Speaking of fouled up: Here's a man who is so deeply into his assumptions that he seems completely unaware of them...
The status of a ball of cells, as a tissue or a human being, is, always has been, and always will be, a matter of whether it is CONSIDERED TO BE a human life.
To "Joe Jeffrey", something is a "human life" only if we CONSIDER it to be so. There is no possibility, in his mind, that there might be some objective standard beyond an opinion poll. Since anything but relativism is impossible, he thinks, he need not consider any other possibility.
Of course, he also apparently fails to notice I've already answered his objection above. The usual: I'm wrong because you haven't bothered to read the article. How do you refute an argument? Pretend it was never made! Proof by repetition.
If that be relativism, make the most of it. Tough.
It quite well IS relativism, and simply saying "tough" doesn't show it true. (Again, proof by emphatic statements.) To the contrary: it's hilarious to see a relativist argue. Why bother? Things are so because we think they're so. Each lives in his own reality.
It's a hard logical constraint: whether a fetus "is" a human is in fact (not opinion, not belief, not faith) not a matter of checking facts.
Ummm... it is a fact that it not a matter of facts? I am truly dazzled by your display of clear-headed reasoning. And concern for evidence.
That was almost as good as your previous implication that relativism is absolutely true!
Rather than address the argument above, "Joe" seems to be trying to change the topic: although my argument assumes nothing other than the possibility that relativism might be false, and human life may be a matter of something more than popular vote, he wants to try to argue instead about religion and government.
Well, good enough: I'm game, Joe.
The argument he advances is a common fallacy: If religion informs one's point of view on some matter, then voting on such a matter is "using the power of the state to enforce one religious view."
Gosh, I wish Joe had been around when this country was founded. I say that because he have taught Thomas Jefferson (and other founding fathers) so much about our country's government. You see, according to Joe, Thomas Jefferson didn't understand how our government works.
Let's say you think murder is wrong primarily because your religion, Hinduism, says so. And I'm against murder because I'm a Christian, and Christianity says so. And, in fact, since only 5% of the population (or so) lacks a religion, about 95% of us are opposed to murder because our religions told us that.
So we all get together and vote.
According to Joe, we're violating separation of church and state. In fact, if we take his argument seriously, we should get rid of MOST of our country's laws. Most those who fought against slavery were following their understanding of their religion. Laws against murder are based in JudeoChristian belief. Even our judicial system was modelled after the biblical system.
Good heavens! According to Joe, those are all unconstitution instituations of religion! We shall have to get rid of them all!
That fool, Thomas Jefferson, thought otherwise:
In the very same letter from which we get the phrase "separation of Church and State", Jefferson writes, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions." In other words, if we all get together and vote on something, no specific principle -- much less a religious one -- is enshrined as law, only the agreed-upon action.
For example, one legislator might argue for a state welfare system based on her understanding of the gospels. Another might do the same because he is an atheistic follower of Marx. If their bill passes neither principle is enshrined as law, only the decision to provide a welfare system. The underlying motivation of the bill's sponsors, the other voting legistors, and their constitutents is, from Jefferson's point of view, utterly irrevelant.
Thus, Thomas Jefferson would have seen a vote on abortion, welfare, birth control, sexual education, as NOT enshrining any particular underlying religious or moral principle, just agreeing upon the end result.
Sadly, Joe doesn't understand our form of government. Nevermind that he's just admitted that he believes people can legitimately be turned into "non-people" if the some group of people wills it -- he also endorses an understanding of "separation of church and state" which means that people of faith should not be allowed to vote.
Illogical AND intolerant.
So, um, really impressive there, Joe.
THIS is a perfect illustration of why those who oppose JudeoChristian values are such a danger to our freedoms. Knowing nothing about our history or government, they attempt to turn the first amendment on it's head, so that a guarantee not to abridge freedom of religion and conscience is re-interpreted as a litmus test which revokes the rights of religious folks to vote on matters of conscience.
Truly Orwellian.
Tim has missed the point.
Perhaps, as I noted, the phrasing had something to do with that.
Perhaps I was unclear, so let me say it differently: there is not set of facts that could be checked to determine whether a fetus is a human being...
I suggest a DNA test. :-)
Regardless, you're still barking up the wrong tree: You're basicly saying I can't "prove" that a fetus is "alive". I'd agree with that.
