tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4166760315475299671..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: A Christian Nation? Well, kinda, mebbe, sortofBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72023034677401946882009-07-24T11:36:15.891-06:002009-07-24T11:36:15.891-06:00Angie, you've been a gracious and polite parti...Angie, you've been a gracious and polite participant on the blog. As far as I'm concerned anything posted in such a public forum is fair game for comment or critique ... So neither you or anyone needs to ask my permission, but ... feel free to poke you nose in when you fell like it :-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46447854732043441272009-07-24T11:30:28.720-06:002009-07-24T11:30:28.720-06:00King,
Thanks for responding. I hope you didn'...King,<br /><br />Thanks for responding. I hope you didn't take any offense at my inquiry. None was/is intended. As I'd tried to explain (perhaps poorly) my curiosity was peaked regarding my inference that in the absence of religion you'd might kill one man's son to save your own.<br /><br />To be honest, had you replied in the positive, I'd have been very surprised, as it would have been contrary to my expectation after having read many of your posts on this blog.<br /><br />In any event, regarding the positive role many Judeo Christian principles have played in shaping our society, I am in agreement ... and although I'm disappointed by some of the negative influences, I am pleased to acknowledge those came to pass ... and expect others will as well.<br /><br />Thanks again.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14091267146593332772009-07-24T10:40:37.916-06:002009-07-24T10:40:37.916-06:00Bpabbot,
I was an atheist when I decided to keep ...Bpabbot,<br /><br />I was an atheist when I decided to keep the baby. I also feel that some of the religion around inherent in living in a society that has been shaped, at least partly if not greatly, by Judeo Christian ideas helped shape that decision.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17618911255935472592009-07-24T10:26:52.880-06:002009-07-24T10:26:52.880-06:00You're right, Angie. You don't know what ...You're right, Angie. You don't know what this is about.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77595077589487630262009-07-24T07:20:13.271-06:002009-07-24T07:20:13.271-06:00In taking a chance on 'sticking my nose into o...In taking a chance on 'sticking my nose into other people's business", which is usually unwise...I must say, I don't know what all of the disagreement is about. I have learned a lot on this blog and hope that the conversation is not any less forthright, because without difference of opinion, there can be no real assessment of different approaches to the issues...<br /><br />So, just for my 'two cents", I hope that those who disagree with how others "disagree" will find another blog (I hope that is not presumptuous on my part)...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18674285171355174442009-07-24T05:09:57.530-06:002009-07-24T05:09:57.530-06:00Tom,
My question had / has no nefarious intent. M...Tom,<br /><br />My question had / has no nefarious intent. My inquiry was / is genuine. <br /><br />You've made a lot of accusations. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to lower the blow after I've <i>actually done the deeds</i> you suspect me of planning.<br /><br />If you have something specific to criticize regarding my commnet(s), I'm open to it, but I have little interest in broad insults and/or accusations regarding my character.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52414728255680933692009-07-23T21:33:36.019-06:002009-07-23T21:33:36.019-06:00Mr. Abbott, in his sophistry and abstraction of re...Mr. Abbott, in his sophistry and abstraction of real life to meaningless chatter, has apparently never heard of "war."<br /><br />Mr. Abbott exploits K of I's confession of personal human pain and regret to make another of his non-points under guise of a "question."<br /><br />Ben, "J" has the honesty and guts to plainly state his agreement with Peter Singer's philosophy. You've been replaced with a worthier man.<br /><br /><i>Not to stir the pot</i><br /><br />That would be a lie, Ben. That's all you're capable of, and all you've ever done on this blog except for a John Adams quote you posted multiple times, never once understanding what it actually says. <br /><br />In all your time here, you have never offered a single argument of of substance on the Founding and betray your lack of intellectual honesty and human empathy with your every comment. I'll take either; you exhibit neither.<br /><br />I'll take my chances with our new friend "J" if he has the guts to gut it out. He hasn't attacked anyone personally and has achieved a level of plainspokenness in a week that you have never approached in years. <br /><br />Take your games somewhere else. You have never furthered an intelligent discussion here ever, and I defy you to prove otherwise.<br /><br />Not once, not ever, have you contributed to our knowledge or understanding together, our joint inquiry.<br /><br />If you can't prove otherwise, then piss off, Ben. You've agreed with Peter Singer all along but didn't have the guts to say so and put your own ass on the line.<br /><br />It's not about what you believe, it's your sneakiness about it. I have no problem with you, "J," as long as we observe the rules of "civilization." It's not as if your arguments are unfamiliar.<br /><br />And King, one thing I've learned from years on the internet is don't take the bait. There's a difference between good faith and ill will. Good faith should get as much care as you can manage. Ill will is poison. Mr. Abbott has never exhibited good faith except as a charade---the scorpion's tail is always poised and ready to strike.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75306946319555790152009-07-23T17:47:20.277-06:002009-07-23T17:47:20.277-06:00King,
