In case any of you missed this event I have posted the videos. It is interesting to listen to both Obama's and McCain's answers to the questions asked. I think their answers as well as the manner in which they present their answers tell a lot about their character.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Clips from the Rick Warren Civil Forum
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I watched the three Obama clips last night. Tonight I'll watch McCain's.
I think Rick Warren was an interesting choice...I'll explain later.
I'll keep my critique short. My impression:
Obama is a politician running for President who happens to be a Christian.
McCain is a Christian running for President who happens to be a politician.
As far as Rick Warren goes, my understanding of him is that he has become more of a non-traditional Christian as time has passed. There have been many outspoken Christians who disagree with his version of Christianity calling it too conforming to all lifestyles. They base this in large part on his best selling book (which I have not read).
I watched his TED speech the other day and based on that, I would tend to agree that he believes that his God accepts you for who you are, rather than a God that expects you to conform.
If that is indeed true, then by and large, Rick Warren's followers would typically side with Obama over McCain.
That's my take.
Andy,
Just curious, why is that you see McCain as a Christian who happens to be a politician but Obama as a politician who just happens to be Christian?
I did not see the Rick Warren event but I have to say that this is when McCain edged ahead in the polls (the liberal polls). People dont want to be talked down to or to see that their leader can't answer a question directly. Almost every question put Obama in the uncomfortable position of trying to be all things to all people.
Regarding the question about when a baby should have human rights, He didn't want to offend his base who don't want abortion rights rescinded, but he also knows that the majority of the country's population would not agree with his views on abortion and it would be political suicide for him to be honest about that and so he gave the answer, "from a theological or scientific perspective, to answer that with any degree of specificity is above my pay grade." The question was not, "when does life begin", it was when should a baby get human rights. In contrast to Obamas long winded, convoluted response, McCain (like his answer or not)gave a very direct and consise, two word answer, "at conception". Now once again, leaving aside the politics of abortion and whether either/both were pandering to their audience, regardless of all that, McCain came off looking like he could answer a question and Obama like he didn't know what he believes in. I've copied in an article from Investor's business daily about this topic. I'll also include the link if you want to visit that site. Here it is:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789
No Contest
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.
After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.
"It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.
The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."
For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."
Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.
When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.
On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."
To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.
It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.
Thanks for that article, it makes it easier for me to make my point since I didn't want to rewatch all the footage to remind myself exactly what was said.
There are certain basics about the world population and the American population that are changing. The population is more diverse. I read an article recently about how by 2050, Caucasians will no longer represent the majority race in America.
The theological landscape is changing. I read another recent article about how by the mid-21st century, if growth trends continue, Islam will be the world's largest religion, not Christianity.
The concepts of how we use energy, how we view human history, space exploration, scientific discovery, all these things are changing, and it affects people's attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and world-views.
My point here (and I do have a point) is that as the world changes, some people adapt to that change better than others. One thing that typically hinders or resists change is religion (unless the change is viewed as positive to growth and/or the bottom line). Most religions rely on traditions, handed down over time, sometimes beginning as mere afterthoughts, but eventually becoming hardcore,unchangeable, set-in-stone laws. These religious world-views clash with change.
It was this that caught my eye about McCain and Obama. All things being equal, I think they both pandered and stumped their way through it. I'll explain why I said: "Obama is a politician running for President who happens to be a Christian. McCain is a Christian running for President who happens to be a politician."
The reason McCain was able to quickly answer a few of the questions that had religious undertones was because he answered them as a Christian, not as a Presidential candidate. His direct statements came from a theological viewpoint, not a political one. Obama could have easily done the same. You can view Obama's answers as waffling, but it can also be viewed as being sensitive to the fact that as President, he would represent 100% of the American citizenship, not just the majority.
Not all American citizens are Christians. According to "The World Factbook" on the website of the Central Intelligence Agency, up to 18.6% of the American population is either nonreligious, unaffiliated, or in an unspecified religion. Doesn't seem like much compared to the other 81.4%, does it? Well, with a population of 301,139,947, that makes over 56 million non-religious folks that for the most part are completely unrepresented in politics (at least for now).
Keeping in mind my claim of McCain's penchant for playing the religion card, a couple of obvious examples come to mind starting with your example on the abortion question. True, the question wasn't "when does life begin" it was "at what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" Two things about this question to keep in mind: Rick prefaced his question with "40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, people who believe that life begins at conception would say that's a Holocaust." And then his question asked about the human rights of a BABY, not a fetus, or a group of multiplying cells, or an egg with the tail of a sperm wiggling out one side. So don't be coy, you know that the implication of the question was exactly what was implied, and that is "when does life begin"? McCain: “at conception”.
McCain answered predictably as his religion has taught him. Obama, on the other hand, actually told the truth, and that is - nobody knows. No one can say with direct certainty that at any one particular moment over another, life as we define it begins. So you interpret Obama as waffling, but I saw him as being honest. I saw McCain as being arrogantly presumptuous, but you saw him as being honest.
Here is another example. To quote from the article you shared:
"The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."
For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."
I won't presume your impression on this one Spencer, but here is mine:
Evil, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary: noun. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. An evil force, power, or personification. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
Although I don't agree with the "God erasing evil" mumbo-jumbo part, everything else Obama said falls in line with this definition. Plus, he had the integrity to admit the historically verified human tendency to commit evil in the name of virtue. Thus, his comment that we need to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."
McCain got right back on his pulpit, Bible in hand, (sarcasm)and declared "We must "defeat" evil". I don't know whether to call this naiveté, or just plain illusory. Evil will always exist, because there will always be someone, somewhere who acts in such a way, for whatever reason. Unless you want to do away with personal freedom, evil is here to stay.
But McCain saved the best part for last when he said, "If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, you have to tell me what is." I'll tell you what that is - it's religion. Religion is the driving force behind all the terrorism that we are so busy fighting all over the world. Religion is the difference between a murder and a justifiable, God-sanctioned act. It is the difference between an act of violence and an act of obedience. It is the difference between sexual misconduct and a sacred union. Religion magically turns an act of evil, into an act of virtue. Wait a minute, isn't that what Obama referred to when he said we need to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."? Now who's being honest?
I understand that good is done through religion also. They spoke about faith-based organizations and the good that is done through them. I will never dispute religion's charitable deeds. But I will say this: if one looks at the disparity between the amount of money religious organizations donate to charity versus the amount they spend on growth, real estate, advertising, salaries, business interests and expensive building projects, I think it would shocking. Organized religion is a corporate entity and it behaves as such. This fact is indisputable.
One other point about McCain's comment on terrorism. This world's population desperately needs to learn how to coexist. Just like we can easily show how people like Jesse Jackson need and use racial divisiveness for their own personal agendas, McCain is pitting Christianity against Islam to justify his military agenda. Terrorism exists in many forms and through many ideologies. Through the centuries, monotheism has sponsored terrorism constantly. All three major branches are guilty. This is going to be a never ending cycle of war until Judaism, Christianity and Islam find a way to coexist. And going on a world tour, force-feeding other countries American ideology is only going to end up creating enemies and depleting our resources needlessly.
Okay, this comment is way long, but I have one more thing to say. This election is not even between the right candidates. At least as far as the Republicans are concerned. Mitt Romney should have been the hands down choice. It should have been a no-brainer. He is obviously the best candidate on that side of the aisle. Why isn't he running for President? Because he's a Mormon. Huckabee, McCain and other Christians got their people all fired up about Romney's religion and after that he never had a chance.
The Constitution clearly states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Romney was wrongly put through a religious test, and it cost him his chance. But this has been going on for awhile. A religious test is enacted on almost every person in this country with political aspirations. If you want to serve in public office and you are anything but a Christian, good luck, because you likely won't get far.
I bring this up because of the "religious right" having so much prominence in American politics today. Obama was attacked as being a Muslim. Huh? What's that got to do with his political career? Polls show that most Americans would not vote for an atheist. Not only is a religious test enacted on most politicians, it is one of the first items to be verified. I think the Founding Fathers would be ashamed of us.
We can't have it both ways. A Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist should all be held on equal footing in a political contest. Like Susan B. Anthony said, "What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it."
The state of our country being in this faulty mindset was no more clear than it was on this program with Rick Warren. The subject of religion should not even be on the list of questions. It should be squarely on the issues such as, the state of the economy, foreign relations, jobs, taxes, etc. But in order to validate them as qualified candidates, America had to hear each one express their allegiance to the God of Christianity. It is absolutely despicable and clearly unconstitutional. Until that one thing changes, only two types of people have a shot at the Presidency - a Christian or a Catholic. Who knows how many excellent leaders over the years have not been given a chance to lead because of this one biased criteria.