But so what? Godel showed (mathematically) that there were things that were true, but could not be proven so, and false, that could not be proven so. There are more things that are true or false than we can prove.
I cannot prove, for example, that you are "alive". I can tell "I" am alive, because I am seeing out of my eyes, and noticing something. I do not know if a fetus has the same experience at one week, or one month, or nine, or 36, and cannot prove it. Nor can you disprove it.
But I believe there is a truth out there. And since I cannot prove either way, I approach it as we do with all unknowns: in terms of probability.
I shake up a coin in an opaque box, and then let it rest, box still closed. The coin is already heads, or already tails -- but I cannot know it just yet. (And if I decide shake it up again, I shall never be able to prove which it was, either way.)
How do I speak of this? I say it is a "50% chance" that it currently heads. The exact probability we pick (50/50) is determined by our experience with coins outside boxes.
Likewise, a fetus has some state. There may even be a soul, and/or a God -- we have our opinons, but until we can say otherwise either way, these are are unknown probabilities. Hence the argument above.
Again, I'm not saying I can prove the answer to any of these. As you are trying to argue, I cannot. But in the absence of proof, we must then admit all outcomes are "possible", and when we use such words, we admit we are now in the realm of probabilities. And that's where the above article starts off.
Only someone who completely misunderstands the entire concept of relativism could utter the statement, "relativism is true" or "relativism is false,"...
Yes, I'd agree with you. Which is why I found your statements, which clearly seemed to be saying exactly that, so amusing.
To recall: one minute, you stated that humanity is simply whatever we consider it to be. So, according to you, the answer here is simply a matter of opinion. You yourself even linked your position with relativisim. Well, good enough.
But then you turn around and claim those who say otherwise are wrong. Well, great, but then you're taking an absolutist position.
... or accuse someone else of saying it.
Absurd: If you said to me: "There are no absolutes" I could indeed reasonably accuse you of saying that relativism was 'true' (your phrasing, not mine). You're just making random, incorrect assertions here, Joe.
Then Tim goes on to use common rhetorical technique of substituting his incorrect restatement of what I said, and then attacking it.
Actually, you're doing exactly what you have accused me of (and I have not, as best I can see), as I'll demonstrate in just a moment...
Nothing I said in any way indicates having a position informed by faith is the same as enforcing religion by the power of the state...
I said no such thing. I never implied belief and opion, alone, was unconstitutional, as you just claimed. Instead, I alleged you felt that translating that opinion into law was unconstitutional.
...or that that separation of church and state means people of faith should not be allowed to vote.
Again, speaking of distorting: I didn't say you SAID this either, I simply alleged it was the logical consequence of your beliefs.
Read again:
... he... endorses an understanding of "separation of church and state" which means that people of faith should not be allowed to vote.
What I alleged was that you feel voting on an issue informed by faith violates the separation of church and state. Indeed:
... religion plays a large role in deciding that question [... therefore... ] [l]aws against abortion violate the First Amendment...
I don't see where I'm distorting what you've said here, as you have accused me of doing. You are clearly saying voting, informed by faith, taints the result, so that it violates the First Amendement.
Will you now claim otherwise?
I will admit an error here: I said that the logical conclusion of such a view was that people of faith should not be allowed to vote on issues where their faith informs their views.
I was wrong: the other possibility is that they might be allowed to vote, but then anything they voted on (thusly) should be struck down, if some judge felt that a significant number of those voting might have been thinking religiously-influenced thoughts when they cast the ballot.
The end result, however, is identical in effect: there's no meaningful difference between not voting and having your successful vote disqualified.
So the question is, Tim, what shall we as a country do, when we are faced with a question about whose rights to restrict by use of the power of the state? One faith says one thing; another says the opposite.
Please read my response, Joe: this question was already answered, both above and in history. Please learn SOMETHING about how our government operates.
I'll say it again for you: The solution is to agree with and adopt Thomas Jefferson's position, that voting on a particular law (action) does NOT enshrine any particular principle (religious or otherwise), held by any of the voters, as law. As Jefferson stated: By voting, we only agree on actions, not underlying philosophies.
