By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12. Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month. But it did not happen. Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).
While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move. The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .” The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent. Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.
In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit. The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.
The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.
The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did. The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations. The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism. From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society. We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles. The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church. And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”
The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic. First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason. But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.
The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law. This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.
Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience. This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements. And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.
Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage. But they are also patient and vigilant. The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.
theism /ˈθiːɪz(ə)m/
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe:
Not proof. Not logic. Belief.
And logic is not the same thing as evidence. It has been proven here time and again that logic can be formally valid and yet false as counterfactual. Logic is only part of the puzzle of proofs. Without objective evidence of assertions, logic is just rhetoric. A pretty pattern devoid of substance. Proof demands both logic and evidence.
And I understood you just fine. I just don’t think you understood the gross stupidity of the notion of “subjective evidence”. Such a thing, aside from being untestable, is non-existent. Evidence by definition is objective. Belief is by definition subjective. They are mutually exclusive antithetical terms. There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
The idea of subjective evidence is nonsensical, inherently irrational and non-evidentiary, of no probative value at all.
You didn’t understand that the first time I explained it to you, so I don’t expect you to understand that now, but your whole underpinning on the notion of “subjective evidence” is a fantasy.
Gene H wrote: “theism … belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe… Not proof. Not logic. Belief.”
And how is the word belief defined?
From New Oxford American Dictionary:
belief:
=====
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: his belief in the value of hard work | a belief that solitude nourishes creativity.
• something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction: contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language | we’re prepared to fight for our beliefs. See note at opinion.
• a religious conviction: Christian beliefs | I’m afraid to say belief has gone | local beliefs and customs.
(belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something: a belief in democratic politics | I’ve still got belief in myself.
=====
You have a rather esoteric perception of the meaning of words like logic, belief, evidence, etc. You are intractable on your current understanding and cannot think outside your little box and stereotypes. Rather than showing me a problem with my understanding, you always resort to definitions and premises for which you have no proof.
Gene H wrote: “Evidence by definition is objective. Belief is by definition subjective. They are mutually exclusive antithetical terms. There is no such thing as subjective evidence.”
Your statement here is your own definition shared by elitists and meant to exclude those who operate under different paradigms of research and investigation.
Most dictionaries do not have the same problem as you in connecting evidence with the concept of belief.
From New Oxford American Dictionary:
evidence:
=====
▶ noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination.
• Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court: without evidence, they can’t bring a charge.
• signs; indications: there was no obvious evidence of a break-in.
▶ verb [with obj.] (usu. be evidenced) be or show evidence of: that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings.
▶ phrases
give evidence Law give information and answer questions formally and in person in court or at an inquiry.
in evidence noticeable; conspicuous: his dramatic flair is still very much in evidence.
turn state’s (or Brit. King’s or Queen’s) evidence Law (of a criminal) give information in court against one’s partners in order to receive a less severe punishment oneself.
ORIGIN: Middle English: via Old French from Latin evidentia, from evident- ‘obvious to the eye or mind’ (see evident).
=====
Evidence can be that which is obvious to one of the five physical senses, or as Descartes has expanded upon, it can be something within the mind (Greek = nous for readers of classical literature and philosophy). During the Enlightenment period, certain schools of philosophy rejected this concept, but others have retained it. You seem to take the position that you are right to reject it because you say so, because it is your belief, perhaps because your professors followed this particular school of thought. It would be more prudent for you to be able to think outside your schooling and engage in dialogue about whether your premise in this regard is actually true or not. Until you do, all you have is your belief and opinion that knowledge and evidence can come only through the empirical senses and not to the mind.
Golly, Gene, that first sentence is precisely what I was going to say.
Belief in an intelligent Creator is not rational. It is based upon either received knowledge, or upon the false premise that a complex system you do not understand must be the work of a complex intelligence that can understand it.
The first method is not rational, it is belief by blind trust (a feeling or emotion) in the person espousing the knowledge the believer received.
