Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 11:16 PM 11/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says I'm personally opposed to killing gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to make killing gays illegal. I see how you rationalize it John, but it doesn't hold water with me. But, it is also worth noting that we have never permitted any two people to marry. For example, we don't permit brother and sister to marry, or father and daughter, or mother and son. So again, its not like we are permitting heteros to do something that gays cannot - everyone is bound by the same restriction. Furthermore, many of the benefits of marriage can be achieved through other legal means. Thus, the debate becomes not that these benefits are being denied outright, but that these benefits are made more easily available to one sort of relationshipw which society has chosen to favor. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 6, 2004, at 11:02 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: John wrote: This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity. In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. You mean like Gays? First they came for the single moms and I did not speak out because I was not a single mom. Then they came for welfare cheats and I did not speak out because I was not on welfare. Then they came for the gays and I did not speak out because I was not gay. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- with apologies to Martin Niemöller ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First they came for the single moms and I did not speak out because I was not a single mom. Then they came for welfare cheats and I did not speak out because I was not on welfare. Then they came for the gays and I did not speak out because I was not gay. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- with apologies to Martin Niemöller Well, I was worried that the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to figure out a way to lose the _next_ election. I see that was ill-founded. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 8, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First they came for the single moms and I did not speak out because I was not a single mom. Then they came for welfare cheats and I did not speak out because I was not on welfare. Then they came for the gays and I did not speak out because I was not gay. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. -- with apologies to Martin Niemöller Well, I was worried that the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to figure out a way to lose the _next_ election. I see that was ill-founded. Thankfully, the Democratic party doesn't follow my lead. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 11:02 PM 11/6/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: John wrote: This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. You mean like Gays? Well, I've thought about this, and no, I don't mean like gays. First of all, as I have noted many times before, gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex in this country. Thus, gays do have the full rights of every other member of society - there is no double-standard. Secondly, gays are free to marry to as gays in any Church that would recognize such union. Lastly, as you know, I do support some form of civil unions that might provide a number of legal conveniences for gay couples. Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says I'm personally opposed to killing gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to make killing gays illegal. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
John wrote: Therfore, I do feel quite comfortable in saying that the comparison doesn't hold.After all, nobody here says I'm personally opposed to killing gays, but I don't want to impose my morality on other people by voting to make killing gays illegal. I see how you rationalize it John, but it doesn't hold water with me. If you don't allow partners to make medical decisions for each other, deny them visitation rights, contest and overrule their powers of attorney with great frequency; if you force homosexual couples to testify against each other in a court of law when heteros have the right to refuse testimony, then you are denying them the full rights of humanity. Here's a good essay on the subject: http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm There really is no good reason to deny Gay people the same rights accorded heterosexuals, the reason we do comes down to xenophobia or as you stated it they are not like us in some way. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Aren't we being a little narrow here, concerning ourselves with only the genotype? I'd say the phenotype is as important, if not vastly more important then the genotype. After all, you could theoretically use chemicals to interfere with genetic expression and transform a clump of cells with a human genetic payload, and get it to manifest as, say, an ape. A better thought experiment might be, if you swap a gorilla's and a human's brain, and over time, the alien cells die and are replaced by native cells, which one is truly human. ~Maru, who thinks that the criterion should be sentience, not any physical paramaters. From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain I said: This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a viable organism (given a suitable environment in which morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of species have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, so one can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral species C, and from there towards species B.) I should note that this isn't the situation I described in my original thought experiment, because the genomes of the ancestral forms will in general not be combinations of various parts of modern genomes. This means that, for example, that there might not be viable organisms with a genome that is half human and half chimp. Getting around this issue was assumed to be part of the fiendish process involved by my scientist. I don't think this affects my argument at all though, but if it does one can construct a similar series along the path through gene space described above. Rich __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