There are a few points I would like to touch on that you brought up.
First on Life and Abortion.
Putting Religion aside, when would you say life starts? Well from a scientific view I would have to say conception. Why do I say that? Well, whether it is a fetus, embryo, zygote, or the beginnings after fertilization the child is a form of LIFE! Living cells are constructing it and it is a form of life. To have an abortion in my scientific views is to destroy life, for an embryo or fetus is a form of life!
So, I think McCain hit this one on the money, not only for all religious affiliated people but for all people who appreciate, protect, and value life. Abortion is the killing of life that had a right to live once it started to form. Abortion in my eyes, with religion aside, is nothing more than murder sanctioned for those who it causes an inconvenience to have a child. As harsh as that sounds I believe it, for it is harsher to kill an unborn child whose only interest in the womb is to survive.
I believe it is wrong to kill humans. Surely, an atheist will agree with me even though this is a widely held religious belief. Even though McCain's answer was pandering to the religious voters I believe he was answering correctly for all people who believe in decency for life.
Obama didn't want to upset any one group so he dodged around the question like Spencer mentioned.
Second, Evil in the World.
Obviously we are never going to remove evil from this world. It is impossible without God's Help. I believe that one day evil will not be on the Earth because God will remove it. However, until that time it is our job to confront evil and stand for what is right.
I applaud McCain for being more pro-active about confronting evil. To view evil as never leaving and that we can't do anything about it is allowing evil to spread and consume us. For example. If you witness a mugging and knowing that you could intervene and help the situation but you decided not to allows evil to have a victory. Soon those that carry out these evil acts will realize that they are not being challenged or stopped and will then continue doing it more and at large levels. Evil must my confronted whenever it shows its ugly face. I will agree that when passion and overzealousness get involved good acts can turn to evil acts. So, good judgment, or "humility" as Obama coined it should be used. I think he could have used a better word than humility though.
Some may view McCain as being overzealous at fighting evil. However, on the flip side Obama appears to be weak on confronting evil as seen from his answers in the forum. I liked McCain's answer better but I could sense a little overzealousness.
Lastly,
Andy your right that religion has caused many conflicts and problems. Why do you think that is? Satan has taken hold of the hearts of men and has convinced them to commit evil acts in the name of religion and God. Since the time of Adam government has changed from a theocracy to the present forms of government with many barbaric and freedom destroying forms in between. With the changes in these governments came changes in religious beliefs or what I should say is with the changes in religious beliefs came the form of new governments to accommodate those beliefs. Religion is part of our human nature because we know that the heavens didn't form overnight with a big bag but, that nature and the heavens have such a brilliant design that it had to have been created with a plan behind it. I know with my brain as well as with my heart that God lives and that his true religion is not one that creates conflict and war among men for he is Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.
It is the philosophies of men that create such inconsistencies and problems in our societies today.
I agree that no religious test should be held for any candidate but understand that values and morals have a fine fine line with religion and it is sometimes hard to differentiate the two, even though with Romney he was clearly being attacked because of religion and not on values or morals.
Your entire abortion argument is based on two fallacies: That all those who get abortions do not value life, and that your belief on when life begins is shared by all humanity (or should be).
Replace belief with thought, and you'll be more accurate more often because it takes superstition out of the equation and relies on fact and evidence.
You completely agreed with Obama in your first paragraph on evil.
And then you ended with some more assumptions that put your world-view above others. The debate between natural selection and intelligent design is a long one that could probably fill up whole libraries. But when you say that "we know the heavens didn't create themselves overnight" you are falsely representing both the religious and secular viewpoints on the origins of the universe (unless you were being facetious).
I remember the trick used to "personalize" the scriptures, and that was done by inserting my own name in place of the scriptural name to make it seem as though deity was speaking directly to me.
On the flip side of that, try this: Every time the scriptures mention "God" or "Lord" insert "Santa Clause". And every time they mention "Satan", insert "Jack Frost". That will give you a sense of how ridiculous your holy books come across to a nonbeliever.
I say that not in jest, but to illustrate a point. How arrogant does someone have to be to just blatantly assume that their world-view is more correct than anyone else's?
It seemed at the end of your comment you insinuated that only religious people have morals. I hope that's not true.
Do you not see why the Founding Father's fought so hard to keep religion out of government? To avoid things like this.
While I was writing my comments, two additional comments took place. I’m glad to see wer’e all actively participating in this discussion!
Andy,
I’m not being coy about the human rights question that was asked. Yes, I understand what your saying about what was implied, but that’s not because Rick Warren was being sneaky… it’s because the question of when a human should be extended human rights has everything to do with how one views when life begins. If life has not yet begun, then there is no rights to extend and vice versa.
If a fetus does not have human rights before it is born… out of the womb and into the atmosphere..... does that mean that one hour before birth, that fetus was any less of a person at that point….. and what about a week before that or a month etc etc etc…. and where do you stop?
It was almost as if Obama and McCain were talking to different aspects of the question. And I think that both sides can find agreement in both answers. For instance, Obama answered that we basically don’t know when life begins. We all know that no one knows the answer to that question for sure. People will state their opinions and maybe McCain believes that life begins at conception. However, once again, the question, and I don’t believe Rick Warren was trying to parse words, “when does a baby get human rights?” So, if you want let’s word it so that that implication is that life has not begun yet and we’ll say, “when does a fetus get human rights?” Either way, McCain says, “at conception” which to me is saying that since we don’t know when life begins, let’s acknowledge that human life is the valued at the highest level in our society an so let’s err on the side of caution and extend human rights to a fetus. After all, it has human DNA and it’s obviously living, because it’s growing and developing. Therefore since it’s going to be born soon and at that point we’re all going to agree that it’s an actual human life, maybe we ought to protect it, since it is completely defenseless.
Meanwhile, Obama’s response, while accurate --- yes we don’t know when the “soul enters the body” or however you want to semantically define it….was skirting the question about whether or not a fetus should have some rights extended to it. That was the real question from Rick Warren. Just because we don’t know the answer to when life begins… is that a good reason not to protect life? It is if your agenda is to protect the right to have an abortion and that is the political agenda on the left. That is no secret. They openly admit this. What I find rather funny is that they proclaim themselves the party of choice but only when choice benefits their agenda.
Obama was part of legislation that denied the right to live to babies who lived through botched abortion attempts. So what do you call a fetus that lives through an abortion attempt. Are they a baby now. They are out of the womb and they are breathing and living. Now can we define them as a baby? As human life? But they were supposed to die in the abortion attempt… so again Obama was a part of legislation to NOT do anything to help the surviving baby live. This happens more commonly than you would think. Hospitals just put these babies in the back room and leave them alone to die. How many people would just walk by a newborn baby (not a fetus anymore that it’s born) struggling for life on the sidewalk if you knew that the intent of the mother was for it to die. After all, she has the right to choose to do that… it’s her body. I know I’m being a little facetious here, but do you get my point?
Now let’s be honest about pandering with religion. McCain is not the only one pandering to the religiosity in people. It’s like democrats become born again when it’s time to campaign and then go back to maligning God and religion after the election. What does that tell you. Even they think that they have to appear to be religious or else they might not be elected. For heavens sake, the DNC convention which kicked off today, began with a gospel song and then PRAYER….. TO GOD. This is from the party which doesn’t want to allow people to pray, even privately in public schools or from having any form of prayer or mention of God in public. How ridiculously inconsistent is this? But I’m getting away from my larger point.
Is Obama any different? I won’t question what’s in his heart or whether or not he’s being sincere, but like McCain and others, he has been “pandering” if you want to call it that, to religious people as well. He’s afraid of being perceived that he’s Islamic. Like you said, Islam will soon be the world’s largest religion. But he knows that America is largely Christian so he’s out there parading his Christianity in front of everyone. Do I think he’s wrong to do this? No. Not if he’s being honest about who he is. I think all Americans deserve to know who their elected president is, what he believes and how his values will guide him in the decisions he makes.
I have no problem voting for anyone of any race or religion or non-religion as long as I believe that they have policies that I agree with that will best serve our interests and do the things that governments should do for people – keep us secure, keep the rule of law and create (but not control) and environment where the economy can flourish.
Moving on to the “evil” topic, I don’t have a problem with some of the elements of Obama’s answer, the parts about having humility and recognizing that evil wears many different faces at home and abroad. I agree with Obama on that. Certainly McCain is pandering to the emotions of religious people when he says, I’ll hunt Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell if I have to….” Etc etc etc. Only the nuts don’t see through that. Just because I am religious doesn’t mean I’m not smart enough to know when I’m being pandered to or patronized. I do. And sometimes, depending on the situation, I find it offensive because I can tell it’s just pandering and not real. But let’s get into some middle ground here. I think most people want a commander in chief who is passionate about protecting the nation and taking a stand against threats to our safety and sovereignty. But we also need to be aware of our own tendencies for evil of which Obama cited several real examples. I don’t know how any rational thinking person can disagree with that.