The second method is not rational either, it leads to an infinite ascent (as opposed to descent) in complexity: By applying the original premise recursively, each more complex intelligence must be he more complex than the previous one; and that infinity of complexity is paradoxical; there is no evidence for it; and there is no good reason to believe it exists.
While we do have plenty of reason to believe that ordered complexity can arise spontaneously from the interaction of less complex systems. Gravity is not that complex, dust is not that complex, but gravity and dust can form an ordered complexity of our solar system with several planets and hundreds of moons that has been in a wonderful ordered complexity of stable rotations for many millions of years.
So we don’t need the paradox of infinite intelligence or infinite complexity; complexity arises naturally from the non-intelligent matter. All the elements can arise naturally from the action of gravity and hydrogen alone. We may not have a grand theory of physics, but we have learned enough to know that.
As for where they came from, there is no good explanation of which I am aware, but claiming a Creator did it is pointless unless you can explain where it came from: And whatever that explanation might be, I could say the same thing more plausibly about zero-intelligence hydrogen, gravity, and the other laws of physics, because that would be the simpler hypothesis.
Theism is irrational, it is irrational to claim something more unexplainable and supernatural is the “explanation” of a phenomenon one is trying to understand. It adds no actual understanding at all.
Tony C wrote: “Belief in an intelligent Creator is not rational. It is based upon either received knowledge, or upon the false premise that a complex system you do not understand must be the work of a complex intelligence that can understand it.”
You forgot to mention the option where a person has a very good understanding of the complex system and considers it mathematically improbable that stochastic processes are responsible. The truth is that theists like me NEVER invoke the idea of a creator when we don’t understand something. This is just atheist propaganda. We consider the possibility of a creator when we DO UNDERSTAND just how complex a system is. For example, the eye of the squid has many similarities to the human eye but would clearly be on a completely different evolutionary pathway than humans. Is it an example of convergent evolution, the result of similar design by a creator, or must we turn to a polyphyletic model of evolution instead of the standard monophyletic model? Digging in deeper and deeper and gaining a better understanding of what is required might lead a rational thinker to consider the common designer model more probable. I know of one biologist who considers polyphyletic origins to be more probable, but it never has gained much traction because of the improbability of abiogenesis happening more than once in history.
I remember as a graduate student reading a textbook by George Gaylord Simpson who expressed his own perplexity concerning some issues in vertebrate evolution, and in frustration simply tells us that the only other option, creationism, is so absurd that we are left only to conclude that as improbable as it is, it happened so we have to assume that some unknown evolutionary process will someday be able to explain it.
So the problem you focus on, where a person does not understand a complex system and then goes off on a discourse of how God must have created it this way is a fallacy that also is embraced by atheists where when they don’t understand a complex system, they say that evolution must have done it. They can even proclaim at how marvelous evolution and nature is, and that hopefully with further research and discovery we will understand it. The atheist just substitutes evolution in place of the creator for those things where he lacks understanding.
There is no such thing as a rational theistic belief. It is a belief, not an objective empirical fact. You’ve asserted in the past that theist beliefs rely upon “subjective evidence”. There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
Gene H wrote: “There is no such thing as a rational theistic belief. It is a belief, not an objective empirical fact.”
Theism might be accepted by some as a belief based in revelation or sacred writings or religious dogma, but theism also might be a logical inference based upon objective empirical facts. For example, Albert Einstein was a theist, but his theism was based upon rational inference rather than religious dogma.
If a person who has never seen a ocean observes various rivers and streams descending downhill, and considering the amount of water carried by these streams, he might infer the existence of an ocean. Even if he had never seen an ocean before, rational thought might lead him to surmise that there is one. In like manner, consider an aboriginal finding a jetliner that lands in the desert. If logic caused him to consider that a designer or creator was responsible for it, this would not be irrational. It would be logical. I realize that some people will argue that given enough time and the right conditions, might come into existence without the need to invoke the idea of a designer and maker, but just because an alternative explanation exists does not falsify the original theory that intelligence was responsible. Further research and tests would be necessary.
