Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[duchess of malfi]

There was actually a case that went to the Supreme Court of the US a year or so, Sky -- in one state a homosexual act was illegal. Neighbors called the police on a gay couple, who were arrested and prosecuted. It was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who overturned the law. So, yes -- in some places there are laws about what can be done in the privacy of a bedroom between consenting adults.

[duchess of malfi]

And here is an article about the Supreme Court ruling from Cnn.com:

Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
Ruling establishes new legal ground in privacy, experts say
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Legal analysts said the ruling enshrines for the first time a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy, and its impact would reach beyond Texas and 12 other states with similar sodomy laws applied against the gay and lesbian community, and into mainstream America.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's majority. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected. (Full story)

Laws that might be most vulnerable would be ones that govern fornication and adultery, said Diana Hassel, associate professor of law at Roger Williams University.

And while Hassel said "only a handful" of states remain still have such laws, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed.

Hassel said the ruling, based on due process arguments rather than equal protection laws, would push out new areas in privacy. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it."

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed in full with Kennedy's opinion.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the final outcome of the case, but did not join the court in reversing the high court's 1986 decision in the similar Georgia case Bowers v. Hardwick.

Religious conservatives quickly criticized the decision, and in a sharply worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas -- said the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means," Scalia wrote.

This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior.
-- Diana Hassel, law professor


But with Thursday's decision, he wrote, the court was "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

Thursday's ruling stemmed from the 1998 arrest of two Houston men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, under a 28-year-old Texas law making same-sex intercourse a crime. The court found that law and others like it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

"This is giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals and where that is no longer accepted by the most powerful court in the country," said Ruth Harlow, of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, who represented the two men.

Lawrence told reporters Thursday that he and Garner were happy with the outcome, but "never chose to be public figures or to take on this fight."

"Not only does this ruling let us get on with our lives, but it opens the door for gay people all over the country to be treated equally," he said.

Court reversed 1986 ruling
The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an anti-sodomy law similar to the Texas law in Bowers v. Hardwick. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists. Justice Kennedy concluded that decision "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today," Kennedy wrote.

Harlow said striking down the Bowers decision could lead to other decisions favorable to gays in family law and employment discrimination cases.

Robert Knight, a spokesman for the conservative Culture and Family Institute, said Thursday's ruling would have "very real consequences."

Knight warned that it would undermine the legal foundation of marriage, lead to more deaths among gay men from sexually transmitted diseases and lead to schoolchildren being taught "that homosexual sodomy is the same as marital sex."

"This is social engineering by a court. It will have very bad effects on the idea of our republican form of government," Knight said. "If a government like Texas cannot legislate on public health, safety and morals, what can it legislate about?"

And the Rev. Rob Schenck, co-founder of the National Clergy Council, called it "a lamentable outcome."

The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 CNN. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Avatar]

It was a great outcome, IMO, and one that was too long in the coming.

The courts should be involved in social engineering. Who else is in the position to order the government? The court should not be solely a platform for enforcing the laws, it should be making sure that the laws being enforced are constructive ones.

--Avatar

[aliantha]

Ah, yes, that ol' system of checks & balances.

See, this is what you get when your original colonizers were Puritans. The group that set up our social contract in the US was fully in favor of legislating morality. We've been fighting to move toward a more commonsensical contract for approximately the past 400 years!

[Avatar]

Thats a very good point. We sometimes neglect to consider how the thoughts/opinions/feelings/whatever of the people who started the ball rolling still affects us, almost subliminally, to this day.

My own country has placed all of it's legislature under the jurisdiction of the constitutional court. The constitutional court has, in theory at least, the power to order the government itself. In my opinion, this is a great idea. I hope it works in practice as well as theory.

--Avatar

[birdandbear]

Bumpity bump.

For moving to the Close?

[Baradakas]

I believe that moving this to the Close might very well breathe some new life into it!! Could a mod here move it for us???? Purty Please???

[Skyweir]

moved as requested

[ZefaLefeLaH]

Evil is anything done without doing so in the Spirit of God.

Inotherwords, giving to charity can be evil. You might just be doing it because you would rather get a tax credit for giving to charity. Or maybe it is easier to give to charity than to throw away some furniture, that could cost money. Or maybe you want to have bragging rights.

You tell your boss that you thought what they did was honorable & full of integrity. Or maybe you just want a promotion.

There are millions of examples. People are mostly selfish & self-centered. Me, me, me all the time. You see, most of the things we do have ulterior motives. It doesn't have to be wearing dead arab babies on your head for a turban. Usually evil is quite subtle.

[Avatar]

I agree that "Evil" may often be quite subtle, but I certainly can't accept that it is anything done "outside" of the spirit of god.

By that reasoning, everything that anyone who is not a genuine christian does, would be considered "evil".

If I give something to a beggar on the street, that would be "evil". If I help someone, that would be "evil".

In fact, by those lights, Gandhi himself would be considered "evil".

Is that really what you think?

Not to mention the fact that I think there is a big difference between "wrong" or "bad" and "Evil". Things can be wrong, or selfish, without necessarily being "Evil". I think "Evil" is of a much higher order than mere selfishness. (Not that selfishness can't result in Evil. indeed, it often does. But that doesn't mean that selfishness per se is Evil.)