Now on to the issue of terrorism and evil that is perpetrated in the name of religion. Islam is a peaceful religion. The radical jihadists have taken certain tenets to extremes and in doing so have helped to create prejudice and inaccurate stereotypes of mainstream Islam and it’s followers. Is this the fault of Mohammed. Is it the fault of the non-radical clerics and their peaceful followers? Is this the fault of the religion of Islam as a whole? Or is this the fault of a very small percentage of egomaniacal persons who wish to use religion to impose their violent agenda on others. The same can be said about the Crusades in middle ages and most other religiously perpetrated violence and injustice. The doctrine taught by most churches and religions and the doctrine understood by it’s followers does not parallel in any way the violent, criminal injusitices that are usually cited with this argument. So it’s not the religion, but rather, once again, a few people who have some power who twist things for their own benefit. That’s human nature taking a bad turn… that’s not religion. Just because something is done in the name of religion doesn’t mean that it’s religion doing it. I could murder someone and say that I did it in your name but does that really reflect who you are, what you think and believe? Just because I say that I did it in your name certainly does not mean that you caused it or even sanction it. But that is the connection that is always made and it is not accurate.
On the issue you point out as being indisputable… that organized religion is just another corporate entity acts as such…. I don’t know why this would be indisputable. Only absolute facts are indisputable – the sun is shining, I am alive, my mortgage is not paid off, the laws of physics etc. etc etc. However, what you said is disputable and this is why. You lumped ALL organized religion into one category. You should know that this is a logical fallacy. Rarely can one make such sweeping generalizations and not have any exceptions to the assertion that is being made. Of course there are many money hungry charlatans and “churches” who are all about amassing great wealth while doing just enough good to appear religious but using the money instead as any other corporation would. But even you should be able to admit that this does not apply to every church that would be under the banner of organized religion. That is simply not true. Besides how is a church supposed to have a place for it’s members to meet and to communicate and proselyte, so that they can continue to exist to fulfill their mission. Your assuming that It’s always a front to make money for the few at the top and although that may be true in many cases, that is not true in all cases. Not all churches who bring in lots of money give large salaries to their leadership as you assert. And some use up more funds on administrative costs than others.
Now in closing I agree with what you said in your closing paragraphs about candidates and the supposed religious litmus test that is not supposed to occur.
Ok , that was too long.
Andy,
I don't think that anyone here (in our forum) wants to impose their worldview on anyone else. Some politicians may desire to do so... deomcrats or republicans... either way it's wrong.
You should also remember that as silly and ridiculous as you think our holy books come across to nonbelievers..... the views of nonbelievers are just as incredulous to us.
And by the way, everyone believes their worldview is more correct than anyone elses. That's why one believes what they believe. Are you telling me that you don't believe that your worldview is more correct than "ours" or anyone elses? Of course you do. That's not being arrogant... that's the definition of believing something, whether it's believing in God or not in God.
What is arrogant is when one tries to impose that belief upon others when it is not welcome. And it would also be arrogant to view oneself as a better person because of their beliefs. It seems that this is how you view us and other religious people.
I can only speak for myslef, but I can tell you that I do not think I am superior in any way because I have strong beliefs and I do not try to impose my beliefs on anyone.
I will let Nate speak for himself but it seemed to me he was trying to explain himself philisophically, I don't think he was blatanly assuming that hsi view is superior or that only religious people have morals.
And the whole separation of church and state is so misunderstood. The founding fathers were not trying to keep any reference of religion out of our daily lives. They were trying to make sure that the state did not sponsor one relgion and compel citizens to join and persecute those who would not. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with school prayer and the slogan on our money or anything else.
Let me start by reminding anyone who reads this that I think both political parties are messed up. I do not side completely with one or the other. I try to look at where a candidate stands on all the issues and then make a judgment call as to which favors my positions the most. For example, if this was the election it should have been, Romney vs Obama (or even Clinton), this election for me would be much more difficult. Mainly because for me, the economy is a top priority and I think Romney's track record on that speaks for itself. So slamming the Democratic party isn't an eye-opener for me because I am not a Democrat.
I agree with George Washington's take on the two-party system. He said: "There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
But now, on with the discussion!
Abortion.
You want to extend human rights to a fetus? How far would you like to take it? Human life is a continuum. Sperm and eggs are also alive and they represent a potential human being. Should we imprison men who masturbate and kill sperm? That's a little silly. Virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted naturally by the body. Not to mention that two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.
Let's all just admit something. Pro-life is a stance that places a higher priority on the rights of a potential human over those of the already mature human or mother. Pro-choice is just the opposite. So it all comes down to education. Educate people with the truth about sex, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, adoption, etc. from a very young age so that when situations occur, an educated decision can be made, instead of a decision made through misconception, fear, or propaganda.
I found this web page on the website of the National Abortion Federation to be very informative and learned a lot. It outlines the history of abortion:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html
At least if you are going to hold onto your arguments that a group of cells should be afforded more rights than it's own host, be consistent. Remember how Spain recently extended human rights to apes? Well, there are many conservatives that scoff at things like this. But an ape is an actual living, breathing being, unlike a zygote. I can already hear you saying "but I'm not giving preference to the ape over a human being as to which lives and which dies." I know that. That's a little apples to oranges but nevertheless, if you are going to respect life, respect all life. Of course, that brings up the whole capital punishment issue also, but we can save that one for another time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
Morals and Evil:
I like quoting the Founding Fathers a lot since I believe most Americans today have a completely skewed interpretation on how they felt on a number of subjects. So, in fairness, here is a quote from George Washington that I disagree with in which he connects morality to religion: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I think that Washington was a Deist. You may disagree. But if he was a Deist, this is not very consistent with Deist thought.
Anyway, I think that morals, evil and religion have always been connected because for the two hundred thousand years or so that humans have existed, superstitious thought has prevailed. An early human had no explanation for the sun in the sky. So he just began worshiping it. Religion is a means to an end. It provides answers for the unanswerable. Humans are evolving into less superstitious creatures as time passes. I truly believe that humans will see a day in which superstitious thought will be the extreme minority. That may not happen for another ten thousand years. Who knows? But I think it will happen.
Indira and I watched an interesting program last night on PBS called "History of the Devil" The program description - "The concept of the devil is explored. Included: how the image of Satan has evolved through the centuries." It is fascinating how these myths and superstitions have evolved.
I agree with you Spence when you say it is the people in the religion doing the bad things. But it is the religion that instills the hatred inside them and provides the justification for the acts committed in its name. Bad things would still happen without religion. Someone bent on committing a heinous act will do it regardless of the justification given for it. But I think we would see much less.
Organized Religion:
If you disagree with my assertion that organized religions are indisputably corporate entities, then maybe you are mistaking my claim as a personal attack on your religion.
Fact:
Any organized religion that functions as such will be registered with the IRS as a 501 (c) (3) corporation in order to take advantage of the huge tax loopholes our god-fearing Congress gave them. In fact, churches wield even more tax freedom than secular non-profit organizations since they are not required to file IRS 990 forms, leaving much of their financial business behind closed doors. As defined by the IRS, "Religious purposes are valid as long as the organization's directors, officers and members appears to truly and sincerely hold the values and beliefs espoused by the religion." And they get to keep this status provided they do not engage in "political or legislative activity." (Which most of them do anyway)
So which part of an organized religion behaving as a corporation do you find offensive? Yours does. It is registered as one. It pays it's employees and top hierarchy as one. It carries on it's day-to-day operations as one. It invests it's earnings in the stock market as one. It maximizes profits as one. It actively attempts to increase it's population and influence as one. It funds multi-billion dollar real-estate projects as one. It owns other secular business interests as one. Am I missing anything? Are any of these bad qualities? Am I claiming some sort of crazy misrepresentation of spiritual beliefs? I don't think I am.
I'm only pointing out facts. Notice that I said nothing of the financial abuses like televangelists have made famous. I'm just talking about normal, everyday boring business practices. How is that not indisputable? And my original point was about the disparity in the amount given to charity and that spent on the business interests of any one of the many churches that are registered as corporations. Those are facts.
If the tax code were to ever change, and the protected status of organized religion were to ever be taken away, I think the numbers would speak for themselves, and the average layperson would be shocked. (That part is my opinion, not a fact)
Arrogance:
You said "What is arrogant is when one tries to impose that belief upon others when it is not welcome. And it would also be arrogant to view oneself as a better person because of their beliefs."