Gene H wrote: “You’ve asserted in the past that theist beliefs rely upon “subjective evidence”. There is no such thing as subjective evidence.”
You misunderstood me. I spoke about how some religious theories can be tested by subjective proof. For example, if Jesus says that obeying his commandments leads to a changed internal condition within the person whereby God manifests his existence internally to that person, it becomes a form of subjective proof. That person has an internal evidence of the veracity of this teaching of Jesus, even though he cannot prove to others that it is true other than by his testimony that he expects them to experience the same thing if they obey the commandments of Jesus.
You refuse to acknowledge anything like subjective evidence, but other philosophers have a different opinion from you. Remember how I attempted to discuss this in regards to the writings of Descartes? As I recall, you declined to discuss that, choosing instead to assert authoritatively your belief based upon your credentials your self-proclaimed greater understanding of Descartes that there is no such thing as subjective evidence.
There is a rational basis for inferring a creator based upon the design and order of the universe, geological analysis of the earth, and biological systems. The fact that some believe it unnecessary to do so and that further research will eventually prove them right does not obviate the fact that there exists a plethora of empirical evidence which convincingly leads a rational thinker to infer a creator. It all depends upon which unproven premises and assumptions a person makes. Some are logically led to dismiss the concept of a creator while others are logically led to accept it as the simplest (Occam’s Razor) and most likely explanation. It all depends upon what premises are assumed when applying logic during the inferential process.
David,
What’s really your agenda?
DavidM: You are religious, by virtue of being a Theist, which you already admitted. You seem to have real difficulty with the idea that the meaning of words depends upon the context of usage. Being “religious” does not have to mean one belongs to an organized religion or a specific church or attends services. You are religious because you believe in a Creator. You can be religious and anti-organized-religion; my mother is in that category for the same reason as you.
You want to impose your irrational Theistic beliefs upon others.
As for a “republic” instead of a centralized government, if the States are majority rule; why isn’t that just pushing the problem to someplace else?
The founders did not form a republic to avoid mob rule, they tried to avoid mob rule by virtue of Representative government; the idea that by majority rule the mob would elect somebody that on their oath and honor would do their best to represent their constituents, but using their intellect and judgment to do that as they saw fit.
That removed the mob from the final decision on law which prevented Mob rule, because honorable representatives were sworn by oath to put the Constitution before the demands of the rabble.
In the days when men could be challenged to lethal duel over breaking their oaths and betraying their promises, that probably seemed like a good solution. The punishment was built into the culture.
The Republic form of government, I think, was a compromise because there were distinct colonies and territories already, and those did not want to surrender entirely to a uniform central government. They wanted something more like formalized strategic alliances between businesses; contracts with obligations and benefits that did not amount to a merger and complete loss of control by existing “governors.”
That is why early on the States had so much leeway; as in selecting Senators or splitting electoral votes.
We can see today that neither of these strategies worked as intended, by the way. The federal government has far more control than the founder’s intended. The value of honor and oaths has evaporated, and without any pesky integrity to hold them back, and no good way to punish betrayal, Representatives have succumbed to the riches that corporations can deliver and no longer represent citizens or the Constitution to any significant degree.
Tony C wrote: “You want to impose your irrational Theistic beliefs upon others.”
Not “irrational” theistic beliefs, but “rational” theistic beliefs. I think all irrational theistic beliefs belong in the trash can, just like I think all irrational atheistic beliefs belong in trash.
I think it is not proper for you to conflate theism with religion, especially in the context of accusing someone of forcing their religious views upon others. From my perspective, a religion is an institution that agrees upon a certain dogma, and all its members affirm that dogma as absolute truth. They may or may not seek to persuade others to embrace that dogma, depending upon the religion. Some religions embrace the dogma that religious beliefs are private and should not be discussed in public. Other religions embrace a dogma that religious beliefs need to be very public.
