Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Did everyone see the Kristof op-ed piece in Friday's Times? If not, I'll post it here. Very relevant.

0 Replies

Quote:

Today marks the Roman Catholics' Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here's a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea.

Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof

0 Replies

george

Sorry for delay in responding....a time thing. You've chosen perhaps not the best example, simply in that you've involved US constitutional issues, thus setting the problem in a context unique to your country. Of course, this debate ranges across the western world, though commonly not so acutely presently as in the US.

I'll write something up for you tonight when home from work.

0 Replies

george (gosh, I hope your wife's name is Gracie)

OK...so where was we? ...non-religious types use government to advance their views (and jigger institutions so that religous types are are kept out of policy-making where they previously had presence).

You've held up the SC decision on Roe v Wade (and judicial appointments) as your example.

As I mentioned earlier, this example is uniquely American, and I think what you are getting to is the separation issue, and separation of church and state, though initially a notion enshirined in your constitution, it is now a notion which all modern western nations (plus others) have included in their own constitutions or which they have inculcated into their polity. So, the core ideas are really more universal than the US, though the particulars of the SC decisions and the formulations of federal/state areas of governance hold true just for America.

I haven't read Roe v Wade and I can't speak with much value on the opposing arguments. But there is no irrevocable ground on which to reach a conclusion anyway, as the split in thinking, even amongst the best legal noggins, demonstrates. So I won't go into that. Which has as a consequence that your example will have only limited application here. Sorry. Also, the particulars of fed/state areas of governance in the US are so unique as to be not terribly useful, other than if one were thinking about how to sort things out particularly for your country (I'd just note that pushing the decision down to the state level doesn't seem to solve any key philosophical problem here, it merely opens the door for a more or less stringent application of the separation principle in another jurisdiction. And of course, why not allow it to devolve further...let each county, or city, or block establish its own rules? )

As regards the separation principle, Setanta earlier has done a really masterful job of bringing into this discussion the notions (including from the writers of your constitution), and there is nothing I could add to that.

I'm sorry, I realize this is likely a very unsatisfactory answer.

0 Replies

There are quite a few of us non-religious people who dislike abortion intensely. But Roe v. Wade is not so much about abortion as it is about the state's right to limit the freedom and individuality of one particularly group. I would always want the state to err on the side of freedom rather than restriction.

The fact that so many anti-abortion people are also against birth control tells me that their issue is not killing but people-control. We are way behind the curve on contraception and on psychosexual maturity. We should be concentrating on growing up, taking responsibility, and developing a society in which it is distinctly not beneficial to have an unwanted baby.

I believe we have a false and somewhat sickeningly insincere emphasis on "family" and that really horrendous concept -- "family values." Need to say bye-bye to all that.

0 Replies

I agree Tartarin. The abortion controversy is not about killing. It's about the denial of the individual to develop an internal conscience which is forgiving enough to allow true learning. I believe George is saying that he believes religion should be a part of government. And more specifically his religion and others similar to it should be the guiding principles and "values" in government. But those values are not about what is fair and helpful to mankind and the growth of mankind. They represent, rather a commitment to the concept of man as basically evil and in need of redemption as opposed to man as potentially both good and evil and in need of developing true internal morals which transcend the rules of any religion.

And george is correct in one respect. This does represent a belief, not a religion, but in a specific principle, the value of the separation of church and state. The value of government coming from the people, not the Pope. What else would it be after all if not a belief? Would it be an unbelief, a non belief, a sandbox in the sky? It is indeed a belief and it's one which respects the rights of all men to define their own religion, free of coercion. This belief is to be distinguished from a belief system called Secular Humanism. Many secular humanists believe in the value of the separation of church and state and many of them believe in the value of individuals having the opportunity and responsibility to make up their own minds about the form of government they believe to be best. But those of us who believe the constitution is correct in this principle are not all secular humanists. In other words, the principle stands on it's own and should not be mistaken as the whole of secular humanism.

The principle provides a structure on which each person can build their own sense of value and fairness. And it's only a structure. A religion provides details which do not suit all people. So the principle of separation of church and state is a structure which can be used by all, not only some. Everyone is free to believe or teach their children whatever religion they choose. I've never understood, btw, if judeo-christianity is so absolutely true, what is the danger in putting it to the test of open minded debate among believers of all faiths? Are human beings so gullible they must be told how and what to think or believe?

The founding fathers believed in the principle of separation. They provided a structure for us on which men would be free to build their own beliefs and therefore develop a conviction about those beliefs that transcends loyalty to authority. People who take risks and make decisions in an effort to learn and who learn from the results of those decisions make better more truly moral citizens than those who are hanging on to a unquestioning faith in a tradition. You may say that my faith in this principle, as written in the Constitution represents blind faith. But I would argue with anyone who suggests it. I don't accept the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state because our founding fathers said I should, but rather because through a serious consideration of the question and personal struggles with the conflicting values inherent in human existence, I've decided for now that it is the best structure possible.

George is correct in this respect. We are involved in a struggle about which belief is most helpful and fair. But it's not a struggle between religions, but rather a struggle of what method of government is most fair and provides, as Tartarin has pointed out, the most power to the people and not to the leadership of a particular religious tradition, no matter how useful that religion may have been in the past or present. I believe the principle of separation of church and state is the most fair.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The abortion controversy is not about killing.

Oh yes it is!!!! One side of the controversy would like to ignore this very simple fact, and turn it into something else to confuse the clueless and get away with murder. But the issue is very much about killing a new human being that is developing in a woman's womb, and to do it for the sake of a professional career, or of sexual license, or of bad timing. It is a debate about the most fundamental of human rights: The right to life. No other right is so fundamental than this one, and that's why this discussion can only go on by clouding this so very simple fact: No secondary right is comparable to the basic primary right to life. Every human right is a result of the basic right to life.

Quote:

I believe George is saying that he believes religion should be a part of government. And more specifically his religion and others similar to it should be the guiding principles and "values" in government.

Values are necessarily a part of government policy. Politics is about such values as Justice, Equality, Freedom, Good, etc. Where does our understanding of those values come from? Our Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage. The traditional values of Western culture are under siege by a new set of values, a new religion: Secular humanism. This religion is not the faith of the majority, but its advocates are well positioned in influential circles to have a disproportionate impact over the larger culture.

Quote:

But those values are not about what is fair and helpful to mankind and the growth of mankind.

They are not?

Quote:

They represent, rather a commitment to the concept of man as basically evil and in need of redemption as opposed to man as potentially both good and evil...

Where did you get this from? A basic catechism would clear this misunderstanding.

Quote:

The value of government coming from the people, not the Pope.

And "the people" want abortion, right? Then, why rely on the courts and not the normal democratic process?

Quote:

The principle provides a structure on which each person can build their own sense of value and fairness.

No society, no polity, no community can stand on this principle. This is the principle for disolution, for disintegration, for chaos. That abortion is the killing of a human being is not "for each person to decide". It is a fact that is plainly seen (by the truly open minded). But some people would like the freedom to see what is convenient to them, and to be blind to whatever doesn't fit their whims and passions. If we were to adopt this as a general founding principle for a society, we would end up in total chaos.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I think the paring of religion and good social values is naive and or disingenuous. Religions are (in practice, in history) fractious, greedy, imperious, corrupt -- and many other unattractive things which do not add any good to the thoughtful, developing society of people.

0 Replies

Lola...very nice...

Quote:

George is correct in this respect. We are involved in a struggle about which belief is most helpful and fair. But it's not a struggle between religions, but rather a struggle of what method of government is most fair and provides, as Tartarin has pointed out, the most power to the people and not to the leadership of a particular religious tradition, no matter how useful that religion may have been in the past or present. I believe the principle of separation of church and state is the most fair.

Maliagar says

Quote:

No secondary right is comparable to the basic primary right to life. Every human right is a result of the basic right to life.

Capital punishment? Nagasaki? Burning heretics? Shooting Iraquis? Bunker buster bombs? There seem to be a lot of justifications for life termination. And then there's 'harvesting' of animal life (we won't even touch factory farms here). Is there a 'right to life'? Where did it come from? Does it apply to an unfertilized chicken embryo? Does an unfertilized human embryo have a right to life? A right to the chance of life? Ought I, ethically, to be doing a lot more impregnating?

Abortion isn't an easy ethical question. Unless one needs things to be easy, and takes that way out.

Quote:

Values are necessarily a part of government policy. Politics is about such values as Justice, Equality, Freedom, Good, etc. Where does our understanding of those values come from? Our Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage. The traditional values of Western culture are under siege by a new set of values, a new religion: Secular humanism. This religion is not the faith of the majority, but its advocates are well positioned in influential circles to have a disproportionate impact over the larger culture.

Yes, values are a part of policy, anywhere. Where our values come from tells us only where they come from, it doesn't tell us whether we ought to have/keep/redefine them (as in the numerous old testament passages enjoing sacrifice and stoning, for example, or in the punishments for heresy, or related to interracial marriage, etc)

And if tradition is the model for establishing value systems, why are we seeking to eradicate the traditional value systems in the Muslim world (or polynesian world, or native north american, etc) and replace those with ours?

Quote:

No society, no polity, no community can stand on this principle [Lolas "The principle provides a structure on which each person can build their own sense of value and fairness"] This is the principle for disolution, for disintegration, for chaos. That abortion is the killing of a human being is not "for each person to decide". It is a fact that is plainly seen (by the truly open minded). But some people would like the freedom to see what is convenient to them, and to be blind to whatever doesn't fit their whims and passions. If we were to adopt this as a general founding principle for a society, we would end up in total chaos.

Any group shares values, but that sharing is not absolute. Threats of impending chaos accompanied the first performances of 'black' music by Paul Whiteman's band and Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue at Carnegie Hall, and Elvis, and the art in the Berlin gallery when the Nazis came to power. Chaos is the boogie man for folks who are upset by change. Chaos (and the 'free thinkers' who wish to unleash it) are always the targets of the totalitarian-leaning. Totalitarian movements are pretty predictable in this regard. And they are very sure they are right - not just for themselves, but for everyone else too.

0 Replies

Maligar,

I didn't say abortion wasn't killing. It is. What else would it be, silly? I said the controversy wasn't about killing. It's about one group of people trying to influence everyone else about who should be killed and for what reasons. Just as Blatham points out, the anti-war protestors or those who oppose capital punishment are trying to influence who gets killed. It's always been interesting to me that those who disapprove of abortion are almost always the same folks who like to kill for all the other reasons. First a person is required to be born, whether they have any social or familial support system or not and then they're pushed around, often abused and otherwise caused pain and then if they fail to function well and strike out, then we kill them because they have responded to the world they were forced to be a part of. If those who believe in this "right to life" business are really concerned about stopping the killing, why don't they worry about all those babies who die of starvation or disease? Why don't they make sure birth control is readily available to all? Really, the abortion controversy is not anymore about killing than is the anti-war controversy. It's about on what basis and by whom and under what conditions will these killings take place. These decisions are very complex and not easy to make and none of us will escape the misery of making them in our lifetimes. It's those like you who want to make it into some kind of easy decision that are neglecting their responsibilities. We do vote for those who we believe have the right answer on these issues. I vote pro-choice (which is really pro-life as well). I do it every time.

Abortion isn't really about middle class Americans either. We'll always be able to get an abortion if we make that very difficult decision. It's really an issue for poor Americans and even more so for those in third world countries whose children starve and die of deceases, whose very young mothers eventually die from too many births in too short a time, leaving behind orphans. In my opinion those who are against abortion for the poor and needy have an unconscionable cause. Abortion is killing, but war and capital punishment are murder. And that's a crime.

0 Replies

Maligar wrote:

"Values are necessarily a part of government policy. Politics is about such values as Justice, Equality, Freedom, Good, etc. Where does our understanding of those values come from? Our Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage. The traditional values of Western culture are under siege by a new set of values, a new religion: Secular humanism. This religion is not the faith of the majority, but its advocates are well positioned in influential circles to have a disproportionate impact over the larger culture."

My morals and values don't come form the Judeo-Christian, etc. heritage. They come from my struggle to understand and answer basic questions about the value of life and how to life it as well as possible with others. Christianity has never provided me with anything other than a judgemental group of people to deal with while I live my moral and full of values life. Values and morals are prefectly possible for those who are not christians. Secular humanists don't have a monopoly on it either. We each make our own morals by the decisions we make. And some of us make better decisions than others.

0 Replies

"But the issue is very much about killing a new human being that is developing in a woman's womb . . ."

Is a zygote a human being?

0 Replies

whether a zygote is a human being is not the issue. We're already said it's killing. Obviously. So we don't have to count the angels on the head of that silly pin. The issue is who gets killed and who decides and why and all that other stuff Tartarin, Blatham and I just said.

0 Replies

Well, we are on a most difficult and thorny aspect of a controversial subject - one in which I suspect most of us feel somewhat conflicted in one aspect or another.

I raised the Roe vs. Wade/abortion issue as an example of the inappropriate driving out of values, merely derivable from religion (and sometimes people who believe in it) in the name of separation of church and state. The example is not perfect, and the legal questions surrounding the 'right to privacy' allegedly in the constitution have their own dynamic.

It is ironic that in this instance the secular advocates seek to deny the public any influence over the matter through their elected legislatures, and rigidly enshrine this right to privacy (or autonomy) by the mother over any aspect of the right of the developing child to continued life, even when it can be demonstrated that the child is capable of independant survival outside the womb. Life is full of moral questions we all find difficult to answer. In our legal systems we are often confronted with the practical necessity of addressing some through law and government. Numerous questions of truthfulness, property rights, and proscriptions on harm, deliberate or otherwise, to others abound in our civil and criominal laws and the government structures established to enforce them. A good deal of variation exists from country to country (and in the USA from state to state) reflecting the different attitudes of people locally. Why should this one be different? What is the transcendent principle that requires that, in this instance, no variation whatever be tolerated, and increasingly that no person believing this is wrong is suitable for public office - in the name of separation of church and state?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

... My morals and values don't come form the Judeo-Christian, etc. heritage. They come from my struggle to understand and answer basic questions about the value of life and how to life it as well as possible with others. Christianity has never provided me with anything other than a judgemental group of people to deal with while I live my moral and full of values life. Values and morals are prefectly possible for those who are not christians. Secular humanists don't have a monopoly on it either. We each make our own morals by the decisions we make. And some of us make better decisions than others.

I (almost) fully agree. The Judeo-Christian- Hellenic heritage of Western Civilization has likely influenced your development more than you acknowledge here. I don't at all doubt that your own struggle and choices are the proximate reasons for your values, but they arise from a certain context. I certainly agree that Christian and secular hypocrisy differ only in detail, and that neither has shown the ability to perfect human behavior. In the end we are all left with our own choices, often between merely different blind leaps of faith (or assumption), and I share your point of view in this.

I believe the issues among us arise only as they relate to matters of public or political life. How do we combine the attitudes of equivalently hypocritical secularists and advocates of religion to regulate our lives in a world none of us fully understands.

0 Replies

Reductio ad absurdum (from a Sagan essay years prior): draw the line that life begins earlier... each sperm is a life, and each egg is a life (each has the potential to become a human). Masturbation is mass murder. In fact, every cell in your body is a life (could be cloned and made into a human), so when you bleed, mass murder again.

Hence, pro lifers make arbitrary decisions based on twisted fallacies of what 'life' is. They are Voltaire's bastards...

However, an arbitrary line must be drawn. Roe vs. Wade decision is a conservative approach, with abortions up to the 3rd trimester allowed. This is when brainwaves show up, though this, too, is an arbitrary line. It doesn't matter what line you choose, since it is arbitrary... but, overall, Roe vs. Wade is not too shabby.

The arbitrary moral line is bound to be fragile, and everchanging.

0 Replies

Then a reduction in another direction would conclude that everything is morally permissible.

"Potential to become" is not the same as "is". Not all life is human. Gross fallacies.

0 Replies

wenchilina wrote:

Reductio ad absurdum (from a Sagan essay years prior): draw the line that life begins earlier... each sperm is a life, and each egg is a life (each has the potential to become a human). Masturbation is mass murder. In fact, every cell in your body is a life (could be cloned and made into a human), so when you bleed, mass murder again.

Dear God! All those skins cells I sloughed off when I scratched my arm yesterday...and I also used my dandruff shampoo, which means I slew millions of my... Crying or Very sad

What about when I cut my hair? Or scrape my tongue?

Or pick a booger?

I'm such a murderous cad... Shocked

"absurd" is the word, all right.

0 Replies

Well, I agree that any point chosen is arbitrary. But as in legislated age where kids are allowed to maybe mow down hedges and people in a two ton flying hunk of Detroit metal, arbitrary points have to be chosen. In the abortion question, there is no meaningful difference between a fetus two minutes before birth and two minutes after, and most of would likely not wish to see infanticide made legal.

Clearly, most though not all, folks opposed to abortion also hold an active religious membership. No one is forcing abortion on them however. The problem arises where they seek to not simply influence others, but to legislate their values above others. It is one thing to stand up and publicly argue against abortion, but it is quite another to seek to disallow it for others. THAT is where the real issue sits.

0 Replies

One of the things which is pointed out about Hitler and other cruel tyrants is that they had a sentimental streak. We are tremendously sentimental in this country and I'm certain a good part of the abortion debate is made up of those who use sentimentality as a weapon -- specifically when it comes to the potential for a cluster of cells. Ah, those cute Gerber babies sucked dry by a machine, etc. etc.

The reason I'm so certain that morality does not lie on the side opposing Roe v. Wade is that they are never the people who seem appalled at the culture of violence and death in our society and our entertainment. They are more likely to be vindictive and violent towards criminals and, in fact, towards anyone who has done them wrong. Their language is always that of harsh retribution.

There are variations in the degree of their immorality, to be sure, but as far as I'm concerned they don't hold the high ground in this debate. The people who, for me, hold the high ground are those who actually have to make the personal decision whether to abort. Not all of them are on high ground -- some fall back on abortion for personal convenience to be sure, and have no Hallmark emotions about that cell cluster. But many of them take that decision very, very seriously.

It seems to me that Roe v. Wade recognized that delicate moment and honored the American belief in individual responsibility vs. an imposed morality -- a "morality" so often imposed by right-wing religious institutions, while they themselves paper over histories of violence and disregard for human rights.

0 Replies

Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know