Religious beliefs are imposed upon me everyday. Every time I spend money. And on my kids every time they recite a pledge in school that requires them to pretend that an imaginary, invisible being is watching over their country. And it is most definitely not welcome. I'm sure you might see my point of view if the pledge said something to the effect of there being no god. You would be outraged that your kids would be required to say a pledge to their country that incorporated such a insult to your beliefs. And you may not like the solution given to you, which is, "If you don't agree with the pledge, your child can choose to voluntarily sit down and not recite it". This would obviously immediately ostracize your child from their peers. Or perhaps you wouldn't like hearing that if you don't support the pledge, you're obviously not a very patriotic person.
Yes, I think my opinions are more correct.....for me! That's it. I think religion helps lots of people, emotionally, financially, physically, etc. That's great for them. But how does desiring equal representation from my government equate to me wanting to impose my opinions on you or any other religious person?
Religion on the other hand is inherently arrogant in that each teaches that they are the most correct one.
I know you don't walk around thinking you are a better human being than everyone. But you do have an opinion that you follow a pattern of behavior that sets you apart from others and puts you in a better situation after you die. And you are no different than every other religious person who thinks the exact same thing about themselves. If religion didn't promote arrogant thought, there would be no proselyting. None. Religion would be content with people approaching them, as they saw fit.
The world view of a secularist is based on what science discovers. It comes from the scientists. They base their opinions on trial and error, and the theories are always changing with new information. If the theories of quantum-physics don't make much sense to you or me, that might be related to the fact that neither one of us is a quantum-physicist. But not understanding something doesn't automatically turn information into rubbish.
The world view of a religious person is based on what their parents taught them. As they get older and learn to read those religious beliefs are based on books considered to hold undeniable truths. They are based on traditional rituals and dress. They are based on superstitious dogma. They are based on emotional manipulation. Religion conducts no ongoing investigative research into the questions of life and origin. Because it already has all the answers! Sounds arrogant to me.
Religion creates divisiveness. I previously said religion does do some good, and it does. This is why it needs to be a private matter under all circumstances. I, as a rationalist, do not find myself compelled to share a message espousing my world view to anyone. I don't give a s___. But please, don't be so arrogant to assume that just because I don't share your god as mine, that I am missing something in my life, or not as happy as I could be. See the difference?
I will save my comments on the separation of church and state for another time.
I will make this short since I don't have much time to comment.
In my earlier comment I was not being arrogant. I was merely speaking my views and when I said "we" I was referring to those who believe in a divine creation. I was not including all people.
Also, I now that I agreed with Obama on some of what he said on Evil not on everything. I felt that his response was weak but I agreed with his humility remark. But I also agreed with McCain in that we should strongly oppose evil. So, I think we should strongly oppose evil while using good judgment. How is that, I used some remarks from both.
As for Abortion, I think taking it to the killing of sperm and eggs is outside the point Spencer and I were trying to make. It is when the two come together that an new Human life is begun. Therefore, that new life that is growing and living has an interest in surviving. Natural abortion is nature at work. But to take abortion in our hands is killing. An example could be, that old man will die eventual by natural causes so why don't we kill him now and get it over with. Death by nature is a part of life but the death by human hands is an moral injustice. That old man would have an interest in surviving and living if men tried to kill him, it is so with a fetus. There are things about abortion that I don't know and I think it is fair to say that the issue is not all black and white but I think it is fair to say that abortion is out of control with the widespread availability and reasoning being many of them.
What I touched on can definitely be addressed in a debate on capital punishment but that will have to wait for another time.
Also, remember that even though I side more with McCain I am not pleased with him as the republican choice. I am upset with both parties and you are Andy. I do not draw allegiance to any party but to my country and the constitution which I allow to be my guide in my political decisions. I should therefore have a better remembrance and knowledge of its contents.
There are other things I would like to address from your comments but I haven't time right now. This was suppose to be shorter but I got carried away.
I should have clarified in my comments that when I used words like "you", I'm speaking in hypothetical terms and so I am using the word just to represent someone for the sake of my argument. So I'm sorry if anyone took it too personally. If I mean you personally then I will refer to you as you. (It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is) That was a joke.
Anyway, I understand what you're saying with your stance on abortion. Let me create another scenario that incorporates both religious arrogance and the pro-life extremist position.
Let's say I belong to a religion that defines life as beginning only after birth. My God has revealed to the leaders of my church that until oxygen enters the body, there is no life, and the soon to be infant is not considered human yet. Based on this belief, the adherents to my church have absolutely no problem with abortion, no matter what the term of the pregnancy is. There isn't even a hint of guilt since our God has confirmed to us, directly through his prophets, that we are not doing anything wrong.
It just so happens that my church has more followers than any other church in my country. We represent the majority of the citizenship. We (the church members) feel that our country has a severe population problem. The resources of our planet (which our God gave us) is being used up by overpopulation. We felt like something needed to be done. We succeeded in our efforts to pass a new law that makes it illegal for any couple to have more than two children. In addition, if a couple does become pregnant after two children, the pregnancy must be aborted. There is no choice in the matter. Adoption is not an option, since this still adds to the population problem. But since God has blessed us with a perfect knowledge that abortion is not against his laws, we have forced abortion on everyone (which is okay, even if they are a minority group that does not share our beliefs because we know the truth and that's all that matters).
This example is an extreme situation that has the same likelihood of happening as Nadar winning the presidency. But, for the sake of argument, it represents a situation in which a belief system supersedes personal freedoms.
Regardless of anyone's own definition of when human life begins, our government does not have the right to force any woman to carry through with a pregnancy if she does not feel that she can. Neither one of us may agree with her decision, but it is not our body, it's hers.
Abortion is not on par with the murder of another human being, simply because of the "when does life begin" debate. You are right, this is not a simple black and white issue. But you absolutely can not force your belief onto someone else.
Plus, even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, do you really think abortions would stop? They would continue on, illegally, putting every woman at the risk of serious infection or death as they would be forced to seek out “back alley” abortions. Abortions have been performed since humans have been procreating. A law will not stop them, it will only make the conditions under which they are performed worse.
I understand the significance and sensitivity of this issue since it affects a future human being. If we had complete scientific agreement and evidence to show without a doubt that human life begins as soon as the sperm touched the egg, I'd be the first person to jump onto the pro-life wagon.
Andy, I would like to reply to many of your comments, so I will copy in your words and then reply to them directly.
You said:
[You want to extend human rights to a fetus? How far would you like to take it? ]
I basically made the same statement but from a different perspective. My point was that since generally speaking, human life is valued above all other forms of life (obviously not by everyone), then maybe we should protect it. I don’t expect everyone to feel the same way.
You said:
[Should we imprison men who masturbate and kill sperm? That's a little silly.]
Of course that’s silly. I did not suggest that.
You said:
[Virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted naturally by the body. Not to mention that two-thirds of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.]
I am fully aware of these common facts. The fact that sperm and eggs are flushed out on a regular basis and that the majority of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions does not in any way diminish my position. There is a difference between nature taking its course and a person making a decision to end a pregnancy…especially a pregnancy that would not have naturally ended otherwise.
You said:
[Let's all just admit something. Pro-life is a stance that places a higher priority on the rights of a potential human over those of the already mature human or mother. Pro-choice is just the opposite.]
I think you have to be a little careful here. There are many people who will stand under the banner of being pro-choice but may have differing opinions with certain aspects of the issue. Same with those who say they are pro-life. So although some who say they are pro-life might agree with your statement, it’s a little different for me. While it is true that I identify more closely with the pro-life position, I do not feel that a human fetus should have an across the board higher priority to human rights no matter what to the clear disadvantage of it’s mother. But I do think that a fetus deserves to be given some consideration instead of none at all. Why should the rights of the mother completely supercede any rights of the life that she helped to create? This is what is appalling to me – that one would not even consider it! Why should the mother have the right to destroy new life that in most cases ( I know… not all … but in most cases yes) she made a conscious choice to engage in activities which may lead to conception (yes I know… there are all those teenagers who just haven’t heard about birth control yet… are you kidding me? That’s all they teach in schools now.) Obama emphatically stated a few months back when asked about this, “If my daughter makes a mistake in college, I don’t want her to be punished with a baby!” At least he’s being honest. I give him credit for not trying to hide how he really feels. As he’s stating, abortion is ok because in a moment of misjudgment, my daughter had unprotected sex, got pregnant and I don’t want her to be burdened with that because she could have such a great life without being weighed down by a baby at that age (probably true….) So forget about personal responsibility – just kill it and then you can go on with your own convenient life. When we begin devaluing life, it has ramifications across the board.