One principle that I embrace is that there should not be a religious test for public office. This principle extends somewhat to discussions of civil law. For example, we should not discredit someone who thinks that civil law should be established prohibiting murder simply because his religion also thinks murder is immoral. In like manner, accusing someone of promoting a religion through civil law is a cop-out in regards to rational discussion. It does not matter what religion or how many religions might argue for the same law, the discussion should be based on rational discussion of the harmful effects that the law seeks to prohibit, or the overall good to individuals or society that the law seeks to enhance. Proclaiming the ulterior motive to be the furtherance of religion under the color of law is inappropriate and amounts to a violation of the principle that religious tests ought not be invoked in civil matters. If the government is truly going to be neutral in regards to religion, we cannot allow these types of anti-theistic statements to be made.
I’ve been thinking a little more about the issue of trust. I think you had in mind “blind trust” with your previous comment. There is another kind of trust that is rational. It is a trust based upon a rational expectation. For example, if I am in relationship with someone, and that person is always dependable, I might develop a rational expectation that future statements by that person to meet me at a certain time or to do what they say they will do will indeed happen. I call this rational expectation about their behavior trust. In contrast, if experience shows them not to be dependable, I might develop a rational distrust toward that person. Does this resonate with you? Do you see what I am getting at? My point is that trust can be very rational.
David: “Have you ever considered that maybe you don’t really like democracy?”
*****************************************
Really? Could you please explain how and why the Republican leadership announcing publicly their goal for the duration of the Obama administration was to make sure the Obama Presidency was a failed Presidency. Not to make things better for ordinary people, but to make sure the President goes down in history as a failed President. The use of secret holds and filibustering all but a few select nominees for administration positions advances democracy how? My congressman has walked in lockstep with the Republicants in opposing every single legislative initiative coming from the White House.
I saw a poll recently that placed Congress having a lower approval rating (9%) than Kudzu and herpes (11% each). I don’t think the poll included bedbugs, but I am confident they would be more popular than Congressional Republicans as well.
The first video is only a few seconds long, but the second has substantial meat in it, in the Republican’s own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA
OS wrote: “Could you please explain how and why the Republican leadership announcing publicly their goal for the duration of the Obama administration was to make sure the Obama Presidency was a failed Presidency.”
That’s an easy question to answer. They wanted a Republican President, someone who better shares their values for how this country should be run.
The problem with the video you shared is that there really was not much meat there. It was a propaganda piece that painted the Republicans in a very evil light. He used emotionally charged words like conspiracy, treason, Taliban, plotting, steal elections, etc. to stir up hatred in people against Republicans. He erroneously portrayed their intention to be a desire to hurt the economy, to hurt the middle class, to cause homelessness and suicide, supposedly so they could blame the President. I almost could not restrain my laughter at the idiocy and lack of understanding of Republican objectives. As I was watching, my thought was, “why doesn’t this guy just invite someone like Newt Gingrich to share his position in person.” Right then, low and behold, he then shows a clip of Newt Gingrich on the phone! Unfortunately, he tightly edits the conversation so we can’t really hear Gingrich give a full answer. The best we can learn from it is that Gingrich disagrees with the Republican who used the term Taliban insurgency, and that this kind of meeting is typical of any opposition party, whether Republican or Democrat. The truth is that someone like Newt Gingrich could completely destroy in debate this man’s entire monologue.
Look, there are ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Both sides strategize ways to defeat the other party. In the case of President Obama, the Democrats had complete control of both the House and Senate as well as the Presidency for two full years. They could do whatever they wanted to turn the economy around. Unfortunately, they put into place policies that in the opinion of Republicans were completely destroying the economy and hurting the middle class. It was perfectly reasonable for them to strategize how to stop the President from pushing the country further into debt and into policies that were ultimately going to hurt the middle class with much higher costs for healthcare. The characterization in the video, in my opinion, is completely off base. It ascribes motives and intentions that simply do not exist. They saw the President as a threat to the country, and from what I have heard from you, you seem to see some of the same problems with the President that they saw way back then.
OS wrote: “I saw a poll recently that placed Congress having a lower approval rating (9%) than Kudzu and herpes (11% each).”