I'm not convinced your personal example...King,<br /><br />I'm not convinced your personal example makes a good blue-print to decide the issue, but ... regarding,<br /><br />"[...] <i>It also took probably 13 years of my life sorting through all the heartache.</i><br /><br />For me, holding to my firmest held principles is what would drive such a decision. I assume you did this yourself and that the <i>heartache</i> would have been greater and lasted longer had you chosen differently.<br /><br />Not to stir the pot, but I think your words regarding an 18th month old were poorly chosen. My understanding is that such an act would constitute murder by any standard, including Singer's.<br /><br />Now, regarding the Judeo-Christian ethnic, your example is not new to me, but I have always found it troubling. Are you personally convinced that in the absence of your religious influences that you'd be willing to kill another's son to save your own?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62847352694391824312009-07-23T16:04:07.188-06:002009-07-23T16:04:07.188-06:00Yes, King. We value clarity over agreement.
If w...Yes, King. We value clarity over agreement.<br /><br />If we're going to turn the question of life and death over to the Dr. Strangelove of Princeton [I stole that one], let's know what we're getting into.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=magazineTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76706539490565004812009-07-23T08:53:33.700-06:002009-07-23T08:53:33.700-06:00But, I am assuming that the ones that maintain pow...But, I am assuming that the ones that maintain power are also affirming a free market and not some "charitable service" where the powerful determine who and where one will "play out" their lives. This is communistic/socialistic.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80971938887792208872009-07-23T08:50:44.551-06:002009-07-23T08:50:44.551-06:00Social Darwinian evolution would adhere to the &qu...Social Darwinian evolution would adhere to the "survival of the fittest", but is not necessarily bad. Why? Self-interest is an ability to appeal and negotiate about what one values and wants to commit to. The problem is, if there are some jobs that are undesireable in society. How do we fill them. The lower status jobs are paid minimum wages, while those who have developed their abilities beyond the minimal will have leverage in negotiating salary based on the market.<br /><br />Only uncivilized societies would go to the point of killing another's son to protect one's own.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71327959336758009882009-07-23T07:02:26.290-06:002009-07-23T07:02:26.290-06:00J,
Where does it stop? I got a woman pregnant wh...J,<br /><br />Where does it stop? I got a woman pregnant when I was young. Everything that could go wrong did as far as the relationship and its adverse affects on the child. <br />It also took probably 13 years of my life sorting through all the heartache. I am sure it took his Mom some time as well. <br /><br />So if we had a magic time machine and could go back and either not have sex or do what we did and abort him or just kill him at 18 months when it all blew up should we? I think not. He is a valuable human life. Not because of what he can bring society or how much money he can bring his parents. It is because he is my son.<br /><br />Now what separates the Judeo-Christian ethnic and other world views that see man in the image of God from other outlooks is that another man's son is just as valuable as mine. Otherwise, I might want to go kill his son to save mine if I thought a food shortage was coming or he was going to take his job from him one day or whatever.<br /><br />At least you are consistent and I applaud that but your ideas scare me. If there are many who think like you(and more and more are) then 2,000 years of History is soon to go out the window and we will return to "Lord of the Flies" world.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57612096250764464072009-07-22T22:01:25.924-06:002009-07-22T22:01:25.924-06:00Non-sequitur, if not complete misreading. By sugge...Non-sequitur, if not complete misreading. By suggesting disabled/deformed fetuses/infants be mercifully killed (though also agreeing it's a complex issue), how does one not value life?? Obviously the parent's lives could definitely be improved (and they would save a great deal of money, and suffering)--so the M-K would be valuable in certain situations. <br /><br /> Singer may irritate believers, but he does argue his case fairly effectively, and is not exactly a Dr. Mengele.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46347686002071279252009-07-22T20:29:58.353-06:002009-07-22T20:29:58.353-06:00And Jay proves the case that some sort of value of...And Jay proves the case that some sort of value of human life is needed or we will descend into a "Lord of the Flies" world again sooner than most think. J thanks for showing up and proving Tom's exact point!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82398303713902821082009-07-22T18:08:48.882-06:002009-07-22T18:08:48.882-06:00Probably thumbs down, sorry to say.