What about the right of that human life form to live and survive? Yes there may be situations where abortion might be considered, rape incest, genetic malformations etc, but the number of abortions which occur because of these things comprise a very small percentage of the total number of abortions performed every year. I can hear the reply that is often stated here, although maybe not by you…. that these babies would be born into horrible situations where there is a strung out teenage mother and no father and drugs and etc and what kind of life is that for a baby? It might be better off they were aborted than have to live like that. Well why don’t we look for other acceptable solutions, why is ending the life of the fetus the ONLY acceptable solution. There are thousands of couples with fertility problems who wish to adopt and could provide a good home. I think that there are worthwhile solutions and I don’t understand why abortion has to be the be-all end-all.
You said:
[So it all comes down to education. Educate people with the truth about sex, birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, adoption, etc. from a very young age so that when situations occur, an educated decision can be made, instead of a decision made through misconception, fear, or propaganda.]
I agree with you, but whose “truth” are we going to educate people with? The “truth” of the religious wackos? Or the “truth” of the secularists who hate “believers”. I would hope that there would be some common ground that could be found here, but unfortunately, the debate usually goes to the extremes. Andy, It seems that when you are talking about this issue, your dialogue carries an undertone implying that anyone who is religious is completely incapable of rational thought or of making educated decisions, but rather can only be led around by misconception, fear or propaganda. Is it not possible to hold religious convictions and at the same time be objective in thought and consider current scientific thought? Of course it is. There are many people of deep religious faith who hold PhD’s and hold significant standing in the world of science and academia. There are also plenty of non-religious people who are led this way and that with superfluous and misguided ideas. The propaganda machine goes both ways.
You said:
[I found this web page on the website of the National Abortion Federation to be very informative and learned a lot. It outlines the history of abortion: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html]
I checked it out. It is a very informative website. It has some great resources and outlines the history of things quite well… but with a slant. After all the web address is: prochoice.org. On their main page they declare their mission, “to ensure safe, legal and accessible abortion…”
It’s great to have one side…. Now try this site for the other side of the issue:
http://www.prolife.org
You said:
[At least if you are going to hold onto your arguments that a group of cells should be afforded more rights than it's own host, be consistent. Remember how Spain recently extended human rights to apes? Well, there are many conservatives that scoff at things like this. But an ape is an actual living, breathing being, unlike a zygote.]
I did not say that a group of cells should have MORE rights than its mother, or as you dehumanize it, it’s “host” (a common technique that is often used by pro-choicers). I am saying that the group of human cells which is in the process of developing into a full fledged human, should be afforded some consideration and rights. You’re saying that I’m taking it to the extreme on one end and I’m not. You seem to be taking it to the other extreme by saying that whatever the “host” wants is ok without any consideration of this new life that she helped create- whether or not she intended it to happen. (I’m obviously not referring to cases of rape and incest here).
Regarding the apes…. Spain has some real problems… I don’t know who is in charge over there but this is a great example of people who take things a little far. Yes you’re trying to paint the slippery slope that can occur in one particular direction. But the slope is slippery both ways. And things are never good at either extreme.
Clearly there is a difference between human life and all other life. That is not to say that all life cannot be respected, but there is a clear hierarchy. I don’t’ think any rational thinking person can deny that. By saying that I’m not implying that we should not care for and protect other forms of life because we should. But in this modern day and age we are often more concerned about our pets and the endangered animals that we are humans who are unborn, humans who are elderly and many in the middle who are homeless and without substance to provide for themselves. As I stated before, abortion as it exists today serves to devalue life where all of these areas become negatively affected.
You tried to illustrate how silly and ridiculous it is to give human rights to an almost invisible clump of cells, but let’s apply the same thinking to the other end of the development process. Is it still just a collection of cells an hour or a week prior to birth? It’s easy to assert that it’s only a bunch of cells early on in the process but what about the late term abortions? Were any of my children or any of yours no less a person in those final hours prior to their birth? Where on the continuum does it stop being a mass of cells and become a person? Once again, we don’t really know other than opinion. I concede that there is room for debate and disagreement along the spectrum, but it goes both ways.
You said:
[Indira and I watched an interesting program last night on PBS called "History of the Devil" The program description - "The concept of the devil is explored. Included: how the image of Satan has evolved through the centuries." It is fascinating how these myths and superstitions have evolved.]
I agree. These programs are fascinating. But don’t mistake everything you see on TV as truth just because it might support your view.
You said:
[I agree with you Spence when you say it is the people in the religion doing the bad things. But it is the religion that instills the hatred inside them and provides the justification for the acts committed in its name.]
Not true. At least not true across the board. People or even leaders may interpret it that way, but you show me where any church in mainstream Christianity (not the fringe wacko, radical groups which we’ve already discounted in prior comments…) who teach in their doctrine, applied to today’s world, that acts of a criminal nature are justified. I doubt that you can find one. And even if there is one, this type of church would clearly be the minority and could not be used to make such a sweeping generalization about all organized religion. So once again, it’s a select minor few that interpret their doctrine to fit these circumstances. How else do you explain the fact that there are millions of peaceful followers in the big three … what’s their problem…. How come they are not following the radical wackos? Are they not understanding that their religion is supposed to help them justify crime? Come on.
You said:
[Bad things would still happen without religion. Someone bent on committing a heinous act will do it regardless of the justification given for it. But I think we would see much less.]
I don’t agree that there would be less. Human nature is human nature. Would human nature be any different just because organized religion and God by current definitions did not exist? Human nature will find a way to continue perpetrating evil acts, justified through some other ideology.
You said:
[If you disagree with my assertion that organized religions are indisputably corporate entities, then maybe you are mistaking my claim as a personal attack on your religion.]
Your “attack” was not on my religion singularly, but together with all organized religion. You go on to describe the tax code and how religious organization must behave to be tax exempt and compare that to how a corporation would operate. Sure, we all know that. That’s not new information and I’m not offended by that – and that’s clearly what you meant as you further explained. However, this is not as incriminating you make it out to be, regardless of how “shocked” many people would be. I think people would be “shocked” to know that over a BILLION dollars will have been spent on this presidential campaign by the time it’s over. That’s shocking and that could be looked at as being immoral when we have hungry and homeless in the streets. Any organization, religious or not, has to exist in this system we have created for ourselves called capitalism. So yes, churches, just like everyone else are trying to survive and grow, just like corporations and also just like the individual, or couple or family who tries to make something of themselves, amass wealth and education, homes and the ability to provide more for themselves this year compared to last year etc. That’s what everyone, EVERYONE is about, so I don’t see how playing the game of survival within the system of capitalism (which system churches exist in but did not create) is in any way incriminating in some negative way. Not everyone surviving and growing within capitalism is inherently evil or even disingenuous.
You said:
[Religious beliefs are imposed upon me everyday. Every time I spend money. And on my kids every time they recite a pledge in school that requires them to pretend that an imaginary, invisible being is watching over their country. And it is most definitely not welcome. I'm sure you might see my point of view if the pledge said something to the effect of there being no god. You would be outraged that your kids would be required to say a pledge to their country that incorporated such an insult to your beliefs. And you may not like the solution given to you, which is, "If you don't agree with the pledge, your child can choose to voluntarily sit down and not recite it". This would obviously immediately ostracize your child from their peers. Or perhaps you wouldn't like hearing that if you don't support the pledge, you're obviously not a very patriotic person.]
Gallup polls show that 95% of Americans believe in some form of… as you say, “imaginary, invisible being that is watching over their country”. That is why there are references to deity in our everyday lives. It’s not because the government is forcing it on us. It’s because people believe in it! Does that mean that 95% of America is whacked out? No. Does it mean that the 5% who don’t believe are missing the boat? No.
Now having said that, I sincerely acknowledge the pain and frustration that you have just described by having to come in contact with this in so many places all around you. People can choose to believe whatever they want to believe. That is the great freedom that is inherent in all human beings. However, do you really feel that all references to any type of deity need to be removed, so that those who don’t believe don’t ever have to see or hear anything? Is it really that oppressive to spend money that has a motto printed on it that most Americans, while professing a belief in God, don’t actually care about, evidenced by the fact that they fail to live the tenets of the church they profess to belong to? I thought that the objective here was to freely explore all worldviews and to be open-minded about everything. Everything except religion? Having said that I don’t know what to say about the pledge of allegiance situation. I don’t think that the 95% should have to stop saying it, but I also acknowledge the predicament this causes for the sincere non-believer. I don’t have a good response for that and for how it negatively affects children who are just caught up in the middle of their parents’ conflict with religion.