LOL. I hope you recognize that a poll like this would include Republicans being upset with Democrats in Congress. You seem to use it as an indicator of only the evil Republicans being there.
Look, there is no doubt that corruption exists in Congress. The primary reason is that they have way too much money, and the love of money and power corrupts them. Both Republicans and Democrats there are corrupt. Until we take away the seemingly endless supply of money that they now have, that corruption will continue. The federal programs now in place should be left to local government (county and city) where the vote of the people means more, where the social programs can better be tailored to the needs and desires of the community. A huge federal government is going to be corrupt no matter what we do. It has been this way in every government in the world throughout all of history. This is a major reason why I am part of the Republican party.
DavidM: I was just trying to help someone see that there is a logical consistency to being against both abortion and birth control.
The situations are exactly parallel, not unusual. A 14 year old that gets pregnant should have a safe method of aborting the pregnancy in the first trimester if she chooses to do that. How she got there is irrelevant, childbirth at that age is NOT the best thing for her future happiness, for realizing her potential, and she should not be penalized with a burden for life forced upon her by people like you, because of her very “natural” (at that age) lack of self-control and/or immaturity and/or bad luck at meeting up with some immature, impulsive or sociopathic prince charming (when 14-15 year old girls get pregnant by non-family members the average age of the father is 22). Long before her frontal cortex can reliably override her emotional state.
You are wrong, even your waffling about natural nature does not eliminate the fact that nature does not care about us and what will make us happiest. Nature is not an intelligence, if it has anything analogous to “interests” they are all centered about reproduction and surviving to reproduce. Not about “happiness” or what is “best for us,” not about our situation or anything else. If that were in the least bit true, male teenagers would not risk their lives (and lose them) to impress girls or maintain their position in an entirely pointless pecking order. Boys and girls would not feel lust or romantic interests until they had finished college and gotten jobs. Nature doesn’t give a crap.
Bingo.
DavidM: So if you make mistakes, shall we also conclude that we should not trust you?
Of course you shouldn’t. Trust is an emotion; and irrational. I don’t want anyone to believe me because they trust me, it is empty belief. I want people to believe me because I presented a compelling argument that they understand and think is right.
Ad hominem support or agreement is ephemeral, it is just as bad as ad hominem attack.
Tony C wrote: “Trust is an emotion; and irrational.”
Hmmm. You have me thinking again with this comment.
Your comment certainly makes sense in regards to blind trust, but there is a trust that comes in a relationship based upon experience with that person. Off-the-cuff, my reaction would be not to consider that kind of trust to be irrational. Nevertheless, you may have a point if we are talking about an absolute trust. I’ll chew on this some more. Thanks for the response.
David at 2:35PM:
David,
You are either lacking in reading comprehension or ability to think abstractly. Based on your comments, I am beginning to suspect both.
My congressman, even though he is a physician, is opposed to almost everything any physician should stand for. He is against universal health care, because it might cost the rich who don’t have to worry about such mundane things, a few extra dollars a year. He wants to repeal Obamacare, not because it doesn’t go far enough, but because he thinks it goes too far. As for the democratic process, the Republican congress has been pissing on that for as long as they have had control. Even when they lost control of the Senate, they continue to piss on the democratic process with fake filibusters and obstructionism.
I think he is an embarrassment to the medical profession.
OS wrote: “As for the democratic process, the Republican congress has been pissing on that for as long as they have had control. Even when they lost control of the Senate, they continue to piss on the democratic process with fake filibusters and obstructionism.”
Have you ever considered that maybe you don’t really like democracy?
It would be so much easier and better if everybody in Congress and in the country held to the same opinions as you.
David: “Have you ever considered that maybe you don’t really like democracy?”
Most of us want access to safe, legal abortion. Most of us approve of marriage equality. Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t like democracy.
Juliet N wrote: “Most of us want access to safe, legal abortion. Most of us approve of marriage equality. Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t like democracy.”
