Philosophy 2 (New)

__________________________

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

__________________________

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

__________________________

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Free Speech Limitations - Cont


In response to comment

I can understand why explicitly advocating violent crime could be a legitimate restriction of speech, but what if the speech were advocating overthrow of the government but NOT by violent means -- in other words, NOT by violating any law other than seeking the overthrow of the government (let's say, advocating a general strike until our leaders scrap the U.S. Constitution and draft a new one and submit it for approval via some particular process) ?

I'd have a major problem with any law that outlawed such a proposal.

That is pretty clearly an idea that can be discussed, argued, put down or taken up as was considered appropriate. It is only when free speech begins to turn upon itself; i.e. Let's have a general strike AND BURN THE HOUSES OF ANY WHO DISAGREE that free speech should truly reach its limit. This is not an encouragement to freely exchange ideas, but a plan to END such a free exchange.

…………

By "have a major problem",

By "have a major problem", do you mean:
1) You would consider it unconstitutional?
2) If "yes" to #1, that you think it is not even anywhere near a close call -- that is, that you don't think that a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution could lead to the opposite conclusion re: constitutionality of such a law?

………… parent

If it were advocacy only, I'd start at #2

If the person were truly only advocating such activities, I don't think it would even be a close call.
That said, I don't doubt that some legal scholars in past days (McCarthyism, Sedition acts etc) would disagree.

Now, I CAN imagine laws that made such a general strike very unlikely. i.e. Any threats levied against those unwilling to strike, encouragement of such threats, failure to fully cooperate with investigations into such threats etc.

Let's face it, if there were numbers willing to involve themselves in such a strike based on such advocacy, you are probably about two matchboxes away from an open revolt already.

………… parent

Yes, it could be that in

Yes, it could be that in practical terms, one thing could lead to another or is likely to be accompanied by another, but I'm taking the luxury of speaking only of the principle per se.

Not to nitpick, but just so I'm clear on your answer to #2 (as far as constitutionality), are you saying that you do not think an opposing view by a legal scholar today would be a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution (i.e., reasonable even though you disagree)?

That's not meant as a rhetorical question, nor am I trying to load up that question -- it's sometimes perfectly reasonable to consider disagreement on some point unreasonable ;-)

I'm just trying to distinguish between a view that a law would be unconstitutional vs. a view that it's not anywhere near a close call and that any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution would reach that conclusion.

………… parent

I don't like to judge arguments by their conclusions

Before I even hear the argument.

Because of that, I'll say that I would be deeply suspicious of anyone concluding that open advocacy of a general strike could be made illegal. I'd be likewise deeply suspicious of any argument that did the same.

I'm leaving myself only the barest amount of wiggle room as I haven't actually read this hypothetical argument I don't like to go so far as to say that the argument isn't even worth reading with a sliver of an open mind (especially as I'm not a Constitutional scholar)

………… parent

ok, fair enough. And while I

ok, fair enough. And while I don't have a firm or well thought-out opinion (let alone having researched the matter), I guess my answers would be similar to yours, except that I'd want even more wiggle room (or is it "wriggle room"?) because I guess I don't see it as quite as unlikely (as you do) that such a law (prohibiting calls for a general strike for the stated purpose of getting our leaders to scrap the Constitution -- i.e., to dissolve our government and our national political and judicial systems) would be unconstitutional. Perhaps it's Twilight Zone-ish or perhaps like 2001: A Space Odyssey (HAL objecting to being disconnected) or perhaps even those commandments not to have any other god, but it could be that it is constitutional to outlaw discarding the Constitution or even advocacy thereof ;-)

As far as policy preference, I'm with you in that I would MUCH rather err on the side of liberty (free speech) than to see government at any level criminalizing political speech. And by the way, I am apalled that some people want flag-burning to be illegal, and I find such a view ironic: they want to diminish freedom to protect a symbol of freedom. I also think any such law would be unconstitutional, and I don't think that's a tough call, although insofar as burning a flag implies a desire to overthrow the government, we get back to the question of seditious speech, so I'll still want to leave myself a wee bit of wriggle room.

………… parent

Diary on Free Will

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

…………

Capturing references to relevant diary comments.

There is discussion of creationism and tangentially free will in this diray:

The Irrationality of Creationism

and GoRight's initial comment at:

A few clarifications on my past discussions on this topic ...

which tries to describe his position in a more rigorous way.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

…………

have fun, Ender. Enjoy!!

n/m

…………

Intolerance of Intolerance.

In several threads on PC Specter has used the defense that he is just being "intolerant of the intolerant". This defense always struck me as being a bit weird but I could quite put my finger on exactly why.

In thinking about this more the other day I came to the conclusion that the reason is, in effect, because he is actually making my exact point for me.

Let's take the whole "Merry Christmas" flap. I argue that the people demanding that we use "Happy Holidays" instead are being just as intolerant as the Christians are supposedly being, and hence they don't have a leg to stand on. That's when Specter will usually point out that PC is just be intolerant of intolerance.

In so doing, however, he is basically saying "Look, intolerance is a bad thing. We should speak out against it when we see it." What this implies, of course, is that being intolerant is "bad" unless what you are being intolerant of is on the Specter list of approved things to be intolerant of (e.g. intolerant people).

When I call him on PC also being intolerant, however, am I not simply following his advice to "speak out against the intolerant?"

Come on, Specter, walk the walk. Follow your own advice and join me in denouncing your intolerance! :-)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

…………

Examples?

I argue that the people demanding that we use "Happy Holidays" instead are being just as intolerant as the Christians are supposedly being, and hence they don't have a leg to stand on.

Who's demanding we use "Happy Holidays"?

There are two spheres where this has gotten attention: public and private.

In the public sphere, the ACLU is right to argue that government money going exclusively to Christian holidays is a de facto establishment of "official" religion. Please explain to me why Jews, Muslims, atheists, and whoever else shouldn't complain that their tax money goes to bombastic public festivals for exclusively Christian holidays?

In the private sphere, you've got it exactly backwards: no one is demanding "Happy Holidays", but plenty of people are demanding "Merry Christmas". Remember the boycotts threatened against stores that use "Happy Holidays"? People are well within their right to launch boycotts for whatever reason, but I think it smacks of ignorance and arrogance to boycott a store for trying to accommodate all its customers rather than one particular set. What's worse, these stores chose the "Happy Holidays" routine for perfectly sane business reasons: it makes sense to cater to the broadest potential range of customers. No one leaves Macy's in a huff for being wished "Merry Xmas", but as someone - I think it was Sam Seder - said, it's like being wished a happy birthday every time you walk into the mall. WTF?

Also, how is "Happy Holidays" offensive to Christians? I don't understand that point.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Examples?

Who's demanding we use "Happy Holidays"?

Oh please. Given you following responses it seems that you are well aware that this is an issue.