You said:
[I know you don't walk around thinking you are a better human being than everyone. But you do have an opinion that you follow a pattern of behavior that sets you apart from others and puts you in a better situation after you die. And you are no different than every other religious person who thinks the exact same thing about themselves.]
You’ve tweaked this into some distortion. How is it that you say that my belief is that I will be in a superior position compared to others in the next life? Maybe you don’t remember but let me straighten this out. You can parse words and define things how you want to, but the simple fact is that the doctrine of our church is that God loves everyone equally and as a loving Father will ensure that all have equal opportunities to do what is necessary to get the promised blessings. It’s not about joining some church created by some man in order to get into the good graces of God, (which is how a non-believer would view it) but rather ALL have EQUAL opportunity to achieve the same level of blessings and that will be judged by God, not by man.
You said:
[If the theories of quantum-physics don't make much sense to you or me, that might be related to the fact that neither one of us is a quantum-physicist. But not understanding something doesn't automatically turn information into rubbish.]
Exactly. I agree and readily admit that I don’t know everything and that my church doesn’t know everything. Neither do the scientists. (the religious ones and the non-religious ones). And just as you assert that believers should not disavow information they don’t understand or that doesn’t fit into their framework of doctrine, just because people can’t understand religion or God doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that it is rubbish as you say.
You said:
[The world view of a religious person is based on what their parents taught them. As they get older and learn to read those religious beliefs are based on books considered to hold undeniable truths. They are based on traditional rituals and dress. They are based on superstitious dogma. They are based on emotional manipulation. Religion conducts no ongoing investigative research into the questions of life and origin. Because it already has all the answers! Sounds arrogant to me.]
It sounds like you just described your view of yourself and your siblings. I agree that this is true in some cases. But I also know plenty of people who believe exactly the opposite of how their parents raised them. You are one example. I know others like you. I also know of many who are religious now who were raised in homes where there was no religion at all. And your assertion that everything religious folks believe is based on superstitious dogma and ridiculous rituals and dress and that emotional manipulation is used just underscores your last point that just because you don’t understand or agree with this….that, in and of itself doesn’t make it untrue or rubbish. Of course religion does not conduct scientific research into the questions of life and origin. By definition, it’s not supposed to. That’s the purview of science. I can accept that you feel this is arrogant. I might think the same thing if I didn’t understand the relationship between faith and knowledge. This concept is not unique to Mormon doctrine alone or even Christianity as a whole, but is woven throughout ALL organized religion. I know of many who profess to be atheist or agnostic who at the same time acknowledge this relationship and validate it instead of trying to demean it or tear it down. It is possible for one to believe that their worldview is most correct (as everyone does) and not angrily attempt to tear down the other side. This only creates an environment which is opposite to that which you advocated in earlier comments, that “we live in a world where we desperately need to learn to co-exist peacefully.” It seems to me that each side can attempt to understand and validate the other without giving up their strongly held beliefs or worldviews and in the process no one has to feel attacked, belittled or maligned.
You said:
[Religion creates divisiveness…..I, as a rationalist, do not find myself compelled to share a message espousing my world view to anyone. I don't give a s___. But please, don't be so arrogant to assume that just because I don't share your god as mine, that I am missing something in my life, or not as happy as I could be. See the difference?]
Yes, I see the difference. But I disagree that religion creates divisiveness. Who creates the divisiveness in the chambers of Congress? Who creates the divisiveness on talk radio? Who creates the divisiveness on Wall Street? And who creates the divisiveness on school playgrounds and in the backyards where children often fight, etc etc etc. Is that all the fault of religion? Once again, people choose to act or react a certain way and religion gets blamed. People are free to act for themselves. Religion is not right there forcing them to act a certain way or to apply doctrine a certain way in their daily lives.
Andy, I don’t want to be too presumptuous here, but it seems to me your being smug again. I don’t know why you feel that I was making certain assumptions about you – “that because you don’t share my god as your god that you are not as happy as you could be or that you’re missing out on something.” I could just as easily say to you, “please don’t be so arrogant as to assume that just because I do believe in God that somehow I am an uneducated moron who cannot connect the dots of rational thought or have the capacity to consider things under the lens of objectivity and thus make any type of decision that a “normal” person would make.” Do you see the difference?
If you look back at my comments I never made any such assertion. I don’t feel that way. You’ve declared your happiness and new-found freedom and I accept what you’re telling me at face-value. I don’t spend my time thinking that you’re secretly unhappy or somehow unfulfilled. Good for you. I’m glad you’re happy. Yes, I have my beliefs and the doctrine of my church tells me certain things, but I also acknowledge that I don’t know how it’s all going to fit together in the end. No one does. But I do have faith that God is everyone’s God and is fair and just and we will understand it all in the end. That is not arrogant.
I’m sorry if you feel maligned by Christianity or by the Mormon religion but neither me nor any of your immediate family members (that I know of) have done anything but accept your choice to leave the church and adopt a different worldview. You cannot expect that initially we would be emotionless about this for if we were it would indicate that we have no feelings of family affection for you and we do. Having said that, I think we’ve handled things very respectfully (I’ll admit I can speak only for myself as I don’t know of others interactions with you). However, in this forum and in other communications you have come across as demeaning and very disrespectful of us in the way you openly mock our “holy books” and many other things we hold sacred. You loudly proclaim that we’ve been brainwashed and deceived by a money hungry corporation. You may not agree with the doctrine and you can believe whatever you want to believe, but this kind of dialogue shows no respect and love for your family members. We are not maligning you but it’s hard to feel sometimes that you aren’t pointing your remarks at us specifically as people and not just religion in general. Even if you feel that way, one would think you’d temper your remarks to your family out of love and respect for them and out of a desire to not be hurtful.
This ended up being much longer than I had planned. Conversations on paper take up a lot of paper. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say. I hope I haven’t misunderstood you.
Andy,
Regarding my last comment... it is late and I didn't see that you had already replied after nate's comment. You stated you were not being personal in your comments. I can accept that but it didn't feel hypothetical when I read your reply to me. Which explains my remarks toward the end of my post. I hope you can see where I was coming from.
Regarding your most recent post ---your comment about how a belief system should not be forced on to the entire population. What about those who believe it's alright to steal. It's their "religion". What about those who feel it's alreight to murder another human being? It's their "religion". We draw the line all the time in many different areas which "limit" the freedeom you and I have to do certain things and we all accept that as ok. So it turns out that governments not only have the right but should enact and enforce laws to ensure the safety of everyone. What is in dispute here is whether a fetus should be included with "everyone". But my point was that we do "force" things on people right now that we all agree is ok to do so.
I'm not going to add anymore chapters to this book we're writing, but I'll just make a couple of points.
As far as the pro-choice website is concerned, I was only referring you to the history page, that was all. Obviously the website itself is one with an agenda.
I'm not trying to slam anyone's personal belief system. I'm only slamming the act of people inserting their personal belief system into mine or anyone else's. So when I speak using language that seems to mirror my upbringing or use examples that hit close to home for my siblings, it is because that is all I know. That is my reality. I can't borrow someone else's life experience to create my own perceptions. In so doing, I try to temper my comments to a degree. But I also take advantage of my families unconditional love by speaking freely. Maybe too freely. But I am a willing target as well.
World-views should constantly be challenged. It keeps us sharp and honest when needing to defend our paradigms. It doesn't allow for complacent, robotic, repetitive actions that only encourage a stagnant society. Like the quote at the top of this blog says, we must learn from our history to keep from making the same mistakes as a human race. That process requires constant change as we evolve.
I use the pledge as an example of abuses of equality simply because it is so blatant and out in the open. It's almost too easy and it is irrefutable. If this country truly respects personal freedom and values the equality of every citizen, then the words "under God" should never have been inserted into it.
Spencer, when you talk about the Democratic party trying so hard to take God out of our existence and wonder how religion could be considered so "oppressive" that we need to be rid of it all together, you are completely missing the point while simultaneously basing an argument on faulty ground.
Let me explain.
You say in your "Do we live in a Democracy?" post,
[Pure democracy is the rule of the people by majority. The danger here is that the rights of the individual or those in a minority group may not be recognized.]
Then in this discussion you say,
[Gallup polls show that 95% of Americans believe in some form of… as you say, “imaginary, invisible being that is watching over their country”. That is why there are references to deity in our everyday lives. It’s not because the government is forcing it on us. It’s because people believe in it!]
It is the people that our government is supposedly representing! You are contradicting yourself. Are you are saying that if the majority percentage gets too high, then it's okay for people to force their world-view onto others? Is it okay for the majority to force their paradigms onto the minority? It sounds like you want to live in a democracy.
