 

THEREFORE, ANY SYSTEM OF PROPER MORAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS FOUNDED ON HUMAN REASON AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.

SO ANY DEFINITION OF "EVIL", BEING APPLIED TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR, MUST COME FROM ELSEWHERE.

This is not a Judgment on whether or not Religious Faith is the proper foundation for finding the Truth about Evil, either the Definition or the Source.  However, Since Ethical and Criminal Behavior, in Practical Terms, must be Judged by Legal Systems grounded in the Physical World, THE "SPIRITUAL  WORLD" is not a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

You have to remember Religious Faith, and any Teachings that stem from such Beliefs, which include Any and All Doctrines about Moral Behavior, are not Revelations to be Denied as Untrue, or even Questioned outside the Realm of a Churches Hierarchy.

The Hierarchy is the Established Authority, within the Particular, Recognizable, and Unique Body of Faith Itself, that Interprets Doctrine from Sources considered to be Divinely Inspired. Decisions are then made, and become Part of Established and Recognized Church Law.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #3.

WHEN WE NEEDED THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR BY THE GOP.
...AND THEY DID NOTHING...

So, What Could Be The True Purpose behind the Republican Parties Leadership not wanting to hold FORMAL SENATE HEARINGS ON JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FOR THE OPEN SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES THAT OUTLINE THE PROCESS TO FILL THE VACANCY?

-  They want the Next President to Address the Situation, BY PERSONALLY SELECTING THE NEXT NOMINEE.

There is no where in the BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVEN HINTS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS VALID AND LEGAL. In Addition, NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, SET BY JUDICIAL REVIEW, CAN BE CITED TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION.

Even if this is THE TRUE EXPLANATION, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND VOTING DOWN THE NOMINATION, WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.

-  There is a Lack of Support in the SENATE, WHICH MEANS DENYING JUDGE GARLAND THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE COURT.

AGAIN, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND REQUIRING A VOTE, WOULD END WITH THE SAME RESULT: JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FAILING TO GET APPROVAL.

However, what happens if the HEARINGS ARE HELD, AND A VOTE TAKEN, THAT DOES NOT OCCUR IF THE NOMINATION IS KILLED BY A REFUSAL TO FOLLOW PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES?

-  AN OPEN FORUM TO ASK JUDGE GARLAND QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS 

CAPABILITIES, ATTITUDES, AND BACKGROUND THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON HIS FITNESS IN FILLING THE VACANCY.  THIS WOULD REVEAL, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE TYPE OF PERSON JUDGE GARLAND IS, AND WHAT HE REPRESENTS, MORALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY. 

-  THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO APPROVE OF JUDGE GARLAND, TO QUESTION AND PROBE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION. THIS WOULD REVEAL TO CONSTITUENTS THE REASONING BEHIND DENYING JUDGE GARLAND A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT.

-  FINALLY, A VOTE, ON THE RECORD, THAT EACH SENATOR WOULD HAVE TO CAST, WITHOUT HIDING BEHIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OBSTRUCTIONIST TACTICS.

HOWEVER, THE REAL REASON MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS.

LOOK FOR THE NEXT POST.

Date-  5/6/2016.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #2.

WHEN WE NEEDED THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR BY THE GOP.
...AND THEY DID NOTHING...

If we want to find the Most Probable Reasons for the REPUBLICAN PARTIES refusal to hold Hearings for JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT, WE MUST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. By doing this, IT WILL NOT MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE, FOR WE WILL BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE VERACITY, AND CREDIBILITY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN.

Here is What we know to be True.

1)  The SUPREME COURT CURRENTLY HAS ONLY 8 MEMBERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HIS DUTY ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND NOMINATED A CANDIDATE.

2)  The REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW QUESTIONING OF JUDGE GARLAND, REGARDING HIS CAPACITY TO FULFILL THE INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPOINTMENT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT HE HAS, OR DOESN'T HAVE, THE REQUIRED TRAITS. 

(This Refusal is Contrary to any Reasonable Interpretation of the Wording Contained within the Constitution, and may force the President and other Members of the Senate to seek a Solution to overcome this Obstructionist Tactic. I have covered this part of the controversy in other posts, so I refer you to Them for more information.)

3)  There has never been a single case in U.S. History of the Senate not holding Hearings to question, and consider a Supreme Court Nominee. So, setting aside the Constitutional Question of failing to fulfill Their Oath, why are SENATE REPUBLICANS DOING THIS?

Let us consider the Answer that has been used from the Beginning:

THAT JUDGE GARLAND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS A  

NOMINATION VOTE.

Whether that is True or Not, means nothing if it is not a vote Taken within the 

BODY OF THE SENATE ITSELF.  Officially, answers given to the News Media

have no value.

However, let us Take This Conclusion of Lack of Support as True, and see what we have:

-  IF THIS IS SO, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOSES NOTHING BY HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND HAVING AN OFFICIAL VOTE. THE OUTCOME WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, BUT NOW THE ACCUSATION OF FAILING TO UPHOLD THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WOULD DISAPPEAR.

-  FURTHER, THE SENATE, AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS, WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING JUDGE GARLAND. THIS WOULD AID THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATING A MORE APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE.

-  IN THE END, IT WOULD ALLOW THE OPPOSITION AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION JUDGE GARLAND. THEY WOULD LISTEN TO, AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS ANSWERS, WHICH THEY COULD USE TO VALIDATE THEIR REJECTION OF HIS NOMINATION.

These seem to be perfectly reasonable, and I cannot see any possible objections,

if JUDGE GARLANDS LACK OF SUPPORT IS THE ANSWER FOR NOT HOLDING THE HEARINGS.

HOWEVER, WHAT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...?

Date-  4/24/2016.