Same for Sa...Probably thumbs down, sorry to say. <br /><br />Same for Sarah Palin's little dysfunctional bundle of wuv, trig. <br /><br />That said, I think there are better reasons for saving the disabled smart baby than the mentally disabled, down's syndrome, or retarded who may be physically OK. Steven Hawkings are needed. Trigs aren't.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82754879426496078012009-07-22T17:44:40.794-06:002009-07-22T17:44:40.794-06:00If Harriet McBryde Johnson had been an orphan, and...If Harriet McBryde Johnson had been an orphan, and Dr. Peter Singer had been in charge of the nursery, he'd have killed her.<br /><br />If you had been there would you have stopped him? Helped? Walked away, it's not your call?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53737416616301979942009-07-22T17:37:39.102-06:002009-07-22T17:37:39.102-06:00J, regarding mercy killings of a deformed fetus or...J, regarding mercy killings of a deformed fetus or infant, I share your sense of ethics. I'll also note that it is my understanding that such was at least rumored to be a common practice not so long ago. That it is less common today, I assume, is a testament to modern medicine's ability to reduce needless suffering, and the parents expectations that their infants have a good chance at happiness even when deformed.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-709315696296765572009-07-22T17:32:57.938-06:002009-07-22T17:32:57.938-06:00Well, fetuses and infants are not yet rational age...Well, fetuses and infants are not yet rational agents--as Singer would probably agree--so a bit of a stretch to include them in the original position matrix. Rawls does ask for a certain degree of rationality (though leaves it a bit open-ended). I do think abortion--or say mercy killing of the handicapped--would be part of some larger social construct which agents would decide upon. I'm not saying all would agree to it, but any rational person might do a bit of introspection and imagine scenarios where you, or your spouse/gal-pal/significant other/surrogate bio-mama would support the mercy killing of a severely handicapped fetus (say one without legs, etc). <br /><br />Harriet disagreed, but I don't see exactly why she does,except by claiming she is smart, special and so forth regardless of the handicap. OK, I agree that if the fetus appears mentally healthy/normal, but merely physically disabled that complicates matters, but that disabled but smart baby could still cost a fortune, suffer a great deal and so forth.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14447964828058070182009-07-22T17:16:58.205-06:002009-07-22T17:16:58.205-06:00He's just applying a sort of cost-benefit mode...<i>He's just applying a sort of cost-benefit model to human life</i><br /><br />Uh-huh.<br /><br /><i>and that offends the believers.</i><br /><br />It offends Harriet McBryde Johnson, who is not a believer. I do not know how this reconciles with Rawls' original position. I'm all ears.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35348773606430381172009-07-22T17:05:39.663-06:002009-07-22T17:05:39.663-06:00Ah, you mean some intuitive, quasi-theological sen...Ah, you mean some intuitive, quasi-theological sense of justice or something. I don't think you can prove that, much less show it's a value shared by humans. <br /><br />Aborting a deformed fetus--or infant-- of poor mother doesn't offend my "intuitive" sense of ethics anymore than allowing it to live does--I certainly can imagine scenarios where the mercy killing of a handicapped infant (say a siamese twin) would be preferable to letting it live. It's a case by case issue, but I think you're insinuating Singer's a Mengele sort, and that's not really supportable. He's just applying a sort of cost-benefit model to human life, and that offends the believers.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86643559241874248582009-07-22T16:56:53.006-06:002009-07-22T16:56:53.006-06:00Exactly. Peter Singer is a reasonable man.
