Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/07/2012 06:47:54 PM · #726

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
I don't know how reliable this is but see the second to last bullet point at he very bottom of the this page. Besides, he didn't win by himself. He was part of the Anti-Slavery Society.

Yes, and they were largely Quakers who were not allowed to hold MP positions. But, as I said (but probably edited after you started your post), it doesn't matter. I don't need to prove it's somehow an exclusively religious argument. My position is that religious argument should stand beside secular argument. This is an excellent example of the way it should be.

It's an excellent example of one that worked but it doesn't need to be that way nor should it. Religious reasoning only works when your opponent already shares in those beliefs. To argue "Luke 16:13: 'No man can serve two masters'" is only effective when your opponent already shares in that belief system, otherwise its nonsense. Fast forward 200+ years and you can see how ineffective this sort of reasoning is on issues like abortion. You know this. That's why you haven't been using it in this thread.

Fine. Let it stand or fall on its own merit. I'm asking nothing else. If religion becomes obsolete and useless as an argument then it will cease to be used. I'm willing to accept this chance, but I have no compulsion to try to force it to be so. It's an quizzical argument that says, "We have too much religion making too many changes in politics. Religious arguments don't work so they should be abandoned." The two statements are antithetical to each other. So which is it? Is religion too powerful or is it powerless?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

03/07/2012 07:20:09 PM · #727

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Religion is neither too powerful or powerless. Money is power. The major religions in this country and others have the money to flex their muscles. Whether people believe or not is completely besides to point to them. The whole point is making people do what they say by getting involved in the political process.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/07/2012 07:26:44 PM · #728

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Fine. Let it stand or fall on its own merit. I'm asking nothing else. If religion becomes obsolete and useless as an argument then it will cease to be used. I'm willing to accept this chance, but I have no compulsion to try to force it to be so. It's an quizzical argument that says, "We have too much religion making too many changes in politics. Religious arguments don't work so they should be abandoned." The two statements are antithetical to each other. So which is it? Is religion too powerful or is it powerless?

Religion is neither too powerful or powerless. Money is power. The major religions in this country and others have the money to flex their muscles. Whether people believe or not is completely besides to point to them. The whole point is making people do what they say by getting involved in the political process.

Then I recommend you spend your Rant breaths attacking money and not religion... ;)

PS: Just so you know, I don't put you in the same camp as the die-hard religion bashers. :)

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 19:44:53.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

03/07/2012 07:54:53 PM · #729

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Fine. Let it stand or fall on its own merit. I'm asking nothing else. If religion becomes obsolete and useless as an argument then it will cease to be used. I'm willing to accept this chance, but I have no compulsion to try to force it to be so. It's an quizzical argument that says, "We have too much religion making too many changes in politics. Religious arguments don't work so they should be abandoned." The two statements are antithetical to each other. So which is it? Is religion too powerful or is it powerless?

Religion is neither too powerful or powerless. Money is power. The major religions in this country and others have the money to flex their muscles. Whether people believe or not is completely besides to point to them. The whole point is making people do what they say by getting involved in the political process.

Then I recommend you spend your Rant breaths attacking money and not religion... ;)

PS: Just so you know, I don't put you in the same camp as the die-hard religion bashers. :)

I do have a lot of issues with religion. It's not for me. But I've never denied any one the right to think or believe what they want and I'd like the same in return. It was a comfort to my grandmother to believe she was going to join my grandfather in heaven. We used to argue religion all the time. But after he died, I lost the taste for the argument with her. She needed to believe she'd see him again. But when I'm close to death, it will be with the understanding that I will cease to exist. I raised my kids atheist, neither were baptized (and boy did I get a rash of shit from both families). I didn't "teach" them atheist. I just didn't expose them to religion. I'd rather put my faith in science.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/07/2012 08:37:48 PM · #730

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...I've also been to countries (particularly Africa) where religion seems to play more of a role than it does in the US. Things would come out of officials mouths that would cause shock and uproar here because of our little "wall".

I will readily concede that religion does play a much larger role in the political realm than what is currently transpiring in the USA, but would hasten to point out that the ensuing results are in some instances not something to crow about.

One need only consider the objection of the church to the use of condoms in some countries, notwithstanding the fact that it could seriously impact on the spread of aids. Similarly, the existence of the death penalty for persons identified as being homosexuals is not a glowing example of how we should deal with people whose lifestyles differ from our own.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that these two examples are representatives of the "extremes" of the equation, but surely you can understand that to some, the involvement of the church in issues such as Proposition 8 goes beyond the pale.

Ray

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/07/2012 09:43:51 PM · #731

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But as I pointed out, the Virginia Society has nothing to note about the statue being intended to keep religion out of politics. Nothing at all.

