Kristina Ross, 37, is the kind of person city officials love to hate. Determined, driven, and passionate about her desire to do something good for women’s bodies in spite of red tape, Ross now sits in a Boise, Idaho jail for undertaking a task usually reserved for men in their twenty’s. Ross, it seems, has taken the health care crisis into her own hands and decided to bring medical exams to the masses. The only problem is that her impromptu breast exams in local bars were not sanctioned by the Idaho Department of Health which has this archaic requirement that healthcare professionals actually be licensed to do what they do. As a result Ross is charged with two felonies for impersonating a physician. Police say Ross introduced herself to her two “patients” as Dr. Berlyn Aussieahshowna, a plastic surgeon, and then examined the women, ultimately asking them to call to confirm appointments for breast augmentation surgery the following day. When real plastic surgeons kept getting unsolicited calls, police were alerted.
Stranger than the crime itself is that Ross’ gender may yet still be up for grabs (pun clearly intended). According to police records, a Kristoffer Jon Ross was arrested for shoplifting this past Spring and “he” bears an uncanny resemblance to “she.” Police plan to get to the bottom of the Kristina/Kristoffer question using an exam by a real physician.
Source: Yahoo News
–Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Ethics divorced from morality are secular ethics.
They are also divorced from the fictional baggage of operating from on beliefs.
As to the supremacy of evil? Those would be your words, Mo, not mine. A god, by any name, doesn’t create the evils in the world. We do. By our actions and choices made under free will or from biological or chemical malfunctions which create unethical and/or illegal compulsions. In civilized society we use laws, enforcement and punishment to address the evils of humans.
Believe in the supremacy of evil? Not at all. I know the proper function of the rule of law and a judiciary that acts as a trier of fact not a promulgator of unfounded beliefs.
if you have no morality, which does not need to be religious based, how do you know what your ethics are to be? Ethics divorced from morality is nothing. And moral cowardice comes from discarding morality as unnecessary.
So your ethics would have no means to stop any threat because you believe in the supremacy of evil.
Moral uncertainty?
Well, that would be your problem Mo. I don’t operate off of morals – value loaded propositions asserted by religious organizations and seated in belief or faith – but rather off of ethics and logic.
Your logic is demonstrably flawed – the fallacy of composition – and your “morals” are clearly skewed with a pro-Christian/anti-Muslim bias. Bad news. This isn’t a Christian nation, but a secular nation, according to the terms of the Constitution.
As to overwhelming evidence? I kinda doubt it. For every horror perpetrated in the name of Allah, you can point to an atrocity perpetrated by a Christian – from RCC sanctioned child abuse (sanctioned by merit of their inaction and complicity in aiding and abetting pedophiles escape prosecution) to Jim Jones to homosexual genocide in Uganda and the Congo (an action endorsed by both Christian church officials and Congressmen of known Christian bias) to Oklahoma City to the Conquistador’s treatment of Central and South American Indians (in particular the mass killings, forced conversions and the purposeful destruction of most of the Maya’s recorded history by Bishop Deigo de Landa) to the numerous deaths reported linked to retrograde practices like exorcism and discouraging the use of condoms.
The timescale is irrelevant. Both religions, by nature of operating off of unfounded belief versus empirical evidence and reason, have over time proven that they are bad for secular society on a repeating basis because at their cores and practiced to extremes they are both exclusionary – you’re not “one of the special chosen ones” so that gives me the right to treat you however I damn well please, even like lowly dog or a piece of meat. This should be differentiated from the teachings of said religions which can benefit individuals and the organizations proper. If you use an unfounded belief as an operational principle, I have no issue with that as long as 1) you don’t harm others by those beliefs and 2) you don’t try to use forced conversion. Two things that organized religion in both traditions are guilty of? Using their unfounded beliefs to justify harming others and promulgating forced conversions. The problems usually arise in the efforts of the organization to perpetuate itself by any means possible but it has been exacerbated by the addition of that mental illness known as Fundamentalism. Your defense of Christianity on “moral” grounds makes the assumption this is a Christian theocracy.
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This includes Christian, Muslims, Jews, atheists, pagans, Jainists, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians, agnostics, and even the worship of Mojo Nixon’s holy trinity: Elvis, Foghorn Leghorn and Otis the Drunk from Mayberry.
It applies to them all not only via the 1st Amendment but by 14th Amendment . . .
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and by the prohibition on religious tests for office found in Article VI (no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.).
Moral certainty, as opposed to secular ethical certainty and a basis in empirical thought, is just as dangerous as moral uncertainty because both are based on belief instead of fact. Governance is the realm of the factual when properly administered in a secular manner. Since moral judgments are made based on belief systems, they have no business dictating the actions of a factually based secular government.
We need to worry about what’s taking place domestically.
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America
by Chris Hedges
Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
by Frank Schaeffer
Buddha is Laughing:
then why do so many Muslims who leave Islam say the same things? Certainly there are some crazy Christians, Westboro Baptist is a good example. But they havent yet stoned anyone to death for adultary, at least that I have heard.
The equivalency between Christianity and Islam in this century is incorrect. The amount of evidence is overwhelming.
And I didnt say all, as I mentioned Hirsi Ali as an example of an individual’s free will.
Your conclusions lead to moral uncertainty. We see that evidenced everywhere in our culture.
Mo,
As smart as Sam can be, the error he is making and you are propagating is the “from each to all” fallacy, a composition error as mespo pointed out. Just like insane Fundamentalist Christians do not represent all Christians neither do Muslim extremists represent all Muslims. The insane Fundamentalists of both religions are equally dangerous.