JDG said: An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to accept it: How is this position morally different from being personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against it but ultimately not standing in the way of it? Whilst these are not morally different if one is working from the axiom that foetuses are people, but it clearly is if one does not accept said axiom. If, for the sake of argument, one considers sufficiently undeveloped foetuses to be morally akin to non-human animals rather than people then the position would be analogous to being an evangelical vegetarian but not standing in the way of people eating meat should they choose. One might even reasonably choose a position that placed foetuses further down the scale of things worthy of moral consideration. As there is no discernible essence of human-ness, I think that any reasonable position would accept that there is *some* position along the developmental process before which abortion should not be banned. (Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would presumably make a similar argument. The difference is that foetuses are clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of humanity? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? (Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would presumably make a similar argument. The difference is that foetuses are clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) Let's use that arguement. What about infants? The intellectual functional ability of a 8 week premature baby is certainly not functioanlly equivalent to even a full term infant. Indeed, one could make a strong arguement that an adult chimp functions at a superior level than a premature infant. Thus, since it is not murder to kill the chimp, it is not murder to kill the premature infant...since potential doesn't count. I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of humanity? Isn't this just Zeno's paradox? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:00:10PM +, Richard Baker wrote: and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? I can see the soul now! Soul: [Looks at zygote with 1% chimp] Oh, yuck, I'm not going in there! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
Erik said: I can see the soul now! Soul: [Looks at zygote with 1% chimp] Oh, yuck, I'm not going in there! Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or would it? what if there were two classes of people who were indistinguishable in all ways except that one class makes the soulometer beep and the other doesn't?). Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:30:48PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or would it? It seems like a solid problem to me. So...it would sublimate. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
I said: This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a viable organism (given a suitable environment in which morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of species have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, so one can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral species C, and from there towards species B.) I should note that this isn't the situation I described in my original thought experiment, because the genomes of the ancestral forms will in general not be combinations of various parts of modern genomes. This means that, for example, that there might not be viable organisms with a genome that is half human and half chimp. Getting around this issue was assumed to be part of the fiendish process involved by my scientist. I don't think this affects my argument at all though, but if it does one can construct a similar series along the path through gene space described above. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient? Dan said: You argue from infintesmals...since one cannot exactly define the dividing line, it doesn't exist. But, in reality of course, the cluster in gene space that defines humans is a number of SD away from the cluster than defines the closest apes. This may well be so, and yet for any pair of species A and B there are paths in gene space that have the property that one end of the path is in the cluster for species A, the other end of the path is in cluster B, and every point along the path gives the genome of a viable organism (given a suitable environment in which morphogenesis can occur). (This is true because any pair of species have a common ancestor if one looks far enough back in time, so one can head from species A towards a genome from the ancestral species C, and from there towards species B.) Given this, if one wishes to define species membership as a binary predicate, then one will necessarily be able to produce viable organisms that span the boundary between the member of species A region and the not member of species A region, and furthermore to do so in such gradual steps that the distribution of individuals look essentially continuous in any variable one wishes to measure. I understand your gedanken experiment and agree that it might have been harder to seperate the humans from the non-humans than it is now. I don't know where the dividing line is. But, I have a pretty good feel for the foundation