In the public sphere, the ACLU is right to argue that government money going exclusively to Christian holidays is a de facto establishment of "official" religion. Please explain to me why Jews, Muslims, atheists, and whoever else shouldn't complain that their tax money goes to bombastic public festivals for exclusively Christian holidays?

1) Who is demanding Christian only displays? I see plenty of Jewish displays as well. I have no problem with Muslim or other displays.

2) Who is demanding that tax dollars pay for the displays? Let the respective religions foot the bill.

In the private sphere, you've got it exactly backwards: no one is demanding "Happy Holidays", but plenty of people are demanding "Merry Christmas". Remember the boycotts threatened against stores that use "Happy Holidays"? People are well within their right to launch boycotts for whatever reason, but I think it smacks of ignorance and arrogance to boycott a store for trying to accommodate all its customers rather than one particular set. What's worse, these stores chose the "Happy Holidays" routine for perfectly sane business reasons: it makes sense to cater to the broadest potential range of customers. No one leaves Macy's in a huff for being wished "Merry Xmas", but as someone - I think it was Sam Seder - said, it's like being wished a happy birthday every time you walk into the mall. WTF?

I guess that you must be demanding that people say "Happy Holidays" too given this defense of the practice.

Also, how is "Happy Holidays" offensive to Christians? I don't understand that point.

I believe that the word I used was "intolerant" not "offensive". Demanding that people not say "Merry Christmas" is, by definition, being intolerant.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

1) Who is demanding

1) Who is demanding Christian only displays? I see plenty of Jewish displays as well. I have no problem with Muslim or other displays.

You're kidding, right? This is the whole root of the problem: Town X hosts a Christmas parade, local non-Christians ask that it gets expanded to a Holiday parade so that other groups are included, and people on your side throw a fit. First page I googled brought up examples like this : it should be a "Christmas" parade, and screw everyone else.

That's where this whole mess starts, GoRight: it's those Christians who don't want to share public space with other religions.

2) Who is demanding that tax dollars pay for the displays? Let the respective religions foot the bill.

Heh, yeah, I'd love to see that happen myself. I'm also not holding my breath.

I guess that you must be demanding that people say "Happy Holidays" too given this defense of the practice.

That's as wild a leap of logic as I've ever seen from you: defense of a practice = demand of a practice? Huh?

The only people "demanding" this are store owners, who are well within their rights to demand their employees speak in Pig Latin if they want. And it's wise business practice. For people on the Right to throw a fit about this makes zero sense, especially as the side ostensibly on the side of employer rights.

And to swing that as a swipe against Christians is doubly goofy, as a simple thought experiment would show: if you had an employee who insisted on greeting everyone in your store with "Don't forget Christ died for your sins!", you'd probably ask said employee not to continue that practice. Would that make you intolerant?

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Not true.

You're kidding, right? This is the whole root of the problem: Town X hosts a Christmas parade, local non-Christians ask that it gets expanded to a Holiday parade so that other groups are included, and people on your side throw a fit. First page I googled brought up examples like this: it should be a "Christmas" parade, and screw everyone else.

That's where this whole mess starts, GoRight: it's those Christians who don't want to share public space with other religions.

This is not true. The Christians just don't want to have their traditions subverted. Christmas is, after all, their tradition. The Christians don't object to any other religions celebrating their own traditions. Christians don't care if the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, for instance. Or if others want to celebrate Kwanzaa.

That's as wild a leap of logic as I've ever seen from you: defense of a practice = demand of a practice? Huh?

So, you don't actually care if people want to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Well, then, problem solved. Let people continue to say "Merry Christmas" and you can find something else to write about. OK?

The only people "demanding" this are store owners, who are well within their rights to demand their employees speak in Pig Latin if they want. And it's wise business practice. For people on the Right to throw a fit about this makes zero sense, especially as the side ostensibly on the side of employer rights.

It is true that the store owners can set whatever policies (within the law, of course) that they want. Do the customers not have the right to express their opinions regarding those policies? Wouldn't it also be "wise" for those same employers to pay attention to the demographics of their customer base, and listen to their concerns? If they judge those concerns to be unreasonable they can choose to ignore them, correct?

And to swing that as a swipe against Christians is doubly goofy, as a simple thought experiment would show: if you had an employee who insisted on greeting everyone in your store with "Don't forget Christ died for your sins!", you'd probably ask said employee not to continue that practice. Would that make you intolerant?

Well, actually, YES that would be intolerant ... almost by definition. Whether your action in this example was "right", "proper", or "justified" is open to debate. Whether it is an example of intolerance is not. This unquestionably would be an example of intolerance. You are, in effect, telling the employee that "you aren't going to tolerate that specific behavior, are you not?"

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

This is really confusing:

The Christians just don't want to have their traditions subverted. Christmas is, after all, their tradition. The Christians don't object to any other religions celebrating their own traditions. Christians don't care if the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, for instance. Or if others want to celebrate Kwanzaa.

??? I'm entirely not understanding your point here. No one's challenging Christian tradition, no one's saying Christians can't light up their homes and sing Noel to their hearts content. The issue is public funds for exclusively Christian celebrations, so this point is not only moot but bizarre. Did you read that editorial I linked to? The author went ballistic that the town considered changing to "Holidays" in order to accommodate its non-Christian residents: it's either Christians', or it's nobody's! So in fact, the article is saying exactly the opposite of what you're claiming ("Christians don't object to any other religions celebrating their own traditions.") That's exactly the opposite of what the author says: it's not holidays for other people, it's Christmas and Christmas alone.

So, you don't actually care if people want to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"? Well, then, problem solved. Let people continue to say "Merry Christmas" and you can find something else to write about. OK?

??? I've never had a problem with it. The only people who've had a problem with it are, again, those Christians who object to the "happy holidays" schtick. And it's a little bizarre of you to tell me to "find something else to write about", since this is your topic.

It is true that the store owners can set whatever policies (within the law, of course) that they want. Do the customers not have the right to express their opinions regarding those policies? Wouldn't it also be "wise" for those same employers to pay attention to the demographics of their customer base, and listen to their concerns? If they judge those concerns to be unreasonable they can choose to ignore them, correct?

Yep, agreed on all counts. So why throw a fit when store owners decide to shift to Happy Holidays? I don't see any boycotts launched against stores with "Merry Xmas" signs. Once again, the sound and fury is coming from some Christians, not people on the Left.

Well, actually, YES that would be intolerant ... almost by definition. Whether your action in this example was "right", "proper", or "justified" is open to debate. Whether it is an example of intolerance is not. This unquestionably would be an example of intolerance. You are, in effect, telling the employee that "you aren't going to tolerate that specific behavior, are you not?"