If you equate democracy with “mob rule,” as you seem to intimate here, then yeah, you are right, I don’t like democracy. However, the principle of democracy as being a government ruling with the consent of the governed, which is what our Republican form of government is based upon, then yes, I do like democracy very much.
The marriage equality debate began as a minority issue, the idea being that the majority should not disrespect the rights of a minority. The abortion issue was likewise couched in this way. Both issues got a leg up through the opinion of important people in high places. Now that these issues are approved by the authorities in power, a very small majority has evolved to supporting these positions. So now, instead of being concerned about the rights of the minority, you run roughshod over the minority concerns on the premise that the majority agree with you. This seems a little inconsistent to me and contrary to proper government, whether democratic or not.
The truth is that access to safe, legal abortion has existed now for more than 40 years in this country. Forty years! Why then does the debate and civil unrest continue? Could it be due to authoritarian attitudes like the one that you just expressed which disdains any democratic process to discuss the matter intelligently? It seems to me that when one side of an issue claims the upper hand and forces their views on the rest of society through the power of government, it causes problems. It would be better to hear all sides to an issue and contrive laws that respect everyone and gives everyone the liberty that they desire. It really is not that hard to avoid the “Talk to the Hand” posture that you and many others here adopt.
David: That’s convenient. It’s “democracy” when you agree with it and “mob rule” when you don’t. You and your ilk aren’t interested in giving everyone liberty. You want everyone to live by your religion.
Juliet N wrote: “It’s “democracy” when you agree with it and “mob rule” when you don’t. You and your ilk aren’t interested in giving everyone liberty. You want everyone to live by your religion.”
It has nothing to do with agreement. A pure democracy is basically mob rule, and it doesn’t work because the majority trample upon the rights of the minority. The founding fathers of this country believed that a pure democracy always leads to the destruction of government because of this “mob rule” principle that the majority tends to ignore the minority. This is why they established a Republican form of government instead of a Democracy.
And why do you bring up religion? You are the religious person here, not me. I have no desire for anyone to live by my religion because I don’t have a religion. You might say that I am anti-religious because every religion I have seen is overrun with corruption and hypocrisy.
I see Clint, Charles and Claudia still have Gumby on the bob and weave program, so I’ll just enjoy the show for a bit.
What I do find interesting though is that one topic that is a darling of the authoritarian religious right has morphed into discussion of another of their favorite topics. Topic shifting as a propaganda topic usually works better when you shift to a topic you have a chance of winning and/or looking better on. Shifting from anti-equal rights for homosexuals to anti-choice is an example of how not to make that shift.
Carry on.
DavidM: The common thread of logic is that […] interfering with nature […] is contrary to nature and therefore discordant with the path that nature would lead a person. Therefore, it is not what is best for the individual […]; it is not what will lead to her best happiness and sense of fulfillment in life.
What a load of crapola that is. Nature can give “her” cancer by cosmic ray before she reaches puberty, is leaving that naturally occurring cancer untreated what will lead to her best happiness and sense of fulfillment in life?
You are elevating nature to the level of infallibility (probably because you are trying to substitute “nature” for the “will of God”). But nature is dumb, dangerous, and often cruel beyond words. The most defining characteristic of Man on Earth is that we control, tame, and reject “nature” at nearly every turn. When was the last time you went shopping naked? If you wear shoes and clothing you have chosen an unnatural path. As you live, work, shop and play in your artificial caves, eating unnaturally grown plants and animals coerced into producing in specific places on a specific time schedule, perhaps you should think of that. The next time you take a medicine, or a doctor saves your life with a routine antibiotic, or you fly or drive or bike to a destination, perhaps you should think about that. In fact chances are that every day you are not stalked as prey by any great Cats, and that is a result of our controlling and taming Nature.
Tony C wrote: “What a load of crapola that is. Nature can give “her” cancer by cosmic ray before she reaches puberty, is leaving that naturally occurring cancer untreated what will lead to her best happiness and sense of fulfillment in life?”
Cancer is generally not considered normal for the body. It is a defective duplication of cells contrary to what nature intended for the body. It is not according to the order and harmony expected by the blueprint of our DNA.