of our definition. It is non-emperical: beings who perceive as I do. My reflective self awareness exists, but I cannot show it to you. Models of human behavior that include this + all the science we know have no predictive ability than those that simply contain all the science that we know. Fundamentally, I think of humans as those beings who also have this reflective self awareness. This runs into obvious problemswhich are referred to in the part of my post that I am mulling. We see that there has been horrible abuse of people based on the assumption: they aren't really like us...the differences are large enough so that we can treat them as sub-human. This history has made me quite suspect of any arguements that restrict humanity. But, there is an obvious cut point that exists. Humans are quite different from the closest species to them in gene space. I'll fully agree that we can go back in time, backtracking evolution until we get to an organism that clearly wasn't human. I'll agree that we probably don't know where the exact point was that people first existed. But, I hope you can see that not knowing where the dividing line between set A and set B is doesn't mean there isn't an important difference. The actual difference is the reflective self awareness. I assume that there is a being like me typing on a keyboard in response to me that goes by the handle Richard Baker. But, as Wittgenstein pointed out, we cannot even use language to understand the interior sense of the other. So, we have beliefs about that. We use metaphorical language to describe that which transcends the empiricalor at least exists without empirical proof. I think these understandings can be described and discussedeven if we cannot exactly find boundaries. What we can do, though, is set boundaries at the most reasonable looking places. Yes, they are, by necessity, somewhat artificial, but we do that all the time elsewhere. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 06:30 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: Quite. But if one could see souls, this problem would evaporate (or would it? what if there were two classes of people who were indistinguishable in all ways except that one class makes the soulometer beep and the other doesn't?). Speaking for myself, it wouldn't change my position. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 06:00 PM 11/6/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to accept it: How is this position morally different from being personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against it but ultimately not standing in the way of it? Whilst these are not morally different if one is working from the axiom that foetuses are people, but it clearly is if one does not accept said axiom. If, for the sake of argument, one considers sufficiently undeveloped foetuses to be morally akin to non-human animals rather than people then the position would be analogous to being an evangelical vegetarian but not standing in the way of people eating meat should they choose. One might even reasonably choose a position that placed foetuses further down the scale of things worthy of moral consideration. As there is no discernible essence of human-ness, I think that any reasonable position would accept that there is *some* position along the developmental process before which abortion should not be banned. So, are you saying that I am not a reasonable person? (Of course, the Nazis considered Jews to be sub-human so they would presumably make a similar argument. This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. The difference is that foetuses are clearly not functionally equivalent to adults or even children, whereas Jews are indistinguishable except for cultural factors [and in some cases, perhaps, certain genetic markers] from other people.) Of course, would not the Nazis have argued that the Jews are inferior, and therfore clearly not functionally equivalent? This returns me to my question, however, regarding being personally opposed but unwilling to vote for restrictions on a behavior.You note that this question makes the most sense if one is working from the axiom that foetuses are people - yet, if one is personally opposed isn't this clearly the case? I have a counter-question (or rather some counter-questions!). You clearly believe in a form of essentialism that makes human life sacrosanct. Let me assume, for the moment, that you do not believe that chimpanzees should have the same rights as people. (If you differ from this position, I can rebuild the thought experiment along slightly different lines.) Now, let's suppose that some dastardly scientist has created a whole series of foetuses that have varying amounts of human and chimpanzee genes. At one end, there's one that's 99% human and 1% chimpanzee. At the other end, there's one that's 1% human and 99% chimp. Between these extremes they vary in 1% increments. Now, which of these (if any) do you consider should be worthy of the same protection that fully human foetuses should be accorded? Which of the adults derived from these foetuses should have full human rights? What determines the position of the boundary? If you consider the answer depends on exactly which human and chimp genes are included, which factors are most important? If you say that none are worthy of being considered human, is there any degree of chimp genome (perhaps one gene or a section of introns) that could be spliced in without removing the essence of humanity? This is a difficult quesiton in a number of ways. First, I would be opposed to most such genetic engineering in the first place.Secondly, the technology described is so far beyond present capabilities as to be entirely fanciful. Suffice to say, this is a challenge without practical importance. Lastly, I agree with Dan on this being primarily Zeno's paradox.I believe that there is a line between human and non-human, although I don't have the biological expertise to draw the line specifically. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