Ah, you and your trusty dictionary. Can we at least agree that in most circumstances, when we discuss "intolerant", we're intentionally loading it with negative connotations (specifically "narrow-minded" rather than objective "exclusionary")? If it makes you'll feel better, I'll amend my statement above and say that asking employees to say "Happy Holidays" isn't narrow-minded.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

GoRight + dictionary = dangerous combo

Dangerous to the subtleties of the English language, that is... had this same problem not too long ago when GoRight used the word "clandestine" as a synonym for "private" to describe a closed-door ethics hearing, ignoring the fact that the word clandestine is used mostly to describe secrecy maintained for illicit purposes. 

………… parent

Wow, my command of the English language is legendary!

:-)

Dianne Feinstein utilized secret (i.e. behind closed doors) ethics meetings (presumably to prevent the details of those meetings from being widely known) to gain "the OK" from that committee for her to continue to oversee MILCON appropriations (presumably as a pre-emptive CYA) in which her husband (and therefore she, since California is a community property state) had a financial interest.

She obtained "this OK" under the false pretense that the names of the bidding companies would be witheld from the committee as a whole (which presumably would have included from her as well) to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The part that makes this all a lie is that, behind the scenes (with respect to the committee as a whole) she was being informed by legal representatives of her husband's companies about which projects they were specifically bidding on.

So, to summarize, she used clandestine meetings with the ethics committee for the illicit purpose of providing false cover for her secret conflict of interest.

:-)

That reminds me, actually, why hasn't she been indicted on this yet? I suspect it might have something to do with her political affiliations.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

GoRight, GoRight

Apply yourself, sir.

GoRight + Dictionary = Adroit High Candor

(Taking advantange of the usual anagram rule that one may add one letter, in this case an extra D)

I'm shocked you missed it.

………… parent

Purpleface + anagrams

= a pagan ram cures pelf

I'll have to try that one day, see if it works.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

He shoots, he scores!

I remain in awe.

Pelf, I missed somewhere in my education. First time I've had to look up a word in ages.

And that's saying something, since some of my favorite authors prefer obscure words. Anyone up for a little formication?

………… parent

I cheated. :)

I ran it through an online anagram program. Heck, I'm a busy man - no time for letter scrambling on my own!

"Pelf" I only know because of a 17th century poem by Anne Bradstreet, "Upon the Burning of Our House ":

... A Prise so vast as is unknown,
Yet, by his Gift, is made thine own.
Ther's wealth enough, I need no more;
Farewell my Pelf, farewell my Store.
The world no longer let me Love,
My hope and Treasure lyes Above...

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Ah, Deceit! :-) n/t

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

Not a scholar

by training (more by avocation, really), but I can claim some recognition of that poet. I think. Without cheating!

I picked up a book entitled Seventeenth Century American Poetry at a junk shop in podunk Texas, and I seem to recall that she was a major poet in that book.

I suppose I should have read more of it; I would have gotten pelf!

………… parent

Ok, I demand that tomorrow's open thread

include favorite poems. Let's see who likes what...

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Go for it

I have one picked out already. Fits, too.

………… parent

:-) Thanks!

While I am touched by your implication and I truly appreciate the sentiment, alas, in order to live up to your astute observation I must point out that I believe that you have added a second "h" as well.

I was never much of an anagrammer (is that a word?)?

:-)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Tradition

I'm entirely not understanding your point here. No one's challenging Christian tradition, no one's saying Christians can't light up their homes and sing Noel to their hearts content.

You mean like the long-standing tradition whereby Christians organize and run Christmas Parades in towns and cities all across the county? Something that has been occurring for a century or more?

Now you are telling them that they can't do this anymore, so how is that not challenging their tradition?

If others were to organize and run a Hanukkah Parade or a Kwanzaa Parade I doubt that very many Christians would object. They just don't want to have to give up their traditional Christmas Parade.

So in fact, the article is saying exactly the opposite of what you're claiming ("Christians don't object to any other religions celebrating their own traditions.") That's exactly the opposite of what the author says: it's not holidays for other people, it's Christmas and Christmas alone.

The tradition in question is the concept of holding a "Christmas Parade to celebrate Christmas", not a "Holiday Parade". So in that sense what they are saying is consistent with my point.

I've never had a problem with it. The only people who've had a problem with it are, again, those Christians who object to the "happy holidays" schtick. And it's a little bizarre of you to tell me to "find something else to write about", since this is your topic.

And yet here you are, expending all of this "sound and fury", as you call it. One might get the impression that you actually had an opinion on this topic and were actually defending one side of the argument to further push the "Christians = bad, Everyone else = good" meme of the left-wingers.

If I was wrong on that, sorry. My bad.

Yep, agreed on all counts. So why throw a fit when store owners decide to shift to Happy Holidays? I don't see any boycotts launched against stores with "Merry Xmas" signs. Once again, the sound and fury is coming from some Christians, not people on the Left.

Boycotts are a time honored tradition amongst the left, so it is surprising to hear you bemoaning their use in this case as a means of raising people's awareness to a social concern and to attempt to make their point emphatically with the merchants in question.

Do you likewise object to members of the left-wing employing boycotts for whatever their cause du jour might be?

Ah, you and your trusty dictionary. Can we at least agree that in most circumstances, when we discuss "intolerant", we're intentionally loading it with negative connotations (specifically "narrow-minded" rather than objective "exclusionary")? If it makes you'll feel better, I'll amend my statement above and say that asking employees to say "Happy Holidays" isn't narrow-minded.

I understand that the notion that words actually have specific meanings might be a little foreign to you, as a liberal, and that this might constraint your debating skills a tad but let's try to make the best of the situation, shall we? (This is just a general snark against liberals doing things like hiding behind things like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

More substantively, however, I believe that my intent and use of the term above is in complete agreement with the one you posit above.

I argue that it is you [actually the merchant in your example above] that is being narrow minded here. They are the one seeking to exclude someone's viewpoint from the realm of public discourse/interaction. They are the one actively seeking to force their personal world view onto others.

Allowing people to believe and express what they want represents "diversity" and "inclusiveness", not the tactics of repression and forced submission which are being used here (i.e. by forcing the employee to express "Happy Holidays" instead their prefered "Merry Christmas").

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Sorry, not buying.

I'll start with this last point and work my way up:

I understand that the notion that words actually have specific meanings might be a little foreign to you, as a liberal, and that this might constraint your debating skills a tad but let's try to make the best of the situation, shall we? (This is just a general snark against liberals doing things like hiding behind things like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

I understand it's snark, but as a language teacher I might point out that words have two sets of meanings: connotative and denotative. I agreed with you on the denotative meaning of "intolerant", but not the connotations. Most people have these differences figured out when they're a lot younger. ;)

On to the substantive issues:

I argue that it is you [actually the merchant in your example above] that is being narrow minded here. They are the one seeking to exclude someone's viewpoint from the realm of public discourse/interaction.

Are employees acting as individuals, or as representatives of that business? So you're arguing that a business is being narrow-minded by controlling how it presents itself to its customers? I don't think you want to follow this argument to its natural conclusion.