Do I need to spell it out for you again? I'm patient, so I will:
Let's say that feminists feel that pornography is bad because it degrades women. Let's also say that certain Christians feel it is wrong because Jesus spoke against looking lustfully at a woman who isn't your wife.
Great, we have two completely different principles, but agreement on the same outcome. Now these groups get together and convince the majority to ban porn. So which principle was endorsed? None. Perhaps some voted on it because they felt it was better for kids. Perhaps some voted for it because the porn industry had given more campaign funds to their opponent. Perhaps no two people had the exact same motive or thought. It doesn't matter: all that was agreed to was that particular act. This no more forces us all to become feminists than it forces us to become Christians. It simply bans porn.
Is this too difficult for you to understand? It's a central principle of our government, Joe.
Well, let's look to laws we all agree on, such as the one against murder. Murder's against the law because we all agree it's wrong. Laws against murder aren't based on Judeo-Christian belief...
Certainly, there are a lot of sources -- Christian and non -- one could look to and find opposition to murder, including Classical Greece and the Bible -- though both sources were religiously informed. (The same can be said regarding abortion: many religious people oppose it who aren't Christians. And I know several rabidly pro-life atheists.)
But was support for such laws widely supported and informed by Christian beliefs, in the time when our laws were formed? Of course.
Look, the majority of the founding fathers were active, believing Christians. Are you going to claim that Christians don't think murder is wrong because it's in the bible? If not, then you must concede that whatever portion of the founding fathers were Christian also then probably drew at partly upon the bible.
Or are you going to claim the majority of the founding fathers were not Christian? I welcome you to go there. We can have a contest where you get to name non-Christian founding fathers, and I'll name Christians. It would be fun and educational.
So what were the sources for the debate?
John Quincy Adams, for example, seemed to think that the US government's laws drew heavily from Christian beliefs:
The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United [source]
If JQA was right, does that mean our whole country violates it's own constitution? Or did he lie about religion being, at least for him and some of his peers, a strong supporting element?
But your argument falls apart in an even more important way: There is considerable evidence that even the relatively few founding fathers who were widely considered NOT to be Christians often based their arguments about government and law upon religious beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. [1]
Here, Jefferson is saying (in our founding document) that he (and thus, we) believe rights all come from God, but that government was instituted [by God, apparently] for that reason. So note that Thomas Jefferson is saying that our entire system of rights, as he saw it, was underpinned by a religious belief.
So, again, by your reasoning, our Bill of Rights itself, based upon religious arguments like this, must therefore be unconstitutional!
Jefferson, again:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments... are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion... No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry" [2]
Here Jefferson is saying his belief there should be no established church also arose from his religious beliefs. Again, if we adopt your logic, separation of church and state ITSELF must be contradictory, since even THAT rule also arose from religion, and therefore must have been unconstitutional.
And now here's Madison on the same topic. In somewhat arcane language he argues that since Christianity was at it's best before it became law (in Europe), we should oppose having a state church because it was GOOD for improving the quality and encouraging the spread of the Christian faith:
....the policy of the Bill [establising a church] is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity... it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it...
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. [3]
So James Madison is ALSO basing his support for the content of the First Amendment -- and his argument to the listeners -- in claims that religious freedom will ultimately be best for spreading Christianity. That's a religious argument if ever I've heard one.
And his entire speech is full of them.
And here is Thomas Paine, deist, in his famous tract entitled "Common Sense", trying to persaude people that the US government should not have a lifelong ruler at the helm. Again, look where he is basing his arguments:
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry.... All anti-monarchical parts of scripture, have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments....
Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.... Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites... [4]
Paine wrote on and on, convincing his audience by repeatedly citing the bible, that the the bible taught that it was a sin to support the institution of monarchy. Clearly, he felt such arguments would sway his peers. We are told this tract was quite influential.
Next, here is Benjamin Franklin, a deist, mind you (not a Christian), pleading before Congress that it open with prayer -- which continues to this day:
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel...
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service. [5]
If I can so easily prove that even "skeptics" like Paine, Jefferson and Franklin based many of their arguments for the very structure of our government and its laws and rights on religious beliefs, then HOW will you claim the other founders -- a signficant number of whom were even clergymen -- were LESS influenced by faith?