John wrote: This is, of course, my point. Throughout human history one group of humans has sought to define a nother group of humans that are not like us in some way, as not having the full rights of humanity.In every previous case, we have gone on to look with horror upon those who make those arguments. You mean like Gays? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 08:30 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: I know what a skilled rhetorician you can be, so I suspect you've asked your question to make a point :-). I think the words you are looking for are Socratic dialogue. ;-) (Not that I'm some Socrates, mind you... just using the same technique of making a point through questions.) There's a world of difference between being Christ's hands and feet and assuming that we are responsible for saving the world from evil. But here's the real point to my question - why are we called to be Christ's hands and feet in saving the poor from economic oppression, but not Christ's hands and feet in saving the downtrodden from political oppression? After all, Christians believe that that has already been accomplished. Well, as Christians we believe that the world has been saved from spiritual evil, but that we still have responsibility for correcting all sorts of physical evils and injustices. And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror. I think that the experience in Iraq has been nothing, if not humbling. Q: What kind of God does it take to leave the whole world in the hands of a bunch of humans? A: One who gave us the Holy Spirit. Great line. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:32 AM Subject: Re: The Magic Ingredient? And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror. I think that the experience in Iraq has been nothing, if not humbling. What is worrisome to many of us is that we see no indication of such humility with Bush and company. I've seen that sort of thing before in other management teams. Their vision is so absolute, no facts can interfere with it. Maybe Bush is just putting a brave face on, realizing the tremendous mistakes he's made...and is a wiser man for it. But, there are no data that really indicate that. Indeed, the indications that I get is that he has a mandate to go full out, now that he actually got more votes than anyone else. He's talking about making his tax cuts permanent, adding a few more, and revamping Social Security by letting younger people opt out (or at least partially opt out). Plus he wants to revamp the tax lawwhich should mean changing it so it favors those who create jobs even more. All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do is get Roe vs. Wade overturned. That would give the Democrats an easy way to be the majority party again. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 5, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote: All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do is get Roe vs. Wade overturned. That would give the Democrats an easy way to be the majority party again. As much as I'd like to agree with you on this point, and as much as I'd like to see my party lead again, I am not sure that this is true any more. The Well /I/ never... crowd is large and in charge. This is not to say that we should give up on progressive causes, just that we need to live in the world we live in, working to change it by appealing to those who think differently than we do. Blessings, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: Re: The Magic Ingredient? On Nov 5, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote: All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do is get Roe vs. Wade overturned. That would give the Democrats an easy way to be the majority party again. As much as I'd like to agree with you on this point, and as much as I'd like to see my party lead again, I am not sure that this is true any more. The Well /I/ never... crowd is large and in charge. This is not to say that we should give up on progressive causes, just that we need to live in the world we live in, working to change it by appealing to those who think differently than we do. I feel I need to point out that I'm opposed to abortionand think it regressive...just as I'm opposed to the death penalty. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 5, 2004, at 4:32 AM, JDG wrote: I know what a skilled rhetorician you can be, so I suspect you've asked your question to make a point :-). I think the words you are looking for are Socratic dialogue. ;-) (Not that I'm some Socrates, mind you... just using the same technique of making a point through questions.) Ladies and Gentlemen, tonight the part of John D. Giorgis will be played by John Houseman. Actually, I think the words I was looking for were rhetorical question, though I am glad to join you for a peripatetic conversation. Giorgis ... Gorgias ... Plato ... Oh, I get it! (Hint: http://tinyurl.com/6xuuo) There's a world of difference between being Christ's hands and feet and assuming that we are responsible for saving the world from evil. But here's the real point to my question - why are we called to be Christ's hands and feet in saving the poor from economic oppression, but not Christ's hands and feet in saving the downtrodden from political oppression? Of course, we /are/ called to help save the downtrodden from political oppression. Right here, I could play to type and make a smart-ass comment about how something like 49% of the electorate tried to do just that. In fact, I just did. After all, Christians