You mean like the long-standing tradition whereby Christians organize and run Christmas Parades in towns and cities all across the county? Something that has been occurring for a century or more?

This is cute: I like how you use "Christian" and "government" as synonymous terms. Was that intentional?

See, here's the deal: no one objects to Christians' holding Christian parades to their little hearts' content. And they're more than welcome to. But for a town to represent itself as a Christian entity is antithetical to the values of this nation. I mean, hey, if you want "tradition", let's go back to the tradition of not celebrating Christmas as a government holiday at all. It's what the Founding Fathers did, after all.

But what I don't understand is why those particular Christians are making a big deal out of this. No one's stopping them from holding Christmas celebrations up and down every main street in this country. But that's not enough: they want it to be done on taxpayer money, and they want it to be done at the exclusion of other participants. No matter how many coats of perfume you put on it, that's still pretty rotten.

...[you] were actually defending one side of the argument to further push the "Christians = bad, Everyone else = good" meme of the left-wingers.

Sorry, where have I given you this impression? I've been careful throughout to talk only about those Christians who've pushed for this, and citing examples. Explain where I even hint that Christians = bad.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Let's just stop beating this dead horse.

I understand it's snark, but as a language teacher I might point out that words have two sets of meanings: connotative and denotative. I agreed with you on the denotative meaning of "intolerant", but not the connotations. Most people have these differences figured out when they're a lot younger. ;)

I know, but I thought I made an OK case for why both cases still applied even in this example.

Are employees acting as individuals, or as representatives of that business? So you're arguing that a business is being narrow-minded by controlling how it presents itself to its customers? I don't think you want to follow this argument to its natural conclusion.

Yes this is what I am arguing, but you make a fair point. On the other hand is every single action and nuance an employee displays to be interpretted solely as a reflection of the employer? That hardly seems reasonable either.

See, here's the deal: no one objects to Christians' holding Christian parades to their little hearts' content. And they're more than welcome to. But for a town to represent itself as a Christian entity is antithetical to the values of this nation. I mean, hey, if you want "tradition", let's go back to the tradition of not celebrating Christmas as a government holiday at all. It's what the Founding Fathers did, after all.

But what I don't understand is why those particular Christians are making a big deal out of this. No one's stopping them from holding Christmas celebrations up and down every main street in this country. But that's not enough: they want it to be done on taxpayer money, and they want it to be done at the exclusion of other participants. No matter how many coats of perfume you put on it, that's still pretty rotten.

I actually understand the point your are making, I am just trying not to concede it! :-) So, with respect to the single example you provided (which may or may not be representative of the whole), I accept you point on the public funds. I do not in general, however.

And even so, my specific position has been to have the religions pay for their displays (or parades) on their own dimes. I just wouldn't restrict them from using public property to setup their displays or hold their parades.

Sorry, where have I given you this impression? I've been careful throughout to talk only about those Christians who've pushed for this, and citing examples. Explain where I even hint that Christians = bad.

OK, I stand corrected. I should have stated "Those Christians that are complaining about the Happy Holidays meme = bad. Everyone else = good."

Good now?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

All good!

Holiday (not Xmas) cheer all around! :P

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

This sounds familiar

I've had this conversation with an ex-coworker a dozen times

And even so, my specific position has been to have the religions pay for their displays (or parades) on their own dimes. I just wouldn't restrict them from using public property to setup their displays or hold their parades.

Sure, no problem, as long as the public property is equally available to all. That means the Wiccans (Let's not forget that Christmas was originally a pagan Holiday. The whole "Don't try to steal our religion is actually a bit of Christian projection) and Pastafarians who want to use the public land as well have equal rights. So if, on Sep 19, the FSMers set up on town hall, or the athiests want to set up "There was no Jesus" signs on December 25th, they have as much right to be there as anybody else. The 'religious use for public land' folks become the 'religious use of public land for the majority' a bit too often.

………… parent

Personally ...

I don't have any problem with any of these groups. As long as all groups have equal access and have to jump through the same hoops no problem.

While I understand that many of you would have a problem with this position, I don't even have a problem with tax dollars being used to fund these displays as long as there was no restriction on which religions had access to the funds so allocated. I am a non-preferentialist with respect to the Establishment clause.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

No religious limits is a good rule

It just never seems to work out. The minority religion seems to be consistentently removed. Just look up how long it took a Wiccan soldier who died to finally have the pentagram put on his tombstone.

Here is another interesting story on religious tolerance from the majority

………… parent

Paradox

I pre-replied to your point , but you might have missed it so I will just quote it in its entirety (to prevent self-plagiarism --which is also a paradox but a real thing):

Paradox and Values
I've noticed something recently when you have been calling me bigoted for referring to groups as racists.

Let's go through a recap of the instances just so we are on the same page. These are only the instances I remember off the top of my head, so there could be more.

The first time you did this (not directly to me) was when you said people on this site (I don't exactly recall, but I think it was pico, missliberties, and CLC) were bashing Christianity because they were in favor of Happy Holidays (I was busy writing my own diary on the matter so I was not really involved in this discussion).

The second time that I recall is when I called out Schlafly who was invited by the college republicans to speak at a college, in which she said many sexist remarks. Purpleface added to this conversation by stating that there was a thread with multiple posters agreeing that women should not have the right to vote, to which I made a joke at Ender's definition of the GOP as the party of individuality and freedom.

The most recent is the discussion of private schools in which I said that it is sad that the rich can buy segregation in reference to what pico said as you point out above.

Ok, the first thing I want to point out is that it is mostly impossible to meet your standard of only calling the people directly related for the racism out rather than a larger group. For example, is it fair for me to say that whites in the South had slaves before the civil war? Or do I have to go find census reports to find the slave owners' exact names to meet your tough standards?

In the Schlafly scenario (or numerous Coulter examples), she was invited by the college republicans which is a group endorsed and sponsored by the larger republican party. As such, saying the GOP (joke as it was) endorsed her comments is not that big of a stretch (though I do not actually believe this is a GOP platform or anything). In these scenarios, I think a statement about a larger group is fair within the context.

Next, I wanted to discuss the use of paradox which I think you are often trying to point out without using that terminology. You basically say that I am being intolerant because I am not accepting of difference. You also say that I am applying my comments to a larger group than what is called for. The latter I try to answer above, but I will make an attempt to be as specific as possible within reason in the future (but please take context and threads into consideration in these discussions).

About the former (intolerant of the intolerant): this is indeed a logical paradox if taken to the extreme as pure tolerance accepts all difference. Paradoxes are always a double-sided coin though, two mutually true comments that do not coincide with each other. While I can clearly point out a racist's intolerance on one side of the coin, you can clearly point out my intolerance for the racist's intolerance on the other. Perfectly valid argument logically. It is a paradox admittedly. So what do we do from here?

