Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

[radon]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Do I have the right to abridge the religious freedom of well-intentioned parents who disagree with me by legislating my beliefs into the law of the land?

This is an interesting question as many religious groups seek to do exactly that. You see its not enough for them to believe. Because of cognitive bias they require the support of others and constant reinforcement. This often takes the form of the religious majority forcing their ideology, no matter how ridiculous, on everyone else. It is like any other form of totalitarianism. Witness the mess in the ME right now.

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

This is an interesting question as many religious groups seek to do exactly that. You see its not enough for them to believe. Because of cognitive bias they require the support of others and constant reinforcement. This often takes the form of the religious majority forcing their ideology, no matter how ridiculous, on everyone else. It is like any other form of totalitarianism. Witness the mess in the ME right now.

Don't confuse the Establishment Clause with states deciding questions of homicide. Roe had nothing specifically to do with religion.

As Martin Luther King said: "I cannot get the government to pass a law requiring you to love me, but I hope to get the government to pass a law to keep you from lynching me".

[cjppjc]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Someone started a thread about abortion but I don't know where it is. If FRED wants to move this discussion there I'm fine with that. But I really don't have any more to say on the matter.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...23679-Abortion


I only started this thread because so many other good threads somehow end up veering to the topic of abortion. It really changes the tone and substance of the prior discussions.

[vinoveri]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

[QUOTE=shiny!;242841]

Proselytize on the public level, but on the legal level, don't try to elevate your religious belief over mine. That, IMO, is what separation of church and state is all about.

I completely agree. Secularism, informed by utilitarian ethics, is effectively a religious belief held by many in that it has it's own creed (e.g., firm and unequivocal positions on many issues including those we are discussing). The government enshrining secular principles into law is what is going on, so from my perspective, the secular religion is being forced on non-secularists. In a democratic republic such as ours, the will of the people (democratic majority) should carry the day unless and untils it conflicts with the Constitution. Most secular tenets that have become law and which conflict directly with Judeo-Christian ethics have not been implemented via the democrative process, but have been created by judicial fiat. It is this apparent inability by most to see that even though there is not a "church of secularism" down the block on the corner, there is in fact a increasinly intolerant secular world view which is foisting it's views on everyone else, from the government, to academia, legal profession, etc.

Since abortion evokes such passionate opinions, consider this argument in a different context, such as infant circumcision. I am vehemently opposed to routine infant circumcision. I consider it to be profound sexual abuse. From a religious POV, I consider it a contradiction of the will and wisdom of the Creator. But Jews view it differently. They consider infant circumcision a mandatory requirement of their relationship with the Creator, and a matter for celebration. We can't both be right, can we? And what about the parents who circumcise because they believe there's a medical benefit that outweighs the risks? What side should the law take? That of the infants who's screams of agony fall upon deaf ears? Or that of the parents who have responsibility for the children and think they're doing the right thing?

Do I have the right to abridge the religious freedom of well-intentioned parents who disagree with me by legislating my beliefs into the law of the land?

So the answer is simple. Keep the gov and nanny state out of people's business and let them live their lives in freedom. Of course the gov has legitimate function and authority to protect its citizens, e.g., crimes against persons and property, and this is where we get into subjectivisim, about what is a crime, murder, robbery, rape, battery, ?circumcision? In fact circumcision without informed consent and release would be a crime of battery.

I view the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit to be fundamental to liberty in any society, without state/gov interference. So one's views on circumcision (or any other matter of child rearing) are one's own and one is free to discuss/persuade etc, but not compel other to act as one thinks they should act (I thing you would agree with this). If there was an established body of scientific literature that showed that circumcision resulted in some permanent damage, physical or psychological to the individual (excluding absence of penile foreskin), then I would agree that the state would have authority in getting involved.

Top down control by a minority group of secularist who think they know what's best for everyone (because that is the way they "feel") is nothing short of tyranny.
Man is not a bee and cannot thrive in a hive-type society.
One who marries the spirity of the age is destined to be a widow in the next (GK Chesteron)

[Ghent12]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Since abortion evokes such passionate opinions, consider this argument in a different context, such as infant circumcision. I am vehemently opposed to routine infant circumcision. I consider it to be profound sexual abuse. From a religious POV, I consider it a contradiction of the will and wisdom of the Creator. But Jews view it differently. They consider infant circumcision a mandatory requirement of their relationship with the Creator, and a matter for celebration. We can't both be right, can we? And what about the parents who circumcise because they believe there's a medical benefit that outweighs the risks? What side should the law take? That of the infants who's screams of agony fall upon deaf ears? Or that of the parents who have responsibility for the children and think they're doing the right thing?

Do I have the right to abridge the religious freedom of well-intentioned parents who disagree with me by legislating my beliefs into the law of the land?

These are very, very difficult issues. I don't know what the answer is.

Someone started a thread about abortion but I don't know where it is. If FRED wants to move this discussion there I'm fine with that. But I really don't have any more to say on the matter.

The thread directly about Abortion is in the Political Abyss section of the Rant & Rave forum.

You bring up a very good point about circumcision. The efficacy of its supposed medical benefits are very much in doubt when compared to its risks. In fact, while the American Academy of Pediatrics found that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, the benefit-to-risk ratio is not large enough to recommend routine circumcision. The foreskin exists for a reason--whether Darwinian or from the Creator, the foreskin is a natural part of anatomy for a reason. I share in your general belief that circumcision is essentially wrong.

Should there be a law to prevent the mutilation of children? Should their be religious exclusions to the law? These are difficult issues indeed, but I don't see a reasonable justification for the intentional mutilation of children. Similarly, I don't see a reasonable justification for the intentional murder of children. If a woman wants to do something to her body, then so be it; but her right to do something to her body ends when it affects the body of another human being. She can manipulate the parts of her body containing her DNA or non-human DNA (bacteria, virus, parasite, etc.), but not those containing the DNA of her children or shared between her and her child. DNA is the most scientific way to discretely identify individuals, and there need be no religious aspect at all to prevent abortion because scientifically, every human life beings when their DNA is created. That is the starting point and there can be no reasonable doubt about that. Every effort to paint a fetus as non-human is akin to painting any adult human as non-human or some form of animal--it is a precursor to accepting whatever justification for murder. Dehumanization is often the necessary psychological prerequisite to intentionally end another human's life.

[Raz]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

... DNA is the most scientific way to discretely identify individuals, and there need be no religious aspect at all to prevent abortion because scientifically, every human life beings when their DNA is created. That is the starting point and there can be no reasonable doubt about that. Every effort to paint a fetus as non-human is akin to painting any adult human as non-human or some form of animal--it is a precursor to accepting whatever justification for murder. Dehumanization is often the necessary psychological prerequisite to intentionally end another human's life.

Exactly. Bring Roger B. Taney forward 116 years and you get Harry Blackmun.

Taney's statement from the Dred Scott ruling:

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

[FRED]

Re: Greg Palast: The War Between the Billionaires, And Election Theft

Yes. I've never seen a time when exaggeration and complete lies were spread so effectively. Apparently you either agree completely or you are Hitler. There is no room for compromise. And this works both ways. I see Republicans with the same mentality.

Here on iTulip we call this the "Two Legs Good, Four Legs Bad" debate framework of post-rationalist America, with apologies to George Orwell.