believe that that has already been accomplished. Well, as Christians we believe that the world has been saved from spiritual evil, but that we still have responsibility for correcting all sorts of physical evils and injustices. Good point. The difficulty remains knowing when we're /serving/ God by correcting all sorts of physical evils and injustices, and when we're /usurping/ God. I /really/ don't have an answer for that, although that's exactly what I'm hoping to use to inform my choices in the coming years as a member of the minority party. And note that I am /not/ saying opposition party, because I fear that's part of why the Dems are a minority party. And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror. I think that the experience in Iraq has been nothing, if not humbling. Sadly, that remains to be seen: it certainly has the makings of a humbling, but it is for the future to show us whether the architects of our Iraq policy demonstrate any humility, or whether what I would call hubris (as long as we're calling on the spirit of Greece) continues to animate them. Q: What kind of God does it take to leave the whole world in the hands of a bunch of humans? A: One who gave us the Holy Spirit. Great line. Thanks. I have a hard time living like a temple of the Holy Spirit. All too often, a more worldly spirit seems to hold sway. That's why I'm taking Blessings, Dave ... for [Giorgis] has just been exhibiting to us many fine things. -- Socrates, in Plato's Gorgias ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 5, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I feel I need to point out that I'm opposed to abortion and think it regressive... just as I'm opposed to the death penalty. Rock on, brother. I admire that principled combination, and find it odd that there are many other brothers and sisters who are totally absorbed in the anti-abortion movement who have no problem with state-sponsored killing of other sorts. Somehow, they believe that killing unborn people is always evil, but killing born people contingently so. I'm personally opposed to abortion, too. If a friend or relative was thinking about having an abortion, I'd certainly counsel her away from that option. It's quite another thing, in my mind, to make it illegal, and it is one of the things that make America a good place to live that things like this are open to debate. Blessings, Dave Thou Shalt Not Kill Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 03:41 PM 11/5/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: I feel I need to point out that I'm opposed to abortion and think it regressive... just as I'm opposed to the death penalty. Rock on, brother. I admire that principled combination, and find it odd that there are many other brothers and sisters who are totally absorbed in the anti-abortion movement who have no problem with state-sponsored killing of other sorts. Somehow, they believe that killing unborn people is always evil, but killing born people contingently so. O.k, as a pro-life person who is also prett much against the death penalty, isn't the distinction between innocent and guilty life self-evident? I'm personally opposed to abortion, too. An a honest question for you, but its a doozy, if you choose to accept it: How is this position morally different from being personally opposed to the killing of Jews and counseling against it but ultimately not standing in the way of it? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush II Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 10:12 AM 11/5/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror. I think that the experience in Iraq has been nothing, if not humbling. What is worrisome to many of us is that we see no indication of such humility with Bush and company. I've seen that sort of thing before in other management teams. Their vision is so absolute, no facts can interfere with it. Maybe Bush is just putting a brave face on, realizing the tremendous mistakes he's made...and is a wiser man for it. But, there are no data that really indicate that. Well, I won't debate this at length because we certainly shall see.I am personally not one to believe that people who otherwise seem quite intelligent are actually phenomenally stupid. (Please no stupid partisan jokes here.)It is almost inconceivable to me that the past two years' experience in Iraq, the complete scrapping of all of their plans, and the deteriorating situation there almost costing them the election was not humbling. I am inclined to believe that all of this was very much brave face stuff designed for the election year. Indeed, the indications that I get is that he has a mandate to go full out, now that he actually got more votes than anyone else. He's talking about making his tax cuts permanent, adding a few more, and revamping Social Security by letting younger people opt out (or at least partially opt out). Plus he wants to revamp the tax lawwhich should mean changing it so it favors those who create jobs even more. I'd be interested in your response to the Slate.com article on this subject I posted in response to Dr. Brin a week ago or so. Your conclusions do seem spot on, although I would not be surprised for Bush to slip some tax increases into a Social Security overhaul (for example, by rolling Social Security into the income tax code and removing the phase-out) or rolling tax increases rather Reagan-like into a TRA86-like tax code overhaul.Or he code produce a tax overhaul that basically leaves taxes at 17% of GDP to me that is one of the most interesting questions about the next three years. All of this should be doable. The only thing that he cannot do is get Roe vs. Wade overturned. That would give the Democrats an easy way to be the majority party again. He certainly won't