Since we are social animals, we then return to the human realm and focus on values to overcome the paradox. What kind of world do we want to live in. A world that values merit and hard-work, or one that prefers established privilege over others because of racism? If you value the former, then you over-ride the logical paradox by using your value system to say we should give one side of the paradox coin more credence (the saying racism is bad and we will not tolerate it) than the other side (we should value and defend racism). We can remain static in the realm of language and logic while these problems persist or we can tackle the problems using the values we appreciate.

Let's try to avoid the nit-picky arguments about the logical consistency of 'intolerance' and focus on the real problems which we can determine by our values. So what is it? Are you with me in fighting the racist intolerance or are we going to play word games on this site all the time?

[Thanks for actually not thinking I'm a bigot. I don't actually think you defend bigots. I do think I should be more careful with my wording when discussing groups, but I think you should spend more time condemning the true bigots.]

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

Oh yes.

I remember now, my bad. Maybe it just took a few days to sink in through my thick skull?

:-)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

No problem

Paradoxes are fun, and you are correct to call me on them, but I don't think they should be your regular basis for defense.

Great material for the philosophy thread though. :-)

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

'pre-replied'

is also a paradox now that I think of it. :-)

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

Is atheism a religion?

GoRight made a passing comment that atheism is a religion which I took issue with (link ). While I think they both contain faith and belief, I think there are fundamental differences regarding rituals, systematized conduct or morals, and in most cases deities.

Also the word literally means 'without theism'.

What do you think?

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

…………

Yes it is

Imo anyway. Belief in the unproven, whether a god/religion or the denial of a god is the same thing to me. Neither is based on any real evidence, and even if they are fundementally different, one thing they have in common is that they are both wrong.

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

………… parent

"Theism" not equal "Religion" either, by that argument.

I think a more relevant question is, can I make a case for secular progressivism being a religion? I have not made a full effort to do this, but from the thread above I started to with this comment .

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Re: secular progressivism

Secular is by definition not religious.

sec·u·lar adj. 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3. Relating to or advocating secularism. 4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century. 6. Lasting from century to century. n. 1. A member of the secular clergy. 2. A layperson.

That does not make the least bit of sense. A≠ (-A).

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

Secular Humanism

The how do you explain the definition of Secular Humanism:

Main Entry: secular humanism
Function: noun
: HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
- secular humanist noun or adjective

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

I call it a

bad dictionary writer for using the word religion.

I would paste this entire page but I will just hope you check it out.

First off, a contrary definition:

secular humanism
n.

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.

Then the Wiki differences from other beliefs:

Relationship to other concepts

When humanists use the phrase secular humanism it is typically to emphasize differences relative to religion or religious humanism.

There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ:[3]

* Religious humanists may value rituals and ceremonies as means of affirming their life stance. Secular humanists are typically not interested in using rituals and ceremonies.[4]
* Some religious humanists may seek profound "religious" experiences, such as those that others would associate with the presence of God, despite interpreting these experiences differently. Secular humanists would generally not pursue such experiences.
* Some varieties of nontheistic religious humanism may conceive of the word divine as more than metaphoric even in the absence of a belief in a traditional God; they may believe in ideals that transcend physical reality; or they may conceive of some experiences as "numinous" or uniquely religious. Secular humanism regards all such terms as, at best, metaphors for truths rooted in the material world.
* Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanism is skeptical about God and the supernatural and believes that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems.

While some humanists embrace calling themselves secular humanists, others prefer the term Humanist, capitalized and without any qualifying adjective. The terms secular humanism and Humanism overlap, but have different connotations. The term secular humanism emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas the term Humanism deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. The term Humanism also emphasizes considering one's humanism to be a life stance.

Secular humanism advocates secularism but is a broader concept. Secularism has a number of usages but generally emphasize limits on the role of religious or supernatural considerations in the affairs of society or government. Secular humanism adds to these positions a comprehensive perspective on life, including affirmation of human dignity and the importance of ethics.

Lastly, let's look at the controversy you are trying to create:

Is secular humanism a religion?

Because it adopts positions about the place of God and religion in well-ordered society, some Christians maintain that secular humanism is itself a religion. Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word. Disputes around this subject are largely semantic.

There is a continuum of humanist philosophies which may be divided into several categories:

* A. Nontheistic non-religious humanism
* B. Nontheistic religious humanism
* C. Theistic religious humanism

Adherents of the first category of humanism, A, emphatically do not regard their variety of humanism as a religion. Adherents of the last two categories of humanism, B and C, regard their variety of humanism as a religion.

Confusion arises because proponents and opponents of humanism tend to define the term secular humanism differently.

* Among proponents of humanism, secular humanism refers to category A. The current article relates primarily to secular humanism as defined in this fashion.
* Among Christians who oppose humanism, secular humanism is used to refer to categories A and B, or even A, B and C.

Fundamentalists use the descriptions of those in category B of their humanism as a religion to "prove" that "Secular Humanism is a religion." This angers those who actually call themselves secular humanists, those in category A, because their variety of humanism is "by definition not religious."

So, the question of whether secular humanism is or is not a religion devolves into a question of semantics, and a question of whether people are to be trusted to know whether their own beliefs are religious in nature:

* If one uses self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
o Using the definition of those who self-identify as secular humanists, then secular humanism is emphatically not a religion. To these individuals, the word "secular" means "not religious" and is an assertion of their desire to be not associated with religion.
o Using the fundamentalists' definition of secular humanism, the question of whether secular humanism is a religion or not is not coherent: secular humanism denotes a range of world views, some of which are religious and some of which are not.
* If one does not use self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
o What definition of "religion" one adheres to will determine whether some varieties of nontheistic humanism should be regarded as religious or not.

In other words, quit trying to label us. :-)

Hmm, question of semantics? Who always uses that?

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

humanist manifestoes

in the humanist manifestos it is specifically stated that humanism is a religion. The authors understood that it was one, and only recently stopped using that terminology for political reasons.

………… parent

Citation?

I've never seen it called a religion, nor have I ever seen someone claim to have dropped it for political reasons. Can you give me some sources?

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

And also

welcome to SC seabreeze =)

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Second that! n/t

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Yea, I read those too.

But I am trying to drive towards a specific goal and those weren't helping! :-)

Even so, I think that some of the discussion in those points is not really in line with the more formal definitions of religion, belief, etc. found in the wiki nor in the webster dictionary.

In other words, quit trying to label us. :-)

Gee, am I that transparent? He he. The funny thing is that I am trying to get you to help me do it. :-)

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Sorry, can't agree.

What if religion did not exist? Would that make everyone by default atheists? Answer: yes, but the title would be meaningless. Would that make everyone by default believers in no God? Answer: no. You can't be labeled a believer in something whose conception doesn't exist for you.

We can show this with a thought experiment. I can create an idea in my mind of something new, be it a Being or an Idea or whatever. And then I don't tell you about it. Is it correct for me to label you a believer against my Being or Idea, especially if I'm not telling you what it is?