Consider: Blue laws. Where were did they from, if not religion? Why is Moses in the center of the fresco on the front of the Supreme Court? Why were there sodomy laws? Why was adultery against the law? Can there be any doubt that the general support for these laws were strongly influenced by religion?
Even your own argument betrays you: You imply opposition to abortion is mainly based in religion. Well, if so, then what does that tell you? Abortion was illegal for most of our country's history. By your own argument, that must then be an admission that abortion laws, which existed for hundred of years, were based in religion.
Look, I'm not trying to say you should agree with all these kinds of laws. (I don't.) And I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were all trying to make their religion the law of the land: as with most of us who oppose abortion, it's quite the opposite.
But religion was a common part of the public debate, and played a signficant (but certainly not total) role in the debates and votes which formed our laws, Constitution, and government.
Similarly, religion plays a strong role in debate about many topics today, including taxes, marriage, and abortion -- though again, not total. For example, two of the most pro-life people I know are atheists.
The point here is simple: The Founders agreed only on the areas where their outlooks overlapped, and thus where sufficient votes could be mustered.
The fact that many, most, or even all of them had views on certain topics which were informed Christianity or another religious outlook certainly was not understood to render the laws they passed unconstitutional, nor an establishment of some church, as you allege.
Finally, if your principle is what the founding fathers intended, then WHY has no Supreme Court ever noticed it before? I mean, if laws against abortion are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment -- as you have claimed -- then why did Blackmun, in Roe, cite instead a weak, somewhat tangential right to privacy in the Fourteenth? Obviously, he was quite the moron, having missed the incredibly well-known legal principle upon which your entire argument is predicated.
We all agree murder's wrong. But we (Americans) DON'T all agree that abortion is wrong.
Wow: You are very good at being wrong!
(1) Dude, what planet are you from? So what if ALL Americans don't agree? What does "ALL" have to do with it? ALL Americans don't believe in high taxes, but we have those. ALL Americans don't believe in having a public school system, but we have that. ALL Americans don't want George Bush, nor did ALL Americans want Bill Clinton.
Try this word: "Democracy". Who prevails in a Democracy? The MAJORITY. It doesn't require ALL.
You seem to think nothing can be law unless ALL people support it. That is precisely what your argument implies.
(2) Since when are "ALL" of us are opposed to murder? Again, what planet are you from? Peter Singer, noted "ethicist", is currently arguing in favor of infanticide. (He uses the same argument you do, by the way: People are only human when we CONSIDER them to be.) There are plenty of people who would dearly love to take someone out if it were legal. And they're not all currently criminals.
You want it banned...
I do? No, actually I want it regulated. To what degree is an open question.
So we as a society are forced into a choice. What, then, shall be the basis of the choice?
Again, here's a REALLY WILD ANSWER: We elect representatives who reflect our beliefs. When a majority of those vote on some issue, in accordance with the Constitution, and the President agrees, it becomes law.
You act like this is some huge, difficult, unsolved problem.
You may believe deeply that abortion is murder, but lots and lots of people disagree with you, and hold their beliefs equally deeply. So where is the moral right to force others to follow your belief?
Sigh. Let's try this again, shall we? The Constitution provides that people elect representatives -- presumably, who will reflect their beliefs. When a majority can agree on some action, that action becomes law. We're not all obliged to agree with the REST of those religions, just the point where a majority of the people, from whatever background, agreed.
That is true EVEN when the action is agreeable to some people's religion! Amazing, no?
If you believe in the Constitution, then the "moral right", if you want to call it that, resides there. If you disagree with that process, then your beef is with the Constitution.
Again, this is what I have been saying all along: You are actually opposed to our system of government, and the rights it grants, because you have no understanding of it. That is why you are sitting here arguing -- not with me -- but with the Constitution. The Constitution has always granted such freedoms. You seem to resent that state of affairs.
How, exactly, would a law banning abortion be any different from a law banning Catholic religious practices?
Catholicism is a religion -- a "sect" or "church" in the founder's terms. A law banning Catholicism would clearly be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That text is in the First Amendment.
Abortion is NOT a religion, "sect", or "church." A law banning abortion is NOT, therefore, prohibiting "the free exercise" of religion.
Why is this so difficult for you?
There's no getting around the fact that laws banning abortion are using the power of the state, and they're using it to enforce one view, a view on which there is no concensus.