As for the altering of our environment in a good way, such as through clothing, vehicles for transportation, warming and cooling of our environment, etc., these are great things when in flow with nature, but bad things when contrary to nature. The drug addict who abuses medication, for example, clearly spirals into a death trap of unhappiness. The authorities who build weapons of destruction and go to war… again, not a good thing being contrary to nature. There are clearly ways in which we cooperate with nature and use our minds to better our situation, but there are also ways in which we violate nature and the outcome of that is typically not very good. This is why we should be circumspect regarding such decisions that operate against the good order of nature.
In the case of birth control and abortion, if you consider it being taken to its extreme, where all women stopped giving birth, it would mean the extinction of the human race. Is that a good thing? Clearly not. So if then birth control is practiced in moderation, is that a good thing for the ones who engage in it? What about for society in general? This issue is debatable. China charges a very high tax to those who have more than one child, meaning that only the rich there can afford to have more than one child. I hope that is not the model you intend for us to follow.
In any case, whether you agree or not with the general philosophy is not the point. I was just trying to help someone see that there is a logical consistency to being against both abortion and birth control. She thought it inconsistent to be against abortion and yet also be against birth control which might prevent the so-called necessity of an abortion later.
I might point out that the pro-life advocates see no reason at all for an abortion because there are so many who can’t have children and who are on a waiting list to be able to adopt. The pro-choice people look at children with disdain, perceiving children to be a nuisance and burden, so they think of abortion as the only intelligent choice to a pregnancy. The pro-life advocates are eager to help them know of the alternatives to abortion, such as adoption by mothers and fathers who love children, so everyone can be happy.
Juliet,
The problem is, people like David are totally oblivious to the real-world plight of poor people. His suggestions remind me of the question (link below) in the story of the Sheriff and game warden who drowned trying to rescue people. Folks like this seem to live in some kind of hermetically sealed bubble and don’t have a clue. One of the things I have noticed about authoritarian personality types is their their lack of genuine empathy.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/01/grace-under-pressure-sheriff-cody-carpenter/#comment-577820
Around these parts, we call that “sociopathy.”
David,
After you have been pregnant, get back to us on that. As for cost, why is it too expensive for birth control to be provided for free to potential mothers, but not too expensive for a child born to poor a poor woman to be on SSI and Medicaid until he or she is grown?
More of that right to life until born stuff, I suppose.
OS wrote: “why is it too expensive for birth control to be provided for free to potential mothers, but not too expensive for a child born to poor a poor woman to be on SSI and Medicaid until he or she is grown?”
With birth control, expense is not really the issue. Birth control violates the conscience of millions of people, so why force them to violate their conscience when it is so easy not to do that?
In regards to SSI and Medicaid, I do not accept the assumption that these programs must be structured to pay for these children. Although many of the poor have children out of wedlock in order to game the system and get more government subsidy, it does not have to be this way. The availability of free contraception would not keep them from doing this. Forced sterilization would, but I hope even you would object to that path.
I work closely with the poor on a regular basis. The issues here are not related to the unavailability of free contraception. The concept of neighbors helping neighbors is a much better welfare program than SSI, SSD, and Medicaid. Reliance on government subsidy is a big problem in regards to lifting the poor out of their poverty.
DavidM: Please don’t say the General Welfare clause.
The question is not whether the Constitution says the government is required to do anything. The question here is the opposite; you have to point at something in the Constitution that prevents the Government from doing it. And you can’t.
It is a type of General Welfare; so it falls under the umbrella of Constitutionally permitted law. It does not infringe on your other rights (and those rights do NOT include any right to not be taxed), so the burden is on you to prove that the Government taxing citizens in order to provide them all affordable health care somehow violates people’s rights.
Tony C wrote: “The question is not whether the Constitution says the government is required to do anything.”
You are reframing the question.
OS wrote: “He should be ashamed of himself, along with all the other conservative physicians in Congress who oppose making health care affordable and available to everyone. They all took the Hippocratic oath, but then they all took an oath to defend the Constitution as well. Apparently oaths and vows don’t mean what they used to.”