Not really. It's not just not a part of your belief system: it's outside your horizon of experience entirely. You can call it a belief only by stretching the meaning of that term to the point of meaninglessness.

Now.

That being said, I do believe in the distinctions between what someone (I forget where) called "strong atheism" and "weak atheism". The first is a proactive, if not evangelical, belief that God-theories are wrong. The second is a passive lack-of-belief: people for whom any concept of "higher being" exists outside of their daily horizon of experience. I'm one of those. If people didn't bring up religion in conversation, it likely wouldn't occur to me to think about it at all.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Theism is not the same thing as Religion.

Theism is merely the belief in the existence of god (or gods).

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

By Specter's argument atheism is not a religion because it has fundamental differences regarding rituals, systematized conduct or morals, and in most cases deities.

So, by that argument is it not possible for me to "believe in god" (i.e. and thus be theistic) but not practice any rituals or systematized conduct? If that is the case then I can be theistic yet not religious, hence theism is not a religion by Specter's argument.

Do you disagree?

Religion, on the other hand, does NOT necessarily imply a deity or anything supernatural:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious [a nun in her 20th year of religion] b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity [a religious person] [religious attitudes]
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances [joined a religious order]
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Using these definitions (with appropriate attention paid to the "or"s) can I not legitimately claim that something fits the definition of (and therefore is) a religion if it satisfies (or represents) the following:

A personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality

For secular progressives, the ultimate reality would be that there is no god or that we on earth don't really need to concern ourselves with god. Is this not a fair description?

It should likewise not be difficult to categorize a number of beliefs and attitudes common to people that would consider themselves to be secular progressives. Practices might be more difficult but certainly doable I think.

So, assuming that I was to bother, would this not represent a valid argument that secular progressivism is, in fact, a religion?

It doesn't necessarily need to be an organized group to be a religion, but as you know I could easily come up with groups to fill this role as well.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Religion: disagree

Religion, on the other hand, does NOT necessarily imply a deity or anything supernatural

In the sense that you're using it, yes it does. The M-W, while not the best English dictionary out there, is trying to cover all its bases, and uses which don't contain some element of the super-natural (that is, something which transcends everyday direct experience) are metaphorical, not literal. It's a fair use, but not the one you want.

ex) My brother is religiously devoted to the Mets.

That's not true, but it's one of the many ways "religious" is used in a non-literal way, which is what the M-L is describing with that entry.

As for being a "theist" without being "religious", that's usually what people mean when they say they're "spiritual", but unaffiliated. So I agree on that part.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Not all religion is theist

Religion: disagree

Religion, on the other hand, does NOT necessarily imply a deity or anything supernatural

There are many religions that have no "god" in any critter sense. Confucians are agnostic at best (basically saying that they are entirely secular in the sense that it is irrelevant to theism)Taoism, Buddhism, probably others have not concept that is a God critter, and many more have gods that are not actually real in any "critter" sense, but more embodiments of ideas.

So yes a religion may be secular, but secular in no way implies anti-Christian or atheist. There have been many who were/are both Confucian and Christian.

Just because a concept isn't neat and tidy doesn't make it wrong.

The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.

………… parent

What are you agreeing/disagreeing with?

I didn't use "theism" above because I don't think it's a useful term. I used "super-natural", and yes, everything we consider a religion has some element of a belief that transcends our everyday material reality, be it a god, be it an animus naturae, be it the force, or whatever. Confucianism is a special case, because it is not fundamentally a religion even though many brands of it are intertwined with older, pre-Confucian beliefs (here's a decent overview of the problem).

This isn't about whether a concept itself is neat and tidy, but whether we have any intentions of using language itself in a meaningful way. What I'm trying to get across, and why I keep pressing this point, is that if we're going to start calling secular phenomena religions, we might as well ditch the words "religion", "secular", "philosophies", and whatever else we're arbitrarily conflating, because they'll no longer have meanings.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Religion is many things

I would not wish to remove the secular from religion because almost everything positive about religion is secular. That is secular in having nothing to do with the supernatural, theist or otherwise.

If you forget for a moment all the all the exhortations about plainly undoable things, and insistence that this particular group of people, much less galaxy has the particular full time attention of a critter that has all of them to look after, but has such a weak ego as to need full time affirmation, there are many good things a religion can accomplish for its members, and sometimes even its non-members.

In small sane communities most of the social interactions revolve around the church, and that is more often a mover of social action than the political structures, not because of the supernatural, but because it is supportive of each member to be an accepted part of the group (something the town councils do poorly.)

It is too bad that all the superstition and bigotry cannot be dumped off permanently, while keeping what is good.

The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.

………… parent

These are good points,

especially in light of situations like Katrina, where independent groups - whether religious or not - did more ground work than the government.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Nah,

So yes a religion may be secular, but secular in no way implies anti-Christian or atheist.

Religions are not secular (as secular means non-religious: A ≠ -A), but I agree that there are non-theistic religions.

We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida

………… parent

Need to dig up more background.

I understand the point you are making above with your example and I agree, that this is a legitimate use of the word religious. Undoubtedly the M-W was intending this case to be covered under this sense of the word, but is that the only legitimate thing that would?

You seem to be excluding the possibility of non-theistic religions. The wikpedia article mentions one such possibility, Buddhism I think. Would you not consider these types of things to be legitimate religions then?

Also, even in the use you provide in your example, depending on just HOW devoted your hypothetical brother is would it not be fair to say that he was, in fact, acting as if he were part of such a religion? Why else would people have come up with this use of the word? Given that, is there a substantive difference between a true religion and people who are just acting as if they were in one?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Not excluding non-theistic religions:

that's why I referred to something super-natural (I know the hyphen looks stupid, but I'm trying to distinguish it from the banal supernatural) and/or transcendent of everyday reality, rather than a deity.

Unless my hypothetical Mets-fan brother starts believing that the team has a connection with a higher consciousness, I wouldn't call his fandom a religion, except metaphorically. Admittedly, there are some rabid Mets fans who probably do.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Does this distinction matter?

For all intents and purposes do they not act like the religious? (which is sort of why this word is being applied)

For example, I would say that it is fair to say that most sports fans exhibit the following characteristics (at least the ones that would be termed "religious"):

1) They are superstitious, as in they believe in luck.

2) They have "rituals" that they perform based on those superstitions: lucky shirts, lucky hats, do the same things before games, etc. Each person may have a unique ritual but that hardly matters.

3) They gather together in large groups at the appointed times.

4) They may run and/or participate in "fund raisers" for charity.

I could probably think of a few more but this makes the point.