Huh? Depends what you mean by consensus. If you mean general agreement, as in, a majority, then YES, if you could pass a law banning abortion, then, yes there WOULD be consensus -- and you're just contradicting yourself.
On the other hand, if you mean complete agreement, then I again have no idea what you are getting at. Complete agreement is NEVER needed to make something law.
And a religious claim to moral superiority of one end doesn't constitute a valid reason, in our country.
Of course not. I have already explained to you how bills become laws in our country. No-where in that explanation did I, or anyone else, suggest that a mere "claim to moral superiority" was the basis legislation.
On the other hand, we engage in debate -- note the article above. A "claim" means nothing. But if a majority of the people can be convinced that some position is superior, i.e. better or more helpful or moral -- then that consensus (meaning here general, but not total agreement) can indeed make something law.
Study the history of the abolition movement.
So no, the claim isn't our basis of law. I am unaware of anyone who has said otherwise, so I'm not quite sure why you're going on about it. But, on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with trying to influence opinion.
So the interesting question is why it upsets you so much that you need to change the topic. Your whole line of argument suggests you feel there's something Unconstitutional about my even having posted this.
If not, then why did you reflexively start arguing about the Constitution?
Answer me, Joe:
(1) Are you saying my attempt to persuade people to, you feel, ban abortion is Unconstitutional?
(2) Would it be unconstitutional -- because the vote had been influenced by religious beliefs -- for people to vote to ban abortion and succeed?
(3) If NO to #2, then what are you up about?
(4) If YES to #2, then you admit my point: that you oppose people of faith being able to make law on points where they are influenced by religion. Either they musn't vote, or their votes must be struck down, simply because of what they were thinking when they voted.
Thoughcrime is straight out of Orwell's novels. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but it looks like your beliefs and our collective freedoms are on a collision course.
I expect you'll probably win this battle, if that's any comfort to you.
It's just the attempt to impose a Christian version of Sharia.
That's rich. Do you understand Sharia? Christians and Jews living under Sharia have a decreased social status, but were allowed to live. They lacked many of the same rights Muslims had, because of their religion, but they were allowed to live.
Seems like what you're arguing for here.
Look at the 20th century: Over 100 million were killed by atheistic governments who feared that people of faith might eventually influence society and the government. Again, at least Sharia allowed Christians and Jews to live.
There are currently three religions in the world which ban conversion away from the faith. They are Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism. None of them are my faith. But it looks like you're a member of one of them.
So this is a rather dangerous rock for you to throw from your particular glass house. Your belief system has a bloodier history than even Islam. The French Revolution. Russia, 1917. Mao's Great Leap Forward. The Killing Fields. North Korea. These governments have all agreed with your core fear: that Christians might influence society.
You are not unique in this regard.
Good Lord, this one's so fouled up it's tough to know where to start. But here's an attempt: it misses the point so badly that it's not even in the right city, let alone the ballpark. Whether there's an infant in the shoe box is a matter of fact, that can be right or wrong, certain or uncertain, known or unknown. The status of a ball of cells, as a tissue or a human being, is, always has been, and always will be, a matter of whether it is CONSIDERED TO BE a human life. If that be relativism, make the most of it. Tough. It's a hard logical constraint: whether a fetus "is" a human is in fact (not opinion, not belief, not faith) not a matter of checking facts. Since it's not an empirical decision, we look elsewhere for guidance: to history, philosophy, and many religions help decide when, and on what basis, it is right and proper to call a fetus a human -- because it's the only thing that can be done. And what do we find? That religion plays a large role in deciding that question -- as it should, because it concerns most basic of spiritual issues: God, the soul, and a person acquires a soul. Which brings us to the bottom line: laws against abortion amount to using the power of the state to enforce one religious view. Your religion holds that life begins at conception? Fine. Don't have one. Do your best to argue others into your belief. Tell people they're murderers. Your beliefs, your choice. But my belief is that it human life does not begin at conception, and my beliefs are as strong, sincere, and deeply held as yours, and you have NO right to try to force me to follow the dictates of your religion, any more than I have the right to force you to follow mine. Laws against abortion violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, just as a law demanding that everyone go to Mass on Sunday would.
Posted by: Joe Jeffrey on April 12, 2006 05:55 PM