Ask Oklahoma City.
Mespo727272:
“He implies the actions of the few, imply the sentiments and future actions of the many. That’s basic composition error.”
I disagree. What drives individuals? What do we all have at our core? It is our value system. How do we obtain our value system? School, Church, the works of the brilliant minds of history, etc.
The only way for you to be correct is if the values/philosophy of Islam changed. You would then have a point. As long as the values/philosophy of Islam remains caught in the 7th century their future actions will remain the same.
Philosophy guides men’s lives, bad philosophy leads men in the wrong direction. A direction that will not change unless the basic premises of the philosophy change. Do men have free will? Of course and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s life is a demonstration of that free will. But she is a remarkable individual. Most human beings are followers or have little sense of self and so rely on external guidance. As long as the external guidance remains constant, the trajectory of peoples lives will remain constant from generation to generation.
Sam Harris is correct.
Mespo727272:
how so? Please explain that one to me. I am not advocating putting a yellow star and crescent on their sleeves and shipping them to a concentration camp for extermination.
Use dogs or explosive detection equipment to ferret out the weasels and let the rest of us be. The 3 year old daughter of Christine democrats is not a threat to national security.
There is no bigger Sam Harris devotee than me, but he’s wrong here. He implies the actions of the few, imply the sentiments and future actions of the many. That’s basic composition error.
“We will end up like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia all in the name of refusing to identify a real threat and deal with it as such.”
****************
Funny you mention those instances. In both cases, the real threat came from those announcing it the loudest and demanding the action you advocate.
here is another good one:
how about these as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoyRVYagKE&feature=related
Mespo727272/Anon Nurse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ana9w3uSNA&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLmkHMBsls4
If 1.57 billion Muslims cannot control a few bad apples within their religion how do you propose we do? And why should we (the people who do not engage in terrorism) suffer because a small minority of Muslims engage in acts of violence? Most terrorists are Muslim males between the ages of 18 and 40 years old. But since a burka covers a Muslim woman from head to toe how do you know she is not a he?
By the way, we did kill a good number of German citizens who probably hated the Nazis on our way to victory. Was it right? I dont know, but how do you know who voted for Hitler and who didnt?
As to intention, look around. How many different Islamic groups are calling for death to the West and America in particular? I understand Locke quite a bit better than you assume I do. He is quite clear and the Islamic world’s intentions are quite clear as well.
If the average Mulsim wants peace, let them rise up and take their leadership down and join the 21st century.
We will end up like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia all in the name of refusing to identify a real threat and deal with it as such.
Mo,
What mespo said much better than I ever could…
As for the TSA and DHS? Well, regarding DHS, I think someone needs to take a good hard look, because good, law-abiding Americans are being tracked like dogs on the streets of American.
Homes are being entered surreptitiously; theft and vandalism are common; defamation, job interference, and mail tampering are part of the game. And the surveillance is constant, and conspicuous, at times. Someone needs to look at what’s going on right here at home. Mo, this is happening to non-Muslims –this is happening to decent, patriotic Americans.
(You said the following: “how you take care of this is to strip search Muslims and not give a care about what they think. ” It’s beyond insensitive and offensive, and I agree with mespo’s response.)
Mo:
“So what is your point?”
*************
My point is that we are not in a state of war with 1.57 billion people of the Islamic faith, nor even the small minority of them (20%) who reside in the Mid-East. By your own definition from Locke, only the extremists of that faith prompted by crushing poverty or outright religiously inspired enmity possess the “settled design” for war. What quarrel have we with a Muslim mother in Islamabad, or Ankara, or Sarajevo, or Detroit, for that matter, going about her day? Simply put, we have none.
You fail to understand the basic tenet of Locke which is that one must possess the intention for war, or join with such a person in that endeavor for a state of war to exist. Merely being a member of a group does not logically imply the intention. Would your Christianity (if you are) align you with convicted abortion doctor killer, Scott Roeder? By your logic, it should. Should we have eradicated every member of the population of Germany or just every member of the Nazi party simply for their affiliation? If so, who needed Nuremberg?
Intention must be overtly proven or inferred from actions. Wanna check every mullah calling for death to America and who harbors terrorists? Fine, jail ’em too, there’s intention. Wanna search every person who looks Muslim to the government? That’s unlawful discrimination.
You would do well to remember the words of another 18th Century legal philosopher, Edmund Burke, who addressed the point this way, “I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.”
My point is really quite simple.
Anon Nurse:
What is wrong with wanting to do away with the DHS and TSA and my comment above?
When in a war, the idea is to win. Since many here are or seem to be fans of John Locke here is what he has to say:
“Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”
From John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3 Of The State of War
I think we can reasonably infer from this that Mr. Locke would not be against profiling Muslims during a state of war which does currently exist between the west and some Muslims. Since it is impossible to know the heart of a human being precautions should be taken. But to grope a grandmother or a 3 year old to prevent being labeled unfair, is somehow devoid of common sense.
Maybe we should require a warrant to be issued for the bodily search of all persons boarding an airline before they can be searched.
Oh, Mo… And you made so much sense somewhere else on this blog.
(Thanks, mespo.)
(Bud)
“And how is Kristina any different than the thousands of TSA personnel that love rub my genitalia because I refuse a backscatter xray…”
Kristina won’t get fired if she refuses to do it.