And n...Exactly. Peter Singer is a reasonable man.<br /><br />And neither Locke nor I claimed the Bible was historically true.<br /><br />You're getting there.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13389836937264400162009-07-22T16:39:07.658-06:002009-07-22T16:39:07.658-06:00cartwright, good points.
There is also the troubl...cartwright, good points.<br /><br />There is also the troubling implication that these <i>certain ideas</i> actually originated with Bible and did not have human origins.<br /><br />We all inherit most of our knowledge and influences from those who came before us. For us, the Bible is certainly one of those influences. At the same time the Bible didn't just appear on the steps of a church. It was written over several generations, with hundreds of years passing before it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible" rel="nofollow">the Hebrew Bible became more fixed than fluid</a>. It appears the Bible has also inherited a lot from both the history that preceded it and through the various additions and refinements that occured over many centuries.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62620251635018797362009-07-22T16:37:51.379-06:002009-07-22T16:37:51.379-06:00Singer's point on permitting the killing of in...Singer's point on permitting the killing of infants (and fetuses) is not that mysterious. I'll spell it out for you : Fetus X is in the womb of a poor, crack-addict mama. Better to abort (less pain, per Singer's own sort of emo-utilitarianism) than to allow it to live, suffer, and cost many people (including the state, most likely). Add a disease or deformity, and the case for abortion or infanticide seems quite stronger--sort of cost-benefit approach to a potential human life. <br /><br />That it's an infant of a few months--even two or three years--instead of a fetus doesn't seem to alter the situation that much (I think it does if the kid is healthy and sane at say 5 or 6--not sure of cutoff...)<br /><br />I don't necessarily agree (and not sure who's qualified to make the judgement), but an understandable--and reasonable-- point of view, certainly for secularists who don't believe in a transcendent soul. I don't think Harriet quite got it--and really, not a slam dunk that Harriet was better off living anyway. <br /> <br />The "what would Locke have said game" not really relevant, though Locke did uphold a pleasure-based ethics for most part, and I suspect Singer would agree that Locke's a proto-utilitarian. So per Lockean utilitarianism also defensible.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21996528329234353852009-07-22T16:14:03.132-06:002009-07-22T16:14:03.132-06:00Well, we can't base a conversation on Locke...Well, we can't base a conversation on Locke's thought based on two quotes in a blog essay. Read the entire original section for yourself. Then we could discuss what we're discussing.<br /><br />He did not say religion was superior to reason, only that it was superior <i>so far</i> in history in establishing a moral code.<br /><br />I added we haven't got much further since Locke's time, in fact we may have got worse.<br /><br />Please do read Harriet McBryde Johnson's article. Then we could discuss what we're discussing.<br /><br /><i>I think reason is the best way to come to terms with what is of value</i><br /><br />Uh-huh. Reason against Peter Singer, then. That's all I've asked from the first.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74661117097634760332009-07-22T16:11:24.829-06:002009-07-22T16:11:24.829-06:00I hope no one suggests that athiests and agnostics...I hope no one suggests that athiests and agnostics cannot be "ethical". Ethics trumps the "morality" of conventionality, because ethics is based on a higher "good", or a "higher principle" than moral convention.<br /><br />As to Locke's "no innateness", this is the defense of the "blank slate" where individuals are "brought up" or "educated" in a tradition that maintains the rules that identify the "moral behavior" that is appropriate. But, that is still speculative, in today's climate of nureoscience, and some, such as Freud would undermine the religiously driven as an illusion based identification that hinders full development of ethical thinking or critical thinking about such issues.<br /><br />As to Singer being "emotion-based", I didn't "see" that, so much as that "life" is identified by rational choice. Or, perhaps, "life" is valuable if there is rational choice. Otherwise, others determine what is to transpire for that "life". This is where groupish thinking is dangerous. We must not disregard reason's need to question all authority, because otherwise, we will be doomed to be servants of another's rationale, without coming to full conviction for ourselves.<br /><br />Some "life" is not chosen. But, this is where protection of "life" in "liberty" is of value. This has ethical implications, and not rule based law. Therefore, life is of value, period. We might differ as to what defines "life" in a scientifically based society, such as ours. We have more choices because of the knowledge that science gives to us. This may or may not help us in formulating what "should be" the foundations that under-write society.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com