be pushing a Human Life Amendment.He will, however, will only nominate justices who do not find Roe vs. Wade in the penumbra of the Constitution, no matter which justices die or retire.I am hoping that he nominates an honest liberal justice as the fifth vote - one who is personally pro-choice, but is honest enough to recognize that the Constitution is silent on the beginnings of human life, and that therfore the several States, or the Congress, have the right to restrict and regulate abortion as they see fit under the Constitution. Since such honest liberals may be hard to find, he may need to just nominate an honest conservative who would make basically the same ruling. As for your final conclusion, one of the most interesting aspects of this campaign was that John Kerry and John Edwards repeatedly ran away from their pro-choice and pro-gay marriage positions. Maybe the electorally smart position on these issues isn't what it once was? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:38 AM Subject: The Magic Ingredient? Folks, The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is self-righteousness. Pick a /behavioral/ minority, label them immoral, and whip up the moral majority with Bible verses that seem to justify their marginalization. It fueled the extraordinarily high number of voters citing Moral Values as the top issue informing their election choices, especially where referenda to ban gay marriage passed. We're RIGHT, dad-gummit, and don't you liberals give us any lip, either! The Republican party has long brilliantly played on the all-too-human desire to think ourselves better than others. They pick issues that justify pitting a self-righteous majority against a minority that is labeled morally corrupt, so that the rest can cluck their tongues and wag their heads and feel superior. Which, of course, is a significant sin in the Bible. With all due respect, I see irony here. Let us suppose that we are just as likely as our more Evangelical breatheren to be self righteous, fool ourselves, etc. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the courage of our convictions; we should. It does mean that we need to be in dialog when we can...particularly with the overwhelming majority who are willing to use the political process instead of violence to get what they want. (I'm thinking about the difference in a reasonable reaction to those who fly planes into buildings vs. those who support different candidates.) In the Reagan era, it was single mothers and welfare queens. I well remember my mother-in-law proudly trumpeting the fact that they had eight children, but *they* never had to ask anyone for a hand-out. You could practically smell the self-satisfaction. I don't know about your mother-in-law, but for many folks who struggled to get by, a measure of their sucess was that they could, through belt tightening, be self reliant. They did take pride in achieving that goal. Further, it is reasonable to think that the drastic rise of children born to single mothers represents a step away from that attitude. At the very least, a significant portion of that number includes fathers who do not take the support of their children as a primary responsiblity. Did I support Reagan's views? No, I did not and do not. I abhored and abhor the simplistic explainations for why people are on welfare. However, I'm also opposed to simplistic explainations for people who are bothered by it. Among other things, it decreases the chance for dialog; with two camps who accuse each other of being sinners. Next, it was abortion, an easy segue from single moms and welfare queens. Again, as most women have not had an abortion, they counted on and found a self-righteous majority who could be easily manipulated into thinking themselves superior to women they portrayed as shiftless, selfish baby-killers. And the beauty part for them was that they could wrap it in carefully-selected (generally misleading) Bible verses, to make anyone with a different opinion into a sinner. Hmm, you mean that it is impossible to reasonably use love your neighbor as yourself to deduce that you are morally oblidged to make killing your neighbor illegal? Now we have bans on gay marriage. With unambiguous-sounding anti-homosexual proof texts in both the Old and New Testaments, and with an easily-marginalized target group, it's a slam-dunk. Because homosexuality is biologically determined, it is practically impossible for straights to imagine wanting have homosexual relations. It is literally unnatural for the straight majority, which makes it that much easier for them to dismiss homosexuals as morally corrupt. Easy to feel superior to what must be a bunch of hedonistic perverts. I don't think that the opposition to gay marriage is really that. Many people see the family as the foundation of society; the foundation of their own lives. To have an unelected court redefine this definition strikes at the bedrock upon which they base their lives. Look, I favor the shift...I favor gay marriages. But, I also listen to those who oppose them, trying to understand their viewpoint. I try to find common ground and argue from there. So what now for Democrats? Maybe play the game. Peter Gomes, in the Good Book, has some very worthwhile observations. He thinks that social movements lost their traction when they moved from being concerned with morality to being concerned with politics, interests, and entitlements. They stopped arguing from common ground at that point. In a sense, recent movements have been infected with post modernism...where right and wrong are merely tools of political self interest. I can usually enter into dialog with my more conservative brothers and sisters and speak to them in a manner that they here what I am saying. I also
RE: The Magic Ingredient?