Thoughts?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

If you wanted to stretch the definition that way,

I wouldn't protest too much, unless you wanted to claim that this form of "religion" is what the founders had in mind with the establishment clause ("Congress shall pass no law towards the establishment of baseball as a national sport?") Could we both agree that, even if we recognized some superficial resemblance between Religion (capital R) and religion-as-metaphor, we wouldn't treat them the same way when it comes to policy? Otherwise my dad's shrine to all things New Orleans Saints will soon make our house eligible for tax-free status, since it's a place of 'worship'!

Incidentally, none of those criteria, except occasionally the third and the fourth, apply to secular humanists. ;)

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

What are human rights?

Where do they come from, do they change through the ages, can anyone give a clear definition of what they actually are?

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

…………

Personally I don't like...

...arguing from human rights for exactly that reason. The concept seem poorly grounded.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

This is a great question

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

OUtline principles in the Declaration of Human Rights

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
The right to life, liberty and security of person.
Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Freedom of expression and opinion.
The right to an education.

Interesting that Elanor Roosevlet was a member of the commision that helped to draw up the declaration, saying it is not a treaty but more like an international magna carta.

………… parent

Doesn't the very concept of Human Rights

beg the question of when you "become human" from a legal standpoint?

I would argue that your humanity begins at conception because that is when your individual genetic blueprint is formed.

Others seem to favor "birth" as the point at which you become human. To me this is a very arbitrary point in time, however, as it does not seem to me that the act of passing through the birth canal actually transforms the fetus in any fundamental way.

Why should the fetus 5 minutes before birth be considered any more human that the baby five minutes after birth? What happened in those ten minutes to make such a fundamental and profound change?

This also seems to raise a question about the humanity of anyone delivered by Cesarian Section. These individuals did not ever actually pass through the birth canal, so are they truly human?

Liberals tend to profess allegiance to all things scientific. So why is it that they cling to such an unscientific definition for the beginning of one's humanity, as opposed to say conception when the genetic blueprint is formed? Doesn't this latter definition at least have some relation to some definition of being human?

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Rights Evolve

Many on the Left and the Right disagree with my point of view, but I'll give it anyway.

Before conception, a human does exist. There is a such thing as a soul. We are energy beings, or spiritual beings, having a human experience.

The building blocks for your physical manifestation are human. Your father's sperm and mother's egg: human.

The nurturance from your mother's womb: human nurturance, and your single fertilized cell evolves those materials and conditions to grow according to a gentic blueprint. All human. Human DNA, Human Mother's womb. Nutrified human blood. Dividing and specializing human cells.

No doubt that human life is present at conception, and no doubt human life even precedes conception.

But is that human life a citizen with RIGHTS? NOPE!

I do not like the idea that human rights are rooted in national constitutions or social contracts. Fortunately, no one has the disadvantage of having to argue from that point of view, since basic human rights are a matter of internationally recognized law.

So, at conception, a human life with internationally recognized human rights? NOPE!

Why not? Well, because no PERSON can be said to EXIST unless their existence can persist outside the womb unaided.

And it is this concept which leads me to conclude that human rights EVOLVE.

From conception to birth, the rights of an unborn human life inside the womb is ENTIRELY at the discretion of that being who has the right to choose whether to nurture, or not. Society cannot dictate that a pregnant woman must carry a pregnancy to term, because SOCIETY CANNOT DICTATE the circumstances of pregnancy for each and every person.

Once human life leaves the womb, we refer to them as a person. That person however, does not have an absolute right to live such that any failure to save their life arising from complications of birth or premature birth or illness, or genetic disease, etc, can be considered MURDER. Or even involuntary manslaughter. Or even medical malpractice.

Once however, a person has safely passed the threshold of birth and has been named and nurtured, we can say they have a right to life. But not much else!

Surely, they can be conferred with inheritances, and insured, and bestowed property. etc, but until they are able to carry on their own affairs competently, their welfare is in the stewardship of a guardian, usually, their parents.

Usually, children acquire rights to be nurtured, such that neglect to provide such nurturance can be criminal. But rights to proper clothing, food, medical care, and shelter are really just extensions of their right to live.

Children do not enjoy an immunity from corporal punishment, but usually, it's not necessary, and even the mildest reproofs are sufficient to gain compliance to instruction from adults.

Children do not enjoy a right to free speech, as they can be told to shut up at any time, and for any reason. However, this is usually for the purpose of teaching decorum and protocol, and not to suppress the expression of children, if done correctly.

Children have few legal rights under the age of twelve, yet when they are of age to be schooled, the state will advocate on their behalf to ensure that they receive education.

At age twelve, a person becomes a minor that is older than a child, although many people still think of twelve-year-olds as being children. Minors have quite a lot more freedom and responsibilities than children, yet they still do not have all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult. Minors do have some legal rights and can bring actions in court if harmed or offended.

We say that people are adults at age 18, but in reality they still do not have full rights and responsibilities as do people who are 21 yrs of age.

One must be 25 to be a representative in Congress. One must be 35 to be president. One must have 30 yrs seniority to retire from public service at a full pension. One must be 65 years old to retire with full social security retirement benefits.

And so we see that rights do accumulate according to passages of time.

It seems to me that those on the right wish to argue that a fetus, at conception, has the rights that a citizen does when fully grown as an adult.

It's an irrational view that does not comply with our traditions or with our reason.

The right has been successful in placing some restraints on abortion under some circumstances, and we do not know whether this has had good effects or not. But they have sought to extend the personhood of a child backwards in time to the time before they were born.

It's a bad precedent. I could write a cautionary tale, about a group of people who establish an advocacy group to fight for the interests of a person who does not exist, but whom they sincerely believe, will one day manifest. And they are a litigious group, fighting in court at every turn for every conceivable advantage that their imaginary person may someday need, and indeed, is ENTITLED TO HAVE!

While I concede that the right is indeed CORRECT to assert that human life begins at conception (I'll even go one better and agree with the pre-existence of souls), I do not think that concession allows the LEAP that must be made to accord a single fertilized human cell the same rights as Mr John Q. Smith, esq, 21 yrs of age and residing in a comfortable nook of Somerset.

………… parent

Who cares about the blueprint?

So when the blueprint is complete, we call it a building?
The Mother still needs to construct the human being from the blueprint, and if she chooses not to, then I leave that choice to her.

You are misstating the pro-choice position. know nobody who sees the 5 minutes before birth as less human than 5 minutes afterwards, the only case that is raised is when birth defects make live birth very dangerous to the health of the mother. So in the first case (5 min before) the birth is a major risk, while in the second, it is not.

………… parent

How is that any less arbitrary?

I would argue that your humanity begins at conception because that is when your individual genetic blueprint is formed.

Others seem to favor "birth" as the point at which you become human. To me this is a very arbitrary point in time, however, as it does not seem to me that the act of passing through the birth canal actually transforms the fetus in any fundamental way.

But it does, because it separates the fetus from the other body, marking its first moments as an independent - and independently sustainable - being.