If you live in a country in which 99.99% believe one thing, and 00.01% think another way, if that country professes to live by a quality that stresses equality for all its citizens, then the world-view of the one will be considered just as credible as that of the ninety-nine. How is that accomplished? By keeping everyone's personal belief system..personal. Keep it out of public life, period.
You need to distinguish between all the bantering that goes on between the religious and non-religious about who is right and who is wrong, and the laws, statutes, traditions, and practices that people enact in public life as US citizens. Two separate things.
You want to talk smugness? You are contemplating the supposed oppressiveness of non-believers dealing with God getting shoved down their throat every day while you are comfortably living under the auspices of a God-fearing government.
You and millions upon millions of American citizens would be livid if the tables were turned. And no one is suggesting that to be the case.
You like prayer in school? That's fantastic! Enroll your kid in a private school. You want to read the ten commandments? That's wonderful! Go read your bible instead of walking into a public building. You want to express your loyalty to both your God and your country? That's remarkable! Just please don't force me to do it along with you.
That's equality, plain and simple. As a reminder, non-religious people are not trying to force the majority to unbelieve with them. We are kindly requesting equal representation in public life.
Do you see how the issue is completely distorted and taken out of context? I'm baffled how any religious person would feel somehow violated or perhaps invoke an angry God's wrath, by taking "under God" out of the pledge, and restore it to it's original form. A form which is applicable to all citizens, and does exactly what was originally intended when it was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, which is to inspire patriotism and love for our country. Ironically Bellamy was a Christian Socialist.
Here are his own comments on the Pledge:
["It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."]
McCarthyism was the type of fanatical, extremist, fearful society that was required for Congress to violate the pledge as we have it today. It should anger and disappoint every American, both religious and non-religious that we not only allowed it to happen, but have also allowed it to continue on, unchecked for over sixty years.
My argument on the pledge is pertinent to other arguments such as abortion. Which, by the way, you may or may not be surprised to know that on a personal level, I could never imagine condoning abortion in my own life. But that does not give me the right to force others to behave the same. This being based on our already established fact that the debate on when a developing life is defined as a human being and is granted those same human rights, is just that..a debate. It is not conclusively defined. Human life and potential human life are two different things. We as a human race cannot seem (at least for now) to come to a consensus on it, so it comes down to personal choice. That is the pro-choice position. Pro-choice = freedom to choose, while pro-life = an approach to forceful obedience to a definition of life as determined by one segment of the population.
End of Chapter 6.
And keep in mind that this can go both ways. The only reason you feel good about today's situation is because it favors your point of view.
What happens in the future if we set unwise precedents today? Turn the tables and you have religious citizens being forced to act out against their belief system in order to show allegiance to their country.
That would be just as appalling to me as this situation is today.
If it is a consensus needed to decide what should be law and what shouldn't then the current abortion laws should be changed.
Merriam Webster Defines consensus as: 1. general agreement : unanimity b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned 2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
According to the Gallup Poll, "A majority of Americans (54%) say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances... Americans support restrictions on abortion that, if enacted, would make abortion less accessible than it is today."
So according to Webster we have a consensus in which abortions should be restricted more than they are today. This isn't happening though, why, because a consensus means jack!
Roe v. Wade was decided upon by the precedent set in Griswold v. Connecticut from which the "right of Privacy" was introduced. The court decided that there was a penumbra in the First Amendment where privacy is protected. I never have seen it mentioned in the 1st amendment. You have seen step one of Judicial Legislation.
Justice Black and Justice Stewart dissent in saying that " the court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the fourth amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.'"
In Roe v. Wade the court says, " this right of privacy...is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. We therefore conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision."
Justice Rehnquist dissents in saying, "I agree... that the 'liberty' against deprivation of which without due process the 14th amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, but only against deprivation without due process of law." He also says that this issue, "is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than a judicial one."
He goes on to say that, "the fact that a majority of states reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those states, have has restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
What we have learned is that abortion was ruled on from a previous precedent of privacy. We have seen that these decisions were made by legislating from the bench. Instead of these being decided by the appropriate government body, the legislature we now have law made by non-representative judges.
Roe v. Wade was ruled on with 7 for and 2 against, as was Griswold. The case was brought by a single individual in both cases. So, the beliefs of one individual and the power abuses of the supreme court has created law that in not in accordance with the consensus of the people of the United States, not then and still not now according to the Gallup poll.
Andy you define pro-choice as the "freedom to choose", and pro-life as "an approach to forceful obedience to a definition of life as determined by one segment of the population."
I define Pro-life, because I am pro-life, as the protection of potential human life from unnatural abortion with an interest in the unborn's vested right to live.
Pro-Choice is the right to choose to have an abortion if desired for whatever reason.
You say that pro-life is "an approach to forceful obedience" well laws that protect life, whether is it murder, poaching, assault or battery these are laws that force obedience in order to protect rights! If everyone was allowed to practice what they believe there would be no law or order but only chaos. My right to drink and drive is forcefully taken away to protect the life of other on the highway. I am pro-life because I want to protect the life of the unborn, not because I am trying to force my beliefs on others.
You mentioned how you don't want other to force there beliefs on you. Well, in theses cases it was the beliefs of 7 justices and 1 person that forced there beliefs on the entire population. Think about that.
End of Chapter 7
If anyone would like a more in depth background on Griswold v. Connecticut I would be happy to talk to you about it.
Your first sentence explains part of your problem:
You said, "If it is a consensus needed to decide what should be law and what shouldn't..."
Sorry, but that would be a democracy. Your argument illustrates why our Founding Fathers did not create a democracy.
Secondly, we need to stop defining pro-life, pro-choice, or what abortion is or isn't. Our entire discussion is based on whether or not the state or federal government have the right to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies. Period.
All of your comparisons between abortion and murder, poaching assault show a confirmation bias on your part.
From the Skeptic's Dictionary:
"Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.
This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established on solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness."
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
As far as right to privacy is concerned, couldn't your same argument be used against the right to bear arms?
If we lived in a democracy (which we don't) and the general "consensus" determined that the majority of the citizens felt that we as citizens should not have the right to bear arms, that right would suddenly be taken away.
I already know how you'd feel about that. But this mysterious right of privacy also protects that fundamental right.
The only problem is that the "right to privacy" as I have shown is not in the constitution whereas the right to bear arms is.
It would take more than a consensus to take away the second amendment. It would take 3/4 vote of all the States legislatures in the union. This is in the constitution. The right of privacy was contrived by activist judges seeking to legislate from the bench. So no, you couldn't say the same thing about the right to bear arms.
Secondly, you mentioned the need for consensus in your earlier comment so I was in essence saying, that if you are calling for a consensus there is one. Also, a consensus is needed in the legislature in order to pass laws.
Also I know this is not a democracy, thank heaven! If it were there would be all short of absurdities going on. The founders were very smart about setting up a representative government.
You like to quote the founders, well lets look at their words that actually carry weight, the constitution. No where in there does it mention the right to privacy and it most sure doesn't mention it in a absolute protection in all situations at all times, that is if it is to be considered a liberty so covered in the 14th amendment.
Also, Pro-choice advocates always make this about a women having the right to do what she wants with her body. Well, what about the body of the unborn?
The fact of the matter is that the right of privacy which lead to legalizing abortion was done with legislation from the bench. The dissenting arguments in Griswold and Roe v. Wade make it clear that there was an agenda and that strict interpretation of the constitution was over stepped.
My point is that if abortion is to be made legal, let it be done in the legislature where it should have been done.
Ok Nate. You are going to need to clarify your thoughts on this because I don't want to presume what you really think about this whole "right to privacy" thing you brought up. But I will present how it appears to me, then you can tell me if I'm out in left field or not.
The website usconstitution.net is a privately run website that has lots of information about the Constitution. The page "Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution" is very informative and can be found at http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the right to an abortion became law, legislated from the bench, based on the Supreme Court's faulty Constitutional interpretation of a supposed "right to privacy" that they felt we have (or should have) as American citizens.
Here is what usconstitution.net says about "right to privacy":
"The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the publics attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit."
So, according to this website, although the words, "right to privacy" are not specifically in the Constitution, the right to privacy is inherent in the 9th Amendment and in the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments in the Bill of Rights.
You've already mentioned the Griswold case which this website clarifies was about contraception. I'm sure you've heard of the Loving case which was about interracial marriage. (I encourage reading about this one, it blows my mind that this happened as recently as the 60's - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). And then of course we have Roe v. Wade about abortion. All these cases deal with a citizen's right to make a personal decision based on their own world-view, without the fear of involvement from the government.