Dave Land wrote: The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is self-righteousness. Nah, it's even simpler than that. Just point out that you're against the two all-time great objects of Christian fear and loathing, the twin bogiemen of Sodomites and Saracens, and you're guaranteed to get a least *some* votes. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 4, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: The secret weapon of the neo-conservative movement is self-righteousness. Nah, it's even simpler than that. Just point out that you're against the two all-time great objects of Christian fear and loathing, the twin bogiemen of Sodomites and Saracens, and you're guaranteed to get a least *some* votes. While I agree that it's possible to get *some* votes among a certain kind of bigots who advertise under the name of Christianity through Crusading and gay-bashing, I'm afraid I was after something a little deeper. I am not simply trying to paint the Republican party as bad guys who use cynical tricks to win a few votes, but to deeply understand what it is that they've cleverly (and, yes, cynically) tapped into. It's not as simple as the bogeyman argument makes it, and they're not after *some* votes. They're using real and deep psychological needs in masses of people for their purposes. Fear, of course, has been mentioned at length. People have a very deep need to feel safe, and they've played that up to extraordinary success for decades. But I think there's something that's more than fear at work here. It's self-righteousness, and Dan's comments in an earlier post (to which I hope to respond later) that that is /itself/ a major sin in the eyes of the Bible are spot on. But again, I'm not as much interested in incriminating them as I am in understanding how they succeed. Self-righteousness is why the President first called the war on terrorism a crusade and why he uses words like axis of evil -- it's not just that there are /dangerous/ people and bad ideas in the world that we should resist, it's that, as the last bastion of morality in the world, we are forced by bad people to get tough to save the remnant of goodness is left. The problem is that, despite all the evangelical language that accompanies the bombast, this line of thinking dethrones God. It denies the gift of the cross and says that we, not Christ, are the savior. When self-righteous people start looking around for the antichrist, they would do well to head to the bathroom, where there's a nice mirror waiting for them. Anyway, I need to get some more work done today, so I'll leave it at that. Dave No Simple Answers Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
At 06:03 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: The problem is that, despite all the evangelical language that accompanies the bombast, this line of thinking dethrones God. It denies the gift of the cross and says that we, not Christ, are the savior. So, I guess that we should just close all the soup-kitchens, because Christ, not we are the savior JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Magic Ingredient?
On Nov 4, 2004, at 8:02 PM, JDG wrote: At 06:03 PM 11/4/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: The problem is that, despite all the evangelical language that accompanies the bombast, this line of thinking dethrones God. It denies the gift of the cross and says that we, not Christ, are the savior. So, I guess that we should just close all the soup-kitchens, because Christ, not we are the savior I know what a skilled rhetorician you can be, so I suspect you've asked your question to make a point :-). Nonetheless, I can imagine that a reasonable person -- or a Brineller, for that matter -- might seriously ask that question, so here goes. There's a world of difference between being Christ's hands and feet and assuming that we are responsible for saving the world from evil. After all, Christians believe that that has already been accomplished. There's a difference, but it's a very faint, fuzzy line, and there is plenty of room for interpretation. Part of my struggle in Christianity is knowing how to toe that line without overstepping it. It's that overstepping that concerns me (and a fair number of Christian progressives and conservatives alike). When I hear language like Infinite Justice, I hear the buzzer go off and suspect that the foul line has been crossed. It's not the end of the game, but it does call for corrective action. That said, there is much in the New Testament describing the church as the body of Christ, and words attributed to Christ stating that the disciples -- and, by some folk's extension, we -- would do even greater things than He did. That really makes it important to step forward in faith, but humility. And it is exactly that -- humility -- that I find sorely lacking in America's execution of the war on terror. Q: What kind of God does it take to leave the whole world in the hands of a bunch of humans? A: One who gave us the Holy Spirit. Thanks for a thought-provoking question: the richest-tasting kind. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