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I don't even believe in Evil
*ducks the slings and arrows*
I believe that there are things that people do that are really bad ideas, and really dumb, and harmful and painful... however, if I was going to believe in an 'evil' action I would have to believe in an 'evil' person, and I don't. I think that the person that most considers 'evil' is generally misguided, confused, depraved, psychotic or sadistic, but I think these are personality flaws and psychological diseases.
As far as things done outside the spirit of God are concerned, I really don't know how that could be considered evil, except of course if you defined Good=God and only God.
But then, wouldn't it be easier to attribute all good done to God indirectly, rather than classify all actions done without the spirit of god as bad?
Really, you could look at it either way...

[hamako]

Evil is anything done without doing so in the Spirit of God

That's a pretty narrow point of view isn't it? That makes the assumption that God exists for a start. Whilst respecting anyone's faith or belief, I have none whatsoever (well certainly not in any divine being context anyway), so I find this criterion a little difficult to comprehend.

Evil doesn't require either a religious classification or quantification. It's nothing to do with it. I believe it is an entirely human trait, in that it requires a) real understanding of the implications of the action (ie intent), and b) a degree of gratification in the outcome. So, evil behaviour becomes perhaps an active pursuit, rather than a coincidental outcome.

For example, I sit at home and drink a bottle of Scotch, get into my car and accidentally plow a kid down. No doubt in the crime but is it evil? However, I sit at home drink a bottle of Scotch and decide that I'm going to go out and run over the first person I get the opportunity to, because I'm looking for a buzz - that's evil, no doubt.

Now you could argue that in the first case, I have the intent becasue it's a reasonably foreseeable outcome of my actions. Maybe, and in a court of law I'd be banged up. But it's bigger than that. In this case my actions weren't as specific as in the second example; here I really wanted to do it and went in pursuit of it.

[Avatar]

Evil doesn't require either a religious classification or quantification. It's nothing to do with it. I believe it is an entirely human trait, in that it requires a) real understanding of the implications of the action (ie intent), and b) a degree of gratification in the outcome. So, evil behaviour becomes perhaps an active pursuit, rather than a coincidental outcome.

I think that this may be one of, if not the, best definition of "Evil" that we've had so far.

I pretty much agree with you completely. "Evil" is a human characteristic, arising from the desires of humans, and gratifying some obscure human "need".

Excellent post Hamako.

--Avatar

[hamako]

thanks Avatar, thought I'd throw in my opinion, especially as I set this whole thread off a...long....time.....ago............

[Avatar]

Ha, you're right. I never even noticed that you were the author of this thread...(over a year and a half ago!)

I jumped in at about page 8 or so (not going back to check) and never read the earlier posts. Well, you can be proud. It's having an excellent run, and proving thoroughly enjoyable.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Alright hamako, you said that if you got drunk, took a drive and accidentily kill someone, its definately a crime (true) but perhaps not evil.
Then again, if you drank a bottle of scotch, and took a drive TO kill someone, it is still obviously a crime, but in this case, also evil.
I'm a stickler for details, generally, and I was wondering... what are the specific characteristics of an action that we would put the label evil on, and why?
Oh..yeah, also, if this was already answered directly earlier in the thread, just let me know and I'll go and read it, I have to admit I haven't read the 15 pages, sorry :p

[ZefaLefeLaH]

I agree that "Evil" may often be quite subtle, but I certainly can't accept that it is anything done "outside" of the spirit of god.

By that reasoning, everything that anyone who is not a genuine christian does, would be considered "evil".

If I give something to a beggar on the street, that would be "evil". If I help someone, that would be "evil".

In fact, by those lights, Gandhi himself would be considered "evil".

Is that really what you think?

Not to mention the fact that I think there is a big difference between "wrong" or "bad" and "Evil". Things can be wrong, or selfish, without necessarily being "Evil". I think "Evil" is of a much higher order than mere selfishness. (Not that selfishness can't result in Evil. indeed, it often does. But that doesn't mean that selfishness per se is Evil.)

--Avatar

Everything you said in regards to my belief system is exactly right on. Gandhi wasn’t cruel, but his actions were outside of God & therefore all without the goodness of God & therefore evil.

Regarding the begger, it would be good if you listened to the Spirit of God & you felt compelled to help the begger. Most likely that Spirit would give you enlightenment about how to best handle the situation. For instance, my brother recently helped a homeless man. He had a sign that said, will work for food. So he picked him up, brought him home, had him clean up some stuff outside, and served him some dinner, then brought him back to the highway. A large percentage of beggers aren't just down on their luck, they've made their luck. So if you give them money, yes it could be considered evil in most cases as you don't know their hearts like God does, so most of the time your money ends up buying a couple bottles of MadDog 20/20.

[Worm of Despite]

I agree that "Evil" may often be quite subtle, but I certainly can't accept that it is anything done "outside" of the spirit of god.

Same way I feel, Avatar.

[hamako]

[/quote]I'm a stickler for details, generally, and I was wondering... what are the specific characteristics of an action that we would put the label evil on, and why?

JemCheeta, I'm no sage. but here's my ramble....

for me, evil acts are those that are intended to do harm, and that harm gives a level of gratification to the perpetrator.

Key definitions to me are:
a) intent - (as I was trying to get to in my earlier post) is where you want to produce the specific outcome (so not the same as the legal definition of intent) SO you have to understand the outcome and its implications

b) harm - I suppose an outcome that upsets the general well being of another whether that be physical or mental.

How's that?

[hamako]

and I didn't intend all that to be in quotes!