Nate, if we want to try to remain consistent with our arguments, then I need to ask you this: Do you believe that the government has the right to tell me or you whether or not we can use birth control? Or who we can marry? These are the precedents the Court used to determine Roe v. Wade. What is wrong about a private citizen having the freedom to make their own decision's that are considered personal to them?
So let's stay consistent and change these other things in our society since they also are not found in the Constitution:
No Taxation Without Representation
Judicial Review
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
God
Freedom of Expression
The Right To Vote
Slavery
The Separation Of Church and State
It seems to me that you are taking one isolated situation on which you do not agree (the right to an abortion), and using an argument that, if used against other issues with which you do agree, would negate the consistency of your position.
And I can't keep saying it enough (obviously, because you continually make invalid comparisons between abortion and murder), abortion deals specifically with how and when a person defines the beginning of human life. Most of the pro-life supporters base their opinion on religious traditional beliefs. Most of the pro-choice base their opinion on scientific research and this "right of privacy" issue you don't agree with.
If you argue that abortion is like murder then isn't using birth control in the same boat? That's why the Catholic church has never condoned its use. How many people who vehemently support pro-life legislation, calmly use birth control, which is nothing more than a way to kill the body's ability to naturally pro-create? Birth control is considered by orthodox religiosity to be evil in the sense that it frustrates the procreative power that God gave to man. That sounds pretty serious. But it sure doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of religious people today.
And that is my whole point in this abortion discussion: I will not tell you what you can or can't do in your private life, and you can afford me the same respect. It's that simple.
Well it sounds like I need to clarify a few things as to what I said earlier.
As for the right to privacy, I will need to shed some light on the Griswold case.
The State of Connecticut had a law that was passed in the 1800's that outlawed the use of contraception. Sounds ridiculous and intrusive to people's privacy, right? Before you make assumptions about a law you need to understand the reasoning behind the law. In this case the law was made to protect the health of the States citizens. Back in these days they did not have latex, pills or what we have today. The most commonly used form of contraception back then was animal intestine. Sounds gross, right? The use of animal intestine greatly elevated the spread of disease. For this purpose, to protect the health and safety of the community this law was passed.
This law stayed on the States books for years until the Griswold case in 1965. Obviously by that time we had much safer and mire sophisticated methods of contraception. So obliviously this law was one that specific to a certain time frame that was needing change. The Court simple need to just rule on that law as being unwise and asinine. The court went to far in declaring it unconstitutional because at the time that it was made law it was important and protective of the citizens health and safety but that law is not needed now.
I agree with Justice Stewart in his dissenting remarks when he says, "I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individuals moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we [the Supreme Court] are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the Unites States Constitution. And that I cannot do."
The court had to go so far as to create "right to privacy" which they claim is a penumbra associated with Amendments 1,3,4,5,and 9. I believe that we do have a right to privacy but not in the manner in which the court as derived it. They make it as though it is all encompassing.
The Court decided in Roe that the 14th Amendment was violated. The claimed that the right of privacy comes under "liberty" that is mentioned and protected in that amendment.
I agree with Justice Rehnquist dissenting remarks when he says, "I agree... that the 'liberty' against deprivation of which without due process the 14th amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, but only against deprivation without due process of law."
We do not have absolute privacy rights. If we did, one could domestically abuse there spouse and children in their home and conduct all shorts of illegal activities under the "liberty" of the 14th Amendment or the "right to privacy" which is broadly found among other rights in the 1,3,4,5,9 and 14th amendments.
My point is that I feel that the Supreme Court overstep their mandate and used substantive due process to create law. As for Griswold they overstep their bounds. Sure that contraceptive law needed to be removed, it was time sensitive, but it was going overboard declaring it unconstitutional.
The same goes for Roe v. Wade. It was first of all based upon unjustified precedents, and furthermore was a question best suited for the legislature rather than the Court. As Justice Rehnquist said, the liberty guarantee in the 14th amendment only protects against deprivation without due process. So not all situations brought to the court regarding "privacy" will be protected. If so I could get away with many illegal activities.
I hope that this is clearing up my point and shows you were I stand. As for contraception, marriage, and matters of privacy that don't affect the rights of others, should be left out of government involvement. That is the key difference for abortion for me. That this so called "privacy right" does affect the rights of another. It affects the rights of the unborn and in many situations that rights of the father because mothers can legally get abortions without the consent and knowledge about it to the father. The baby is half his and his rights are being abused.
So that you understand clearly I will say again, I do not support government intrusion into privacy matters unless it prohibits the rights of others.
Lastly, as for the use of contraception being put on equal grounds as abortion I think is inaccurate. Contraception is not killing the creation of life but merely preventing life from being created. This is something that is left up to ones morals, ethics, and religion to decide upon. I can see you saying that the same is for abortion. I say that it is not, merely because it is infringing on others rights. Maybe saying abortion is murder is not the right term. It would be better to say that abortion is encroaching on another rights.
I will not tell you what you can and can't do in your private life and I want the same from the government as well as from others. But, when any type of private activity infringes on the rights of others, that is when the government has the right to intervene.
I will end with what Justice Rehnquist said in Roe V. Wade. "[The decision] is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than a judicial one."
Nate,
Thanks for elaborating on the Griswold case. The interesting light you shed on the early history of contraception which I had never heard about led me to do a little snooping around the Internet for more information. (That's how I get with history stuff, I just can't get enough. I like learning about the nitty gritty details) Here is some of what I found that deals with the history of contaception and how it eventually ties into the Connecticut law you referred to.
A Brief History of Birth Control:
Prior to any developed methods of birth control, women had to rely on male withdrawal, and on crude infanticide and abortion for backup.
3000 B.C. — Condoms made from such materials as fish bladders, linen sheaths, and animal intestines.
1500— First spermicides introduced which used condoms made from linen cloth sheaths and soaked in a chemical solution and dried before using.
1838— Condoms and diaphragms made from vulcanized rubber.
1873— The Comstock Act passed in the United States prohibiting advertisements, information, and distribution of birth control and allowing the postal service to confiscate birth control sold through the mail.
1916—Margaret Sanger opens first birth control clinic in the United States. The next year she was deemed guilty of “maintaining a public nuisance” and sentenced to jail for 30 days, once released, she re-opened her clinic and continued to persevere through more arrests and prosecutions.
1938—In a case involving Margaret Sanger, a judge lifted the federal ban on birth control, ending the Comstock era. Diaphragms became a popular method of birth control.
1950—While in her 80s, Sanger underwrote the research necessary to create the first human birth control pill. She raised $150,000 for the project, and in 1960 the first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was marketed in the United States as invented by Frank Colton.
1965—The Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) established the right of married couples to use birth control as protected in the Constitution as a “right to privacy.”
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=18&compID=53
According to this website I just quoted, rubber was being used in the 1800's to make condoms and diaphragms, and even as early as the 1500's linen was a preferred material over things like animal intestines. It was the Comstock Act of 1873 that began the issue. Andrea Tone wrote a book called: Devices and Desires A History of Contraceptives in America. In it she discusses how the Post Office, being fed up with the plethora of pornography being sent through the mail, was given the power from Congress to play the "moral police", and in 1865 they made the "mailing of any "obscene book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication . . . [of ] vulgar and indecent character" a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for no longer than a year."
There were loopholes in this law but they were taken care of in the Comstock Act which added to it's list of illegal items to distribute, birth control amongst other things. As the above timeline shows, the federal ban on birth control was actually lifted in 1938. So the Connecticut issue was a state ban that had nothing to do with health concerns for the public. It was plain and simple a fight for personal freedom.
The Loving case which I mentioned before was another example of why the "right of privacy" is so important to American citizens:
"The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, 1939 – May 2, 2008) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975), were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom, and that, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforced, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
So, in my opinion, the precedant cases used by the Supreme Court to help with their Roe v Wade decision were valid decisions based on privacy concerns and racism. I understand you when you said, "I do not support government intrusion into privacy matters unless it prohibits the rights of others." But the Roe v Wade decision delt with that very issue, which is, like we've been saying all along during our discussion, about defining when life begins.
Regarding Roe v Wade:
"When weighing the competing interests that the Court had identified, Blackmun also asserted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. The Court majority determined that the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include the unborn. However, the Court did not specifically determine the question of whether or not a fetus is a person, noting that the matter remains undecided.
The Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection was separate from the notion of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." The Court only believed itself positioned to resolve the question of when a right to abortion ends."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
As far as the father is concerned, it is an unwinnable argument. Yes, his biological makeup is half of the developing embryo, but he is not the one physically affected by the pregnancy. Maybe the father could have been more careful in his decison about who to impregnate. There are always those occurances when a pregnancy happens even when all the proper precautions have been taken, but at the end of the day, it's the woman's health that overides any father's sideline opinions.
Post a Comment