His objection is that his Congressman wanted his support to repeal Obamacare, and so he considers this desire to repeal the Act through Congressional action, through a democratic process, to be a violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution. This perspective only makes sense if it were true that the Constitution requires something like Obamacare, or that it would require actions which were contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution does not require it; therefore, his comments regarding his congressman violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution is fallacious.
David,
Where did I say what part of the Constitution I was referring to? The whole damn thing, sport. All of it. Read the front page of this blog and you will find plenty of things they are not defending.
I do see a great deal of hypocrisy in our political “leadership.” I put that word in quotes because they are doing a lot of things, but leadership is not one of them.
DavidM: So how do you propose defining when that person comes into existence?
I do not think there is a bright line moment for that; but I also do not think the “gray area” is 9 months wide. I think before the brain stem is functional, before the cortex is wired, the fetus is not a person; and similar to your “shortest gestation” it is clear to me the fetus is not a person in the first four months. The pre Roe-v-Wade developmental hallmark was “quickening” which occurs in the third or fourth month and indicates a functioning brain stem (whether people knew that or not); and I think that, or some measure of brain development combined with some measure of normality, should prohibit arbitrary abortion. By the sixth month, I think personhood should be presumed with more than just a woman and her doctor involved in the decision.
Those would have to be translated into specific physical markers and bright line developmental tests; not time periods (since the self-reported date of conception can be very unreliable (or a purposeful lie). But I think you get the idea.
DavidM: I don’t consider the human brain developed until adulthood, a substantial number of years after birth, so using the brain seems problematic to me.
I presume you still consider a one-year old a person, and more of a person than a brain tumor, so you must have some vague idea of what makes a human being a person besides being a collection of living human cells with a vascular system.
DavidM: How can we evaluate viability while the unborn is still in the womb?
By negative inference; meaning we presume the fetus is viable if it isn’t missing what is necessary to be viable; like a heart, brain, lungs, digestive system. If it is not damaged by injury or deprivations, or malformed. To some extent we can presume a lot based on the known gestational progression; like it won’t have functional lungs in the first four months.
It is the modern world and I do not feel compelled to eschew the benefits of basic technology in making such determinations; this is a medical procedure that should be conducted by a trained medical doctor, and the evaluation of viability does not have to be technically blind. In particular we may not be able to tell without technology that the child will have Down’s syndrome or would be missing limbs; but if that is discovered by technology (say an ultrasound or MRI) I see no reason the parents could not use that information to decide to abort the pregnancy in the first trimester.
Juliet,
I think we are on the same page, or pretty close to it. I am certainly pro-life in the way I have lived my life. I am also staunchly pro-choice. The government, church, and certain busybodies have no business in the private homes of people, much less their bedroom or doctor’s office. That applies to pregnancy as well as marriage, in my view.
As I see it, the role of government should be to make every effort to keep health care affordable, available, safe and effective. There are departments within both state and federal governments to do just that. However, certain political factions have tried to either prevent doctors and pharmacists from doing their job, or force them to do things that are unneeded and unwanted. At the same time, making every effort to help big pharma and insurance industries maximize profits. Something is wrong with this picture.
I got an email letter over the weekend from my Republican congressman. He is a former OB/GYN physician. His message was full of propaganda about the need to repeal “Obamacare.” I started to reply, but am afraid I would have a hard time keeping my response civil. He should be ashamed of himself, along with all the other conservative physicians in Congress who oppose making health care affordable and available to everyone. They all took the Hippocratic oath, but then they all took an oath to defend the Constitution as well. Apparently oaths and vows don’t mean what they used to.
OS wrote: “They all took the Hippocratic oath, but then they all took an oath to defend the Constitution as well.”
Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is required to provide affordable healthcare for everyone? Please don’t say the General Welfare clause.
“To me, neither automatically prevails over the other.” (Tony C)
And therein lies the perplexity.