And at best your argument has shifted to the position that we should keep "big religion" out of politics but "little religion" (ie. notions like deism) are fine. If that's what you want to say, that's fine, but it's a significant step from "no religion in politics".

I wasn't going to respond to your diversion over to the Virginia Society last night after Escapetooz made several more relevant comments to the topic, but it turns out that the hole you're digging is directly and hugely relevant. Most of the key people who laid the foundations of our government were deists, freethinkers and freemasons like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams and even Franklin in his later years. As such, they generally believed in a god as creator of the universe... and that was it. No miracles, supernatural events, prophets or divine revelations. They assumed, as some people still do, that the universe must have been designed to achieve its present state, however that state was simply nature rather than the further assumption that it was any particular god with a list of do's and dont's as proclaimed by organized religion. Jefferson & Co. made logical observations such as, "why would we have big brains and the capacity for reason if not to use them?" No sacred script or belief in any particular deity is necessary to reach that conclusion. Not that these men weren't religious, they were, but in a way that would have them branded strict atheists by today's evangelical standards.

Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were perhaps the most outspoken on deism, and both printed books on the subject with lengthy explanations of exactly these two deistic points: things cannot make themselves, so there must be a creator (this was long before Darwin), and that only revelation is that things exist. There was no other word of God, no directives, no commandments, no declarations of sin or things that please or displease god, no indication of the nature or intent of god but the existence of the universe itself.

"But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God â�� no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation. THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man. Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth to the other, is consistent only with the ignorance of those who knew nothing of the extent of the world, and who believed, as those world-saviours believed, and continued to believe for several centuries (and that in contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of navigators), that the earth was flat like a trencher, and that man might walk to the end of it." - Thomas Paine

When Ethan Allen married, the presiding judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen stopped the wedding and refused to answer until the judge declared that the god in question was the God of Nature and the laws in question were those "written in the great book of nature." And right there is the key to the whole exercise: how do you get from "something must have created the universe, but we no nothing else of it" to "God forbids the use of birth control," "God abhors gays," or any other religious opinion? You can't.

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." - John Adams

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

03/07/2012 09:52:01 PM · #732

Now we're attacking single mothers?

"In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect."

What's next?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/07/2012 10:00:45 PM · #733

Originally posted by escapetooz:

What's next you ask?... "Say youâ��re a conservative radio host whoâ��s losing advertisers left and right for saying some deeply misinformed and misogynistic things about the lifestyle of a highly-educated single woman, and now you need to change the conversation. How do you do that? If youâ��re Rush Limbaugh, you do it by attacking a different woman on the basis of her singleness, youth and education."

//www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/03/06/heres-the-woman-rush-limbaugh-is-attacking-today-totally-bizarre-she-says/

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/07/2012 10:07:22 PM · #734

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Longer bills? After reading the Wisconsin bill I now realize why republicans had such a difficult time comprehending Obama's healthcare bill.

03/07/2012 10:21:39 PM · #735

Originally posted by yanko:

Longer bills? After reading the Wisconsin bill I now realize why republicans had such a difficult time comprehending Obama's healthcare bill.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on that particular healthcare bill: "I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyway"

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/07/2012 10:49:13 PM · #736

Originally posted by scalvert:

When Ethan Allen married, the presiding judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen stopped the wedding and refused to answer until the judge declared that the god in question was the God of Nature and the laws in question were those "written in the great book of nature." And right there is the key to the whole exercise: how do you get from "something must have created the universe, but we no nothing else of it" to "God forbids the use of birth control," "God abhors gays," or any other religious opinion? You can't.

I quoted this because it's the crux of your argument rather than wasting the space to quote it all. It was a nice lesson, but it painted with broad strokes, controlled the narrative to emphasize point you favor, and ignored other factors harmful to your case.

We've had this discussion before, but I'll quickly point out that not all deists were the same; it being a very individualized religion. You are only painting the starkest view of deism and many of the people, even those you mention such as Jefferson, would not agree with your premise. www.sullivan-county.com has some excellent articles on deism in the 18th century. They make a few points. First, some would contend that Jefferson, Adams, etc were probably more correctly Unitarians rather than Deists. The reason they list? To quote, "That the American Founders never called themselves "Deists" and Jefferson and Adams considered themselves Unitarians and said so. They are better defined as Unitarians because they believed God was active in the world, divine punishment for evil, and an afterlife." This can be seen demonstrated in Jefferson's views on Judaism. To quote another author, "Jefferson thought that reason and logic demanded a belief in an afterlife, an area in which he found Judaism deficient. Jefferson argued that, without fear of punishment beyond the grave, individuals lacked an incentive to behave well and that, without hope of reuniting with loved ones, family commitments and friendships would lose their gravity. Since Judaism did not universally accept a definitive afterlife, Jefferson thought it a religion without utility." That sentiment strikes me as him believing in a God who will mete out moral judgement. The morality could be derived from rational thought, to be sure, but still God was the final arbiter of who was just and who was not. If that's the case then making statements about right and wrong in light of God's judgement are logically reasonable and fair game. Your very own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom mentions the "plan of the author of our religion". How does one rationally have a "plan" if one has no willingness to see it to its fruition?

I could go on and on, but I don't need to. We know you have a strong history of cherry-picking quotes, not vetting sources, and generally cut-and-pasting things that seem to say what you want. Even if we were to grant you every point it would be highly Shannon-like to make the down-is-up argument that Deism isn't religious. Clearly it's viewed as such (called a "religious philosophy" by wiki), and if not Deism then Unitarianism is by all means a religious sect. Even Jefferson called it "our religion" in your statute.

So while you don't like statements like "God forbids the use of birth control", we can see the argument follows the exact same syntax as your Jeffersonian Virginia Statute. Q: Why should we consider this hypothetical bill banning birth control? A: Because, God... Q: Why should we consider this bill encouraging religious freedom in Virginia? A: Because, God...(Whereas (ie. "Because"), Almighty God has created the mind free.) It does little good to protest that one is religious and the other isn't. You cannot find a rational knife sharp enough to divide the logical form between the two arguments.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 22:51:41.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/07/2012 10:52:15 PM · #737

Originally posted by Kelli:

She wasn't even testifying about birth control -=- she was telling a story of a friend who needed hormone therapy for a completely unrelated medical problem and couldn't afford it, and later had to have surgery to correct things.

If any of you are familiar with Tom Lehrer -- perhaps the greatest musical satirist of the 20th Century, you'll recognize the structure of this adaptation of one of his biographical ditties ... I sent a copy of to Dave Ross but I haven't heard if he wants to license it yet ... ;-)

          Limbaugh (that's Rush)

to the tune of Wernher von Braun by Tom Lehrer Â© 1965*

       Words by Paul Marcus Â© 2012



Gather 'round while I sing you of Limbaugh (that's Rush)

A loudmouth who utters

Choice words from the gutters

Call him a windbag -- he won't even blush

"Ah, windbag , shwindbag," says Limbaugh (that's Rush)



Some have been saying: just give him the brush

But some think our attitude

Should be one of gratitude

Like pundits in general -- the schedule is flush

"Just look at my ratings," says Limbaugh (that's Rush)



Don't say that he's a big hater

But rather a great master baiter

"Once I shoot off my mouth the mail mounts to a crush

"And I'm taking down names" says Limbaugh (that's Rush)

*Link to original lyric: Wernher Von Braun

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/07/2012 11:01:37 PM · #738

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Now we're attacking single mothers?

"In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect."

What's next?

What's next you ask?... "Say youâ��re a conservative radio host whoâ��s losing advertisers left and right for saying some deeply misinformed and misogynistic things about the lifestyle of a highly-educated single woman, and now you need to change the conversation. How do you do that? If youâ��re Rush Limbaugh, you do it by attacking a different woman on the basis of her singleness, youth and education."

//www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/03/06/heres-the-woman-rush-limbaugh-is-attacking-today-totally-bizarre-she-says/

Right. Education=Bad because then you would realize what crap Rush is trying to serve to you on a silver platter.

What surprised me more than Rush insulting her is that her grandma is a fan and that she would be "thrilled." Yikes. Con artists do prey on the old and uneducated though, so why should it be surprising.

Message edited by author 2012-03-07 23:03:03.

03/08/2012 12:13:59 AM · #739

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To quote another author, "Jefferson thought that reason and logic demanded a belief in an afterlife, an area in which he found Judaism deficient. Jefferson argued that, without fear of punishment beyond the grave, individuals lacked an incentive to behave well and that, without hope of reuniting with loved ones, family commitments and friendships would lose their gravity. Since Judaism did not universally accept a definitive afterlife, Jefferson thought it a religion without utility."

Somebody forgot to tell that TJ- "If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We know you have a strong history of cherry-picking quotes, not vetting sources, and generally cut-and-pasting things that seem to say what you want.

Oh, noes! You mean I would cherry pick something like, "Jefferson thought that reason and logic demanded a belief in an afterlife... Jefferson argued that, without fear of punishment beyond the grave, individuals lacked an incentive to behave well and that, without hope of reuniting with loved ones, family commitments and friendships would lose their gravity...." without first checking to see if Jefferson actually made any such argument just because it agrees with what I'm trying to say? Boy, that would be annoying!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Even if we were to grant you every point it would be highly Shannon-like to make the down-is-up argument that Deism isn't religious. Clearly it's viewed as such (called a "religious philosophy" by wiki), and if not Deism then Unitarianism is by all means a religious sect. Even Jefferson called it "our religion" in your statute.

If you're finished blathering on about deism as religion in response to a post where I wrote, "Not that these men weren't religious, they were," maybe you could address the actual point of how any of that gets from the idea of a "creator-without-revelation" to even the slightest notion of what God wants or commands regarding birth control, gay marriage or anything else (never mind whether it's the correct god).

03/08/2012 01:00:10 AM · #740

Originally posted by scalvert:

Why do I have to travel your Point A to Point B? I'm no hard-line Deist. The point is only to counter your misguided argument that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom should be interpreted as a document that forbids the utilization of religious ideas in politics. It makes no such demand and, in itself, does exactly what you want to forbid. Only you could take a document meant to include all religious types as being worthy of running for office and turning it into one that says that once you get there you must check your religion at the door. No thank you.

BTW, further reading on Jefferson says that he vacillated on an afterlife and his writings are contradictory about the topic. Check out pages 96-97 in A Companion to Thomas Jefferson by Francis Cogliano.

Message edited by author 2012-03-08 01:12:33.

03/08/2012 08:54:58 AM · #741

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Why do I have to travel your Point A to Point B? The point is only to counter your misguided argument that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom should be interpreted as a document that forbids the utilization of religious ideas in politics.

To demonstrate by example the utter absurdity of your point. Is it even remotely plausible that a deist would recognize the validity of an argument as the 'will of God' in politics if he didn't accept revelation as anything but the malicious fabrications of organized religion designed to enslave man? Any opinion of what a god wants according to divine text would have been as baseless as the dictates of a fortune cookie and a thousand times more sinister (if there were such a thing as a sinister fortune cookie). The author of that statute was intent on building a wall of separation (his words) between church and state, and you would have us believe that what he reeeeeeally meant was a 'one-way filter of separation' where the government was forbidden to interfere in religion while religion may freely influence government. If there was ever a "down-is-up argument" in these threads, you're making it here.

03/08/2012 11:18:16 AM · #742

Read it as you want Shannon, I'll rely on the authorities and historians who make it their job to understand such documents. If they want to read the document as Jefferson's strivings to allow Methodist, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Jews to run for office, then that's good enough for me.

03/08/2012 11:27:15 AM · #743

Ray, I was at a board meeting this morning and I came up with a practical example I would like you to weigh in on. A Task Force on Homelessness was convened in Eugene as a result of Occupy Eugene which basically turned into a tent city for the homeless in a downtown park. It was eventually closed when someone was beaten to death in the camp. The Eugene Mission, of which I sit on the board, has a seat at the table along with the Mayor and Board Members because we are the largest single entity that shelters the homeless. The Task Force, in many ways, is probably fairly helpless, but is trying to strategize and set policy to tackle the problem. We, of course, would say that we (as the Eugene Mission) feel called by God to serve the poor and homeless and that policies such as changing zoning allowances for our Mission (currently capped at 400 beds of which we are at our limit and a cap of 600 beds would be much more accomodating) would further our calling and help serve the community.

Would you say this is reasonable discussion in a setting of public discourse of policy? Any change in zoning would, of course, need to go through typical local legislative processes, but you get the point. We are approaching the problem from an expressedly religious viewpoint and are speaking out about it in a public forum. Do you favor the stifling of such talk?

Message edited by author 2012-03-08 11:29:16.

03/08/2012 12:24:14 PM · #744

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If they want to read the document as Jefferson's strivings to allow Methodist, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Jews to run for office, then that's good enough for me.

Not even a nice try. Anyone is entitled to run for office precisely because their beliefs are irrelevant to civil service, and any opinions on policy would have to be made on the grounds of reason and evidence for the benefit of all rather than superstitious dogma. Like or not, down is in fact down.

03/08/2012 12:39:07 PM · #745

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If they want to read the document as Jefferson's strivings to allow Methodist, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Jews to run for office, then that's good enough for me.

Not even a nice try. Anyone is entitled to run for office precisely because their beliefs are irrelevant to civil service, and any opinions on policy would have to be made on the grounds of reason and evidence for the benefit of all rather than superstitious dogma. Like or not, down is in fact down.

Actually at the time that wasn't true. In Virginia certain sects, Catholics for example, were barred from running for public office. The Statute is clearly a Freedom OF religion not a Freedom FROM religion...

again, you can believe what you want. Feel free to quote a text or page that supports your position. I'd prefer historical accounts or sources that don't have an obvious horse in the religious game, but I'd even be willing to see your position presented by someone with an interest just to see it fleshed out by someone other than yourself. You know, the proof of the pudding and all. I've already presented the interpretation of the Virginia Historical Society which has nothing to say along your lines and everything to say along mine.