Now go back to your example: I understand the genetic blueprint argument, but really, what is it? Concretely speaking? It's one chemical attaching to another: there's nothing there except a potential. The sum total of what's actually there is no different than what's in a shed skin cell: a few chemicals bound together that contain my genetic blueprint.

Whether I feel so strongly about either those examples is beside the point: the sad fact is that nature has not provided us with any clear-cut ways of dealing with the issue of early human development. We'll never have a satisfactory solution until sex and childbirth is rendered "unnatural" - either by full control over reproductivity (i.e., a way to prevent accidental pregnancies for sure) or some independent form of gestation. Not that either of those is necessarily good either, but at the moment I'd argue that this issue is, to use Nietzsche's line, beyond good and evil. Hell, beyond the limitations of our moral universe.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Actually, Boston Legal made in interesting point.

I don't think we are there yet (perhaps soon though), where the technology should exist to allow a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus to be potentially transplanted from one women to another.

Once this is possible it opens up the possibility for the would be father to be able to have the child removed from the natural mother (who in this case presumably prefers an abortion) and have it implanted into a surrogate who could bring the baby to term (presumably for a fee of some sort).

I am curious as to how the liberals would react to this type of scenario and how they would view the father's rights in this case.

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Ban the practice

Until every person in the country has health care coverage.

Let the guy decide BEFORE conception which woman he wants to be the mother of his child.

I think people wasting money with these kinds of high tech dramas is just the epitome of snobbery.

ANYONE engaged in this kind of drama has TOO MUCH MONEY on their hands.

………… parent

Argument moot after implantation

Before implantation the argument has already been in the courts. As embryos are routinely stored in liquid nitrogen awaiting implantation.

After implantation any disturbance in the Placental wall/womb dance of new blood vessels, and transfers of everything would bring about an immediate miscarriage/abortion, unless the lungs were advanced enough to work on their own.

What is interesting is the number of such miscarriages in the church graveyards, from before Rowe made it a partisan football. Especially considering their great numbers until recently.

The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.

………… parent

Tissue Transfer

I am curious as to how the liberals would react to this type of scenario and how they would view the father's rights in this case.

I'd pretty much regard it as any other type of tissue transfer (blood, semen, bone marrow, organ). That is to say that the pregnant woman would have the right to refuse even if she were going to simply abort. At the same time I think she should take the guy's interests into account. Hopefully if she really doesn't want the pregnancy and the guy really does and has a willing host and will cover the cost she'll agree. But I can't see forcing her if she doesn't, anymore than I agree with forcing people to give blood.

Yeah it may be the decent thing to do but sometimes people have the right to be jerks.

On the other hand I've long been a proponent of having some form of option whereby a man can opt out of his parental rights during early pregnancy. This gives the man an out, much as the woman has. The guy should not have the right to force her to get an abortion but allowing him to terminate his parental rights and responsibilities (as long as it is done early enough to allow her time to decide how that affects her and if she wants to continue on with the pregnancy knowing it will be without his support) seems fair.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

As far as I'm concerned...

...a fetus is a human being (as opposed to human cellular tissue) once it is developed enough to live outside the womb with no more care than a full term baby requires. At that point it is an organism (a complete living thing unto itself) and not part of the mother. I'd rely on medical science to define when that point occurs but it appears to be in late pregnancy after 30 weeks. I support abortion for any reason until that point. After that point only if the mother's health is endangered.

For whatever it is worth.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Implications

So does that mean the mentally retarded, people in comas and the elderly are not covered since they cann't survive by themselves or without outside help?

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

………… parent

Not really

As I see it once you become an organism you are considered one until death. It's a threshold that is reached not a continuing evaluation.

However there is a point to be careful of here: "outside help" is a misleading term since it can mean a wide variety of things. A baby needs outside help but it is an organism unto itself. It cannot forage for food but provided with suitable food it will go through the process of ingestion-digestion-excretion. That's different than say a premie fetus which needs machines to do the digestion and respiration for it because its own body is simply under-developed.

as a side note-
Anyone on critical life support is technically a cyborg for however long they remain on the life support. Some of the functions that define them as alive are being carried out by a machine.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Cyborg

The same could be said for people having kidney dyalasis or those with pacemkers. Without technology many of us wouldn't be here. Are they any less entitled to "human rights" though? Personally I believe human rights are todays societies "contracts" (assurances and insurances to other members in society that we won't screw over them over). Essentally they now only exist to conseve the status quo of a by-gone era.

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

………… parent

Cyborg still has a mind, and that is the difference

1 Once a mind has fully arrived, and before it has fully left you have a human.

2 Before it has begun to arrive and after it has left you have protoplasm/meat/whatever.

3 Between those points you have a valid argument that is heart rending at best, and very individual cases to decide at the least.

That a Houston hospital starved to death a quadriplegic child, with a real functioning mind, because he did not have enough money to live, even as they spent millions over Terri Schievo, puts the hard light on where priorities really are.

A mid term fetus that does not yet have the structure for a mind to exist, and a Karen Quinlin/Terry Schievo who no longer have a structure for the mind to exist are definitely option 2.

That enough technology would have allowed you to raise a clone of either in their own womb, would (aside from being ethically awful) still not get you the original person back, even though they would obviously have a lot of similarities.

Even a spontaneous "Miracle Clone" while physically possible (and as likely as in normal women) would still not be the original person.

The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.

………… parent

Great explanation

Rational. And it addresses loose ends and objections.

Thanks.

………… parent

cyborgs

The same could be said for people having kidney dyalasis or those with pacemkers.

Yep.

Are they any less entitled to "human rights" though?

I find the concept of human rights to be ill founded so I prefer not toargue from them. However if you want to ask "does it make them any less human" then my answer is that it depends. A human being who suffers damage (e.g. heart attack) and must then be hooked up to a machine, or a human being who has full developed but with some glitch (e.g. diabetes) are both fully human.

On the other hand a premie fetus that needs to be hooked up to life support is not human yet. It simply has not yet developed enough to be human. It is still merely tissue, no different than a skin sample kept alive in ager.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Can anything be certain?

First a definition of certain. A proposition which is indubitable, undoutable and unquestionable. An absolute truth no matter what action preceeded it or proceeds from it. If we take the "simulation theory", the creator has the power to change anything and everything including our memories. What is true today could be false tommorrow and vice versa. The same goes for the dream theory, hallocenations (or madness) and the "deceptive God". Using these examples, is certain knowledge possible, and if it is should this not be what we base all our actions upon, the truth?

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

…………

I'm not the expert on this,

since I already got called out on using physics examples :)

But since much of what we know of the physical universe relies on probabilities rather than certainties, I'm not sure how we could ever bee 100% sure of anything.

Then again, I don't believe in a higher power, so that automatically leaves me out of one branch of that discussion. If there is a higher power, that would complicate things.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Certainty

Your own existence?

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee

………… parent

Yeah, there's a